Like PoliGazette author Bal(t)imoron, I’m quite a big fan of movies. I try to watch at least two movies every week (which is a lot considering the amount of hours I have to put into my studies, this website, other outlets and, of course, other jobs). It is seldom that I take the time to write a review of one of those movies - I tend to only do so when a movie truly touched me and left a big impression.

Assault at West Point - starring Samuel L. Jackson - is one of those movies.

I started watching it today because I had bought it for my fiancee and would send it to her Monday. Before I did so, however, I wanted to watch it myself to see whether it was any good. After watching it I can say that it was better than I hoped it would be, and better than quite some movies I have seen in recent weeks.

The movie is based on a real story. Johnson Whittaker was one of the first Americans of African heritage who were able to attend West Point, the prestigious military academy. As a man of color Whittaker, played by Seth Gilliam, knew that he would face many problems, and had to overcome many obstacles in this white bulwark. From the day he arrived at West Point Whittaker was isolated, bullied and insulted. He was able to persevere, however, knowing that if he could finish the job, he would greatly help himself and his race.

After nearly four years of studying at West Point, Whittaker was attacked by a group of fellow cadets, however. They beat him up, sliced up his ears, and left him for dead in his bedroom. The next morning higher ranking officers wondered where Whittaker was and sent a man to his room. This man found him tied to his bed, he unconscious and bleeding badly.

He was taken to the military hospital where doctors performed surgery on him.

Although this was bad enough, the story gets even worse. Instead of going after the cadets who attacked him, the military accused Whittaker of staging it. He had, the military said, sliced his own ears, tied himself up, and beaten himself until he was a bloody pulp. He was court martialed and kicked out of West Point.

The movie spends little time to the assault itself; in the first 10 minutes of the movie it is made clear that Whittaker was assaulted and that the military went after him because of the color of his skin and to protect its own image. After this introduction, the movie deals with the truly important part of this part of U.S. history: the trail itself.

During the trial it became clear that those prosecuting Whittaker were racists pure and simple. The judges too were highly prejudiced; Whittaker only needed two of them to support him - to acquit him - and he would not have been found guilty. Three of the judges, however, were racists, one was borderline, and one was on his side - the only truly fair judge (and thus high ranking officer). The prosecution constantly used racist prejudices against the defendent, arguing he was stupid, submissive, incompetent, mean, untrustworthy, lazy and unintelligent. Not because of anything he had done himself, but because of his race.

The defense, one white lawyer (Sam Waterston) and one black lawyer (Samuel L. Jackson), refused to take advantage of the clear racism of the prosecution and its star witnesses. Jackson argued his co-lawyer should expose the racism and make clear to the court that this case was not about justice, or about a cadet staging an assault on himself, but about race, and the military’s decision to protect racists. Waterston, in his role of lawyer, declined to do so, however.

For a long time it is unclear during the movie why Waterston refused to do the obvious. He made the case, to a degree quite convincingly, that going after witnesses because of their racism would not result in the court acquitting Whittaker. His point of view seemed to be that making the case that racism played an important role in the military at that time would hurt the defendent simply because the judges were military officers themselves and therefore unwilling to blame the military for anything.

Slowly but surely, however, it becomes clear that there is more to it than that. The white lawyer, Jackson believed, had different motives; he secretly agreed with the racists. That is why he did not object to their hatred and prejudices. Winning the case had nothing to do with it, racism had.

This realization leads to one of the key moments of the movie: Greener (Jackson) confronts Chaimberlin (Waterston) and tells him that he lost the case because he himself is a racist. Chaimberlin, of course becomes angry and tells his co-lawyer to let him pass by and leave the room. Greener refuses, however, telling him that he favors outspoken, barbaric racists over the kind of racist Chaimberlin represents in the movie; the one who pretends not to be a racist, who talks the non-racist talk, who dresses smartly and is well educated… but who’s extremely racist in his heart nonetheless.

Sadly for Whittaker it took place after he was found guilty and sentenced to one year in a labor camp, in addition to being expelled from West Point. The confrontation described in the above paragraph was, as said, one of the key moments of the movie - this after the court had found Whittaker guilty, which may have errased some of the suspense, one would assume. This is, however, not the case. It was never the question for the viewer whether Whittaker would be found guilty or not. It was quite clear the he would lose the case, no matter what. No, what the movie truly was about was the ordeal itself; the way he was treated, the obvious and blatant racism of most of those involved, and the disgrace of the U.S. military which convicted an innocent man only because he was a member of the ‘inferior race’ (a term taken from the prosecution - this was actually used against Whittaker during the trial).

All characters perform very well during the movie, but Samuel L. Jackson is the true star. His performance was more than convincing; he was not Jackson, he was Greener; the man who defended Whittaker, his fellow African American.

It’s a tremendous movie, glad I watched it. It will now be shipped to my fiancee, I’m pretty sure she will be as impressed as I was by it.

Lastly: the movie becomes even more impressive, and sad, when one realizes that the testimonies as shown in the movie were taken directly from court transcripts available at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Assault at West Point can be bought at Amazon.com for $14,99, and as DVD at IMDB. There is also a book with the same title and subject available.