Roman J. Israel, Esq.

Runtime: 2 hours, 2 minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: Dan Gilmore

Quick Impressions:
Denzel Washington’s Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor didn’t concern me (because they have ten slots to work with and love to woo huge stars), but then he got a SAG nomination, too, and I realized in a panic, “Oh wow! We’ve got to see Roman J. Israel, Esq.!”

It was still playing at only one theater near us (and at very odd times). I’m pretty sure we saw the last possible showing at the theater. As we walked out, we noticed the digital marquis for that particular screen had already flipped to Star Wars. Farewell, Roman J. Israel, Esq.

Back on Wednesday morning, when I freaked out about Denzel Washington’s potential Best Actor nomination and started researching this movie, I suddenly asked myself in shock, “Wait, why didn’t we see this?”

It’s from writer/director Dan Gilroy, and I liked Nightcrawler. I also love Colin Farrell and thought Carmen Ejogo was so amazing as Coretta Scott King in Selma that she should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

So when everybody else headed out for Thursday night screenings of The Last Jedi, my husband and I bought tickets to Roman J. Israel, Esq. (Incidentally, with the purchase of these tickets, we have now made up the cost of our MoviePass annual subscriptions, so from now until the end of next November, we could see a movie every single day for free if we so chose. Stay solvent, MoviePass!)

Now that I’ve seen the movie, I’ve got to say that Denzel Washington is definitely a serious contender for Best Actor this year. I’ve heard that most SAG voters didn’t get screeners for several big movies in time, and I’m sure at least one of the actors nominated at the SAGs will be replaced by Daniel Day-Lewis at the Oscars, but I don’t think it will be Denzel Washington. This is the best performance I’ve seen him give in a long time, and all his performances are exceptional.

I’m aware that the movie has gotten kind of mixed reviews. (I never read reviews before writing my own, but it’s hard to avoid seeing scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.) Personally, I liked it. I don’t see why anybody who liked Nightcrawler wouldn’t like this because they’re very similar films, both character studies (of odd characters) involving extremely slow-burning, low level suspense and a general, pervasive feeling of unease. Roman J. Israel, Esq. seems to offer a more uplifting message than Nightcrawler, but both films are intensely character-driven and dominated by the strength of a central performance.

Jake Gyllenhaal was very good. Denzel Washington is nothing short of magnificent. He got an Oscar nomination for Flight, and this is a better performance. If he doesn’t get a Best Actor nomination for Roman J. Israel, Esq., it will be a crime.  (But crimes happen every day in America.  Otherwise, we wouldn’t need defense attorneys.)

The Good:
I try to be fair and open-minded, but anyone who doesn’t like Denzel Washington as an actor is wrong. He’s so talented and so handsome and so talented. (That’s how talented he is. Even though he has a perfectly symmetrical face (they say), he’s twice as talented as he is handsome.) I’m just talking about Denzel Washington in general, you understand. These are just facts, and if you disagree, you must be incapable of recognizing the obvious, and I feel sorry for you. In general, Denzel Washington is a superb actor. But this performance is something really special.

After the movie, I said to my husband, “If a lesser actor had played that role, I think the character might have easily become too much of a caricature.” Israel is so quirky. He’s a little bit like Rain Man with an Afro. Cast the wrong actor in such a challenging part, and the performance will look hammy and mechanical. But Washington makes him feel real, despite his bizarre idiosyncrasies. He makes his sudden turn to behavior that is markedly out of character look perfectly realistic. I honestly think we would be scratching our heads about why Israel does such a shocking thing, except that Washington projects his fragile interiority so clearly. An actor with less talent just couldn’t pull off a role this demanding.

To me, much of the midsection of the film felt like a waking nightmare. Israel’s rising feelings of guilt and panic crowd out every other aspect of the plot, and perhaps the worst part of this nightmare is the piercing, agonizing sensation of, “Why did he do that?” It doesn’t seem like something he would have done, and if only he hadn’t, if only…

I often have actual nightmares like that. In the dream, I have done something horrible that nobody knows about, and dire consequences await me as soon as my dark deed is found out. But though I know I am guilty, I cannot remember why I would have done something so repugnant and self-sabotaging. (And then, thankfully, I wake up and, after several minutes, remember that I actually didn’t do it. That realization always brings such relief.)

This movie beautifully replicates that sort of sensation of guilt. And even though it doesn’t tell us explicitly how such a principled man could so easily commit such a morally incongruous act, Washington’s performance fills in the gaps beautifully.

I think the passion that we see ripple through Roman J. Israel as he prepares to make a regrettable decision is so intense and so real and makes his motivations so clear. What happens to him would take forever to explain in words, but his emotions tell the entire story in seconds, and his raw passion gives a kind of shaping sense to his otherwise incongruous behavior.

