Rhetorical analysis of the film American History X

American History X

While it's important to view the world, however flawed, in a realistic yet positive light, it can sometimes be too easy to think, or perhaps too easy to self-deluded oneself, that there's no longer any racism in America, as a result of the fact that Jim Crow laws are a thing of the past, schools are no longer segregated (at least not officially) and reports of KKK members setting fire to homes are definitely anomalies in the news.

The film "American History X" directed by Tony Kaye and written by David McKenna is an unflinching and raw look at the continuous tremors and lasting impact of racism in America. Numerous research questions drive this inquiry such as some of the elements used as key plot and structural elements. For example, the main character Derek Vinyard, played by Edward Norton, is a member of a neo-Nazi gang which is an unflinching example of how unabashed hatred, racism and contempt still thrive in society today. This brings up a range of questions, such as: when did the neo-Nazi movement in America begin? How can sociologists and historians better understand this movement? Is it a deviation from the societal norms which attempt to embrace diversity and equality or is it a reaction to such movements?

This film is unique in itself in that this "inflated yet gut-slugging film that dares to address America's neo-Nazi culture with brutal candor. Its toughest images stick even when its lurid self-aggrandizing spins out of control" (Maslin, 1998). As certain critics have pointed out, the film has a simple outline and story -- however it's the fearless acting and the ghastly depictions of violence captured almost in a photojournalistic style which make the film both unique and significant and part of a very small genre of films that have been able to make relevant social commentary in a bold and unforgettable fashion (comparable films are Once Upon a Time in America, City of God, and the Pianist).

The film brings up numerous questions such as how does an individual descend so far and so deep into a movement as riddled with hate and brutality as Neo-Nazism to the extent that they would feel justified in murdering for this "cause." The film offers several answers, some of them satisfactory and some of them not; the answers which are less acceptable can be as useful in the task of inquiry as the ones that are adequate. For example, one critic explains that Derek blamed the death of his father on a range of race-related factors and we later see how his father tutored both sons in a range of racist beliefs, but "the scene feels like tacked-on motivation…"(Egbert, 1998). Rather what the film did do well was offer another answer for why these individuals, and the character of Derek namely could take such an extreme descent in to racism: "The scariest and most convincing scenes are the ones in which we see the skinheads bonding. They're led by Derek's brilliant speechmaking and fueled by drugs, beer, tattoos, heavy metal and the need all insecure people feel to belong to a movement greater than themselves" (Egbert, 1998). The fearlessness of the film allows the door to be opened for an examination of the whirling factors that allow the Neo-Nazi movement to tick and to be maintained. Watching Derek's transformation from a repulsive hate-mongering racist to a gentle, peace-craving convert can provide insight in how to disarm such racist groups, even if the movie is an example of extremes.