On Fighting Back with Fruitvale Station

Cinema is at its best when entertaining, demanding and explorative. If a film can do this, and force an audience to question their ideology then, whether they agree or not the film has found a place and served a purpose. If it can do this on a grand scale, then all the better. After all, cinema is perceived to be a medium that, when on a large scale is purely dedicated to entertainment. Michael Moore was often criticised for his entirely one sided documentaries and aggressive ‘all about me’ style of reporting, but he got mass American audiences into cinemas and if some left questioning an issue they previously hadn’t, then a benefit is gained.

Fruitvale Station, written and directed by Ryan Coogler and produced by Forest Whitaker is a dramatisation of the death of Oscar Grant in January 2009 by police officers. The police officer was sentenced to two years and served eleven months. This is only one example of many around the world where police officers escape punishment relative to the crimes they have committed. It is a closed organisation and historically has a reputation of protecting its own, even when its own are guilty. In the UK during the G20 protests, Ian Tomlinson was pushed to the ground by a police officer and later died. The police officer was found not guilty. When first accused the police closed ranks and claimed Tomlinson had fallen and died of natural causes, yet a contemporary phenomenon changed this and Fruitvale Station makes clear this profound shift in public power. Social networking. Here social networking is being used as an umbrella term for all the technology that comes with smart phones. As in the case of Ian Tomlinson, bystanders recorded the death of Oscar Grant and deprived the police force the opportunity of covering up. Fruitvale Station uses some of this mobile phone footage, which shocks and legitimises the films, which was surely Coogler’s intention. None of this prevents the criminality, conspiracy and corruption that exist, but what Coogler does is give Grant and his family (the powerless) an opportunity to fight back against the police and legal system (the powerful). And, with amateur footage, fight back against the media (the larger power) that is mostly owned by the powerful.

The film refuses to paint anyone as a stereotypical thug or aggressor. Grant’s relationship with his daughter is the heart of the film and what remains the most lasting image of him is Coogler’s representation of two of them, especially when he employs the tools of filmmaking to enhance the shot. This is a touching piece of storytelling from Coogler considering the circumstances; he makes it clear that Grant was no saint, but is attempting balance with a slant towards the thoughtful. The film also refuses to be a grim portrait of a young man tragically killed. Here we have shots of real beauty and genuine humour and this brings more life to the film.

As in many cases involving police corruption (you could replace police with financial or political) there is no social justice here, but Coogler and Whitaker find the emotion and find a voice. The hope is that more filmmakers are drawn to such issues and raise the inequality and more audiences are drawn to seek them out.