SPOILER ALERT: Saw the film opening weekend. Had to, I'm from Detroit. Gave it an 8 on IMDb just for exposing the story to the general public. The actor that portrayed Officer David Senak, the main racist officer, may get an academy nomination. My understanding is that he was played close to the real man. He shot 5/6 people during the riot. My understanding is that the guard, Dismukes, played by Boyega actually brutalized some of the teens. He is portrayed as a hero but was the opposite. Those who testified specified that HE tortured THEM, so there is not mistake about that. It was he that was a consultant to the film therefore him coming out as he did, as a hero trying to help, makes sense. The main issue was there was no context of how this came to be. The revolt came as a result of...? No context of the buildup and no context of what happened after regarding the Algiers. There were people's trials, as I understand, at the Shrine of the Black Madonna, where people where packed in to address the situation. So the revolt just shows the audience people stealing etc etc. So no context of the rebellion, the security guard took part in the beatings and did not testify at all. That being said, having been around the film industry, I'm guessing this played out one of two ways. Filmmaker is a women. She wants to make this film about 1967 Detroit. Studios will not give her money to do a complete story as it was, Oscar or not. She's still a female filmmaker. So you do this movie. OR she just wanted to tie in current events with this film and only focus on how things have not changed. Showing... the audience what you see now is no different than what it always has been. DETROIT is how it has been. In cold blood. The Detroit police, was, "the gestapo" and that's what they did. They killed. Bigelow just wanted to focus on the complete racist, and evilness of the Detroit Police specifically Officer Senak and how what he did at the Algiers, killing those teens, is not any different than the police brutality now.
