This courtroom drama, about one of the first black cadets at West Point, was produced for the Showtime cable network in 1994, and released on video in 1996. Despite strong source material and a quality cast, the film falls flat, as the performances and script seem perfunctory and rushed.
In 1880, Johnson Whittaker (Seth Gilliam) is found in his West Point room, tied up and covered in blood. Though it's obvious that he was attacked, the school's administration claims that he staged his own assault to avoid an upcoming exam. A trial is set; if Whittaker is found guilty of staging
the assault, he will be expelled from West Point and jailed.
Daniel Chamberlain (Sam Waterston) is Whittaker's lawyer, and he is assisted by Richard Greener (Samuel L. Jackson), one of the first black graduates of Harvard Law School. From the beginning, Greener states that the trial "isn't about justice, but manipulation." Prosecuting attorney Major Asa
Bird Gardiner (John Glover) is notorious for representing murderers and crooks, and in this case, his witnesses tell lie after lie on the stand.
Chamberlain's defense is careful and polite, but Greener argues that the defense must be bold, that they can't win unless the obvious racism in the case is clearly brought before the court. Not trusting Chamberlain to press the issue, Greener takes it into his own hands to collect evidence. When
witnesses claim that Whittaker's injury caused little blood, Greener visits Whittaker's West Point room and finds a large bloodstain hidden under a rug. When a so-called handwriting expert testifies that Whittaker wrote an incriminating note, Greener travels to Virgina to find Hyde (Mason Adams),
a lawyer who testifies that the expert is unqualified and dishonest.
Despite Greener's extra work and Whittaker's poise as a witness, the outlook is grim. The jury is composed of five men: if two find Whittaker not guilty, he will be freed. When the verdict is due, the only jury member known to be sympathetic to Whittaker is absent. Greener implores Chamberlain to
object, but Chamberlain refuses. Whittaker is found guilty.
Many years later, Whittaker tells the tale. He appealed the trial, and though he was expelled, he did not have to go to jail. Despite the injustice of this incident, he lives a long, productive life.
ASSAULT AT WEST POINT is a true story, and some of the dialogue comes directly from court records. Unfortunately, the presentation of the story doesn't achieve much of a life of its own. Despite the presence of such talents as Jackson and Waterston, the acting is consistently bland; the characters
speak their lines clearly, quickly, and without emotion. Their stilted speech style may be an attempt to mimic the tone of the 1880s, but modern language is included as well, implying that the filmmakers could not decide whether they wanted to make a pure period piece or a modernization. Only
Adams appears to be having any fun with his role.
While the racism of the time is presented in a believable way, it's a shame that the exploration of that racism's many effects isn't taken further. ASSAULT AT WEST POINT may be historically accurate, but it would have been better if it had dug more deeply rather than simply presenting the case.
(Profanity, violence) leave a comment