• Home
• About

American History X

A strong story and very-well acted, but…

Flashbacks

(I’m not convinved about my argument in this particular case, yet here it goes.) I have a problem with the flashback pacing and structure. I don’t see that the use of flashbacks is a better way of telling the story than a traditional, chronological manner. The timeframe here is merely three years so that feels too short to merit flashbacks (even though Norton’s character changes completely).

Secondly, the rhythm is off- some past sequences are way longer than the others and the present story of Norton trying to help his brother is too rich; it is its own story. There’s Norton’s story through the flashbacks telling us how he became a skinhead and what happened to him in jail and then there’s the present-day story of him trying to prevent his brother from following in his footsteps.

In a well constructed flashback movie, the present situation does not move forward so much with its own twists and turns. (Though at the very end, a revelation or change is expected.) In Titanic, the present-day story of old Rose is calm until the end when we see she had the diamond all along. So this film felt uneven because two different stories were being told in two different ways at two different times. That’s why it would work much better going from A-Z.

Other

Lastly, I understand the use of black-and-white in the flashbacks (black vs. white, only seeing things in black and white) but it is ultimately distracting. In today’s day and age, or at least with a non-experimental film, the use of black-and-white has to fit the story (as in Schindler’s List and Ed Wood) and not just be a metaphor.

Subscribe to the RSS feed and follow the conversation.