“When people show you who they are, believe them.”
April 29th, 1992: After a seven-day deliberation, a jury acquitted the four police officers involved in the recorded beating of Rodney King, with three out of four being acquitted of having used excessive force. Thousands of miles away in Virginia at the age of 11, even I knew it was an egregious mockery of justice, so the public outcry of rage made a great deal of sense. That is, until the riots began. Then, I couldn’t make heads or tails of it, but, now, it makes a great deal of sense. When the system doesn’t work for all the people, but only the few, eventually the building pressure will require a release. Based on a story by Sascha Penn (Secret Lives of Husbands and Wives) and with a script by Penn and director Ariel Vromen (The Iceman), the crime thriller 1992 utilizes the burgeoning riots to explore social imbalances, unconscious bias, and familial relationships. By grounding the film in a real event fraught with a great deal of racial tension, 1992 comes loaded with expectation, which the film largely meets thanks to the efforts of its dynamic cast.
Tyrese Gibson as Mercer in the Action, Crime, Thriller film, 1992, a Lionsgate release. Photo courtesy of Lionsgate.
Out of prison for the past six months, Mercer Bey (Tyrese Gibson) is working hard to care for his high school-aged son, Antoine (Christopher A’mmanuel), by working maintenance at a factory. It’s not a glamourous job, but it enables Mercer to provide as he tries to turn his life around. Meanwhile, in another part of Los Angeles, former soldier Riggin (Scott Eastwood) brings a job to his thief father, Lowell (Ray Liotta), that could be a score big enough to not have to pull jobs anymore