It’s wonderful work by Washington. The character is really quirky, and Washington totally inhabits him right down to his odd posture and gait. Still any decent actor could manage this much. (Good actors would do it well. Mediocre actors would do it poorly.) In a way, conspicuously odd people are among the easiest to portray. There’s a lot to work with when somebody isn’t ordinary. But what makes Washington’s work here really special is how fluidly he telegraphs deep emotions that Israel is experiencing but may not himself understand or even completely acknowledge. To call the performance layered and complex is a massive understatement. We have a character with special gifts and special needs having a grief-fueled mental breakdown, followed by a moment of clarity during which he experiences true insight but may become psychologically broken beyond repair.

I love the idea that we are all better than our worst decision, and it is fascinating to watch a psychological thriller where the hero and villain are the same person, to see why a good man might do a bad thing.

Honestly Washington deserves to win an Oscar for a performance like this. (Of course, temper my enthusiastic praise with the reality that in Best Actor, usually every nominee deserves the win.)

The supporting cast is fantastic, too. To be honest, I always love Colin Farrel, but I really loved him here. He also inhabits his character with such honed physicality. In every scene, he has the posture, mannerisms, presence, and energy of a high-powered lawyer of George Pierce’s stature. My husband (who liked the film and Washington’s performance as much as I did) said Farrel’s Pierce was his favorite character, and I have to agree. Farrel plays him perfectly, and how the character is used (the trajectory he takes) is surprisingly compelling.

We both also loved Carmen Ejogo. Her chemistry with Washington is electrifying. Several of their scenes together are so moving, and while he is giving a tour-de-force performance, she is actively contributing a great deal as a talented scene partner.

Lynda Gravatt is another standout in a small but powerful role, and I also liked Amanda Warren and Amari Cheatom.

I found Roger Elswit’s cinematography absolutely fascinating at moments, not terribly interesting at others, and reminiscent of Nightcrawler all over. The intense focus on Roman’s glasses and the desert flight sequence seemed extremely important and were handled with meticulous artistry.

I also loved the use of the soundtrack, apt songs working hand-in-hand with deliberate visuals to establish mood and make the character’s interior world and state of mind real and accessible to us.

It’s exciting to watch as the film slowly lets us into Roman’s world. Initially we see a law office full of books, papers, post-its and a lonely jar of Jif peanut butter. (He’s a choosy guy, after all.  Needs things just so.)  We notice that Roman wears Walkman headphones every time we see him. We get a good idea of the way he appears to others.  But before too long, the movie gives us all the Jif.  And as the film warms to us, it increasingly lets us listen to the soundtrack of Roman’s life, just in tiny snippets at first, but longer and longer as Roman’s remaining time grows shorter and shorter.

Best Scene/Most Oscar Worthy Moment, Denzel Washington:
This movie has a lot of powerful moments, all of them delivered by Washington. His very best scenes are almost always with Ejogo. The two of them should work together again for sure. They have amazing chemistry.

When Roman first meets Maya while misguidedly and desperately seeking paying work from a volunteer organization, she becomes increasingly sympathetic as he grows uncomfortably distraught. Washington shows us the core of Roman J. Israel in this scene. He is a good man of strong character who has accomplished much and knows his worth. He is also desperate and broken, and, out of desperation, so vulnerable. In some ways, I identified with the character because I, too, am the type of person who struggles with basic social interactions but can do brilliant things when someone who understands me helps me to feel safe. Of course, there’s much more going on with Roman. He’s also experiencing the pain of a man of a certain age being told, “Well, we don’t need you. Oh, you say that you’ve done a lot of important work that benefited us? Well, we don’t care. You think we should improve ourselves by doing things like you used to? Please go die already and leave us alone.” He’s trying so hard to present himself well and make a show of strength and competence, but he’s so desperate and out of his depth. His situation is especially sad since he honestly has fought for civil rights and justice his entire life. Roman’s raw pain is made more bearable for the audience by Maya’s ability to see and appreciate him for what he is and to pity him (pity him mainly for the fact that he is reduced to relying on pity because no one is compensating him according to his worth. His situation has forced him to expose both his need and his limitations).

This scene is so powerful and so well done. But it is not the best scene.

That comes later when Roman and Maya run across a homeless man they believe to be dead. That’s definitely the most stirring moment in the movie. It also shows us that Roman is beginning to undervalue himself. He does something so amazing, yet all he feels is self-reproach for initially misreading the situation and making an embarrassing mistake. It reveals Roman’s innate goodness. Anyone who behaves with such kindness, generosity, and bravery and then reveals that he not only expects no reward, but, on the contrary, actually feels deserving of punishment instead is a very special and pure-hearted soul.

