You’ve probably heard about ‘Once Upon a Time’ in the West, in America, in Hollywood. A classic kind of movie title phrase. Actually, one of the best ways to start a fairytale or burnish a myth.
But now we bring you ‘Once Upon a Time in Harlem.’ This movie starts with a handwritten note by the filmmaker William Greaves: “In an effort of co-creation, I propose to create a series of great films on great people all of whom are metaphors, creations of the Godhead.”
It is then followed by a close-up of a handwritten invitation to ‘a cocktail party at the home of Duke Ellington. It will be a gathering of artists and intellectuals—the living luminaries of the Harlem Renaissance.’
We can say that ‘Once Upon a Time in Harlem’ is a staggering documentary event. Watching it feels like it has a different relationship with the past. The documentary takes place over one day about half a century ago, in 1972. It revolves around remembering the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s, but another half-century leap in time.
You might first assume it is all about resurrecting the Harlem Renaissance. But this is not really what the documentary is all about. Rather, it focuses more on the act of resurrecting the Harlem Renaissance.
You Might Be Interested In:
Once Upon a Time in Harlem is less an act of preservation than a lively and dynamic reminder that history is an ever-unfolding continuum. I’d argue that it is simply a cocktail party. Any documentary keyboard could argue that it is a miracle of a movie.
It feels like a ‘70s documentary classic that time somehow forgot.Some of those in attendance include Ida Mae Cullen, widow of the poet Countee Cullen; the writer-artist Richard Bruce Nugent; the painter Aaron Douglas; the socialist and bookstore owner Richard B. Moore; Lee Whipper, actor and founder of the Negro Actors Guild; pianist Eubie Blake; and the scholar John Henrik Clarke.
It would be okay to say that the film is very much in the form of Greave’s beloved Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One. This is mostly the case when it comes to using split screen. The reason for doing this is to provide fuller coverage of group conversations and to offer up context in the form of archival photos, footage, and text.
The film is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association. This is because it contains some disturbing images, strong racial language, smoking and brief partial nudity. Running time: 100 minutes. Four stars out of four.
Either way, it is certainly worth your time and a film you will definitely fall in love with if you are the documentary kind of person.
Not many documentaries can make you feel like you’re in the same room with the people whose stories are being told. This is especially the case when the people are telling the story themselves.Why not have a watch for yourself!!