Best Scene Visually:
This is an odd situation. The film’s visuals become strongest during its action sequences, possibly because these are moments when Roman is in peril.

When Roman encounters a homeless man who asks him for help, the results are so heart-breaking and unjust, particularly in light of the scene that has come before. (Washington is also amazing in this horrific moment.) We get such strong visual imagery here. Roman’s glasses are broken.

Then later we get the film’s most memorable visual image (and most conspicuously odd-looking moment) when the camera circles round and round him in the desert. This combines with an earlier scene on his opulent new balcony to create a very intentional Christ in the wilderness vibe. Most interesting to me is that we seem to be getting dragged deeper and deeper into Roman’s own mind as he himself has clearly framed these activities as a response to temptation on a Biblical scale.

Best Action Sequence:
Like I said, almost every intense moment of action contains some of the film’s most compelling visuals.

Washington’s own performance in the mugging scene is awesome, but in terms of pure action, the “chase” scene through the desert is probably best. It begins with a bit of a Psycho vibe then ends with a dizzying and prolonged whirl around Roman Israel who is clearly having a Christ-in-the-desert moment. The camera circles around him almost too long.  The moment is evocative of the way the Christ the Redeemer statue is often presented in movies. (This moment is laden with every kind of symbolism. Some might feel it lays it on a little thick, but after all, we are getting a peek into the mind of a man having a total mental breakdown.  Psychosis isn’t subtle.)

Another great visual moment comes near the end of the movie when Colin Farrel tries to bolt across the street. It’s like he believes he can get there faster just by leaning farther and farther forward. (His posture/carriage/body language throughout the film is honestly incredible. Even when he’s just seated at the funeral, he carries himself like such a lawyer.)

The Negatives:
Nearly every strength of the movie could also be called a weakness. All of the odd camera angles, lingering shots of images laden with symbolism. One person might say, “How interesting!” Another could complain, “How pretentious!” Neither would be wrong exactly. I do think many of the stranger choices by the movie (in terms of what to show us and how supersaturated with symbolism some shots seem) arise from the fact that we are being slowly drawn into the world of a man who seems to have an unusual way of thinking to start with and is now experiencing a (probably grief-induced) mental breakdown. Yes, some of these late moments might feel heavy-handed and pretentious, but trust me, when you’re having a psychotic break, everything that happens to you feels portentous and inescapable.

One of the film’s great strengths, honestly, is the way its interactions with the audience mirror Roman’s interior drama. For example, we expect the enemy to be an external force (or person), but we are almost taken by surprise when evil comes from within.

Now admittedly the movie is slow, and nothing really huge happens (except that, you know, a man comes close to losing his own soul or whatever). Most of the highest stakes come in the interior, spiritual drama Roman J. Israel is experiencing. For him, the story is a truly terrifying suspense thriller because he realizes somewhere along the line that he can’t trust himself, and then trying to guess his own next move becomes paralyzing.

It seems like you’d have to be deliberately embracing your inner contrarian to say Washington isn’t giving a great performance here, but disliking the character or his story might be some people’s honest reaction.

And there are definitely legitimate criticisms that can be made about the film Roman J. Israel inhabits. Its pace is slow. At the beginning, the story seems a bit unfocused. Then when it finally does settle on a focused, high-energy storyline, it becomes intensely (almost over) dramatic. I believe these traits of the film are merely reflected traits of Roman, that it is mimicking his interior journey. But some people may not see it that way, and some people who do see it that way may not like it.

Love it or hate it, you cannot deny the film has an honest title. It is, start to finish, a close character study of Roman J. Israel, Esq. As far as I’m concerned, it is so like Nightcrawler both in themes and in execution that it could be called a companion piece.

It’s really not a thriller in the traditional sense. It’s more a morality play and most a character study. So if you’re not interested in the character, then you won’t like the movie. And Roman J. Israel is an odd guy. (Even his name is rather unusual. It’s the kind of name that makes you think, “Is this an allegory?” And then you decide, “No, I think he’s just a weird guy with a memorable name.”)

One thing I did wonder about. Roman’s identity is so caught up in his background in the Civil Rights movement. He seeks reform and justice for anyone at the mercy of the legal system, of course, but he’s not just a lawyer who fights for the downtrodden. He’s an African American lawyer (of a certain age) who fights for the rights of the downtrodden. His ethnicity and cultural identity are right at the center of who he is. But writer/director Dan Gilroy is a white man. I’m not saying that white writers can’t create African American characters. But to be white and create a character like Roman—I mean, he’s so much who he is, and he’s the only thing holding the movie together—just seems like such a bold move and automatically raises questions of authenticity. I personally would be scared to undertake something like that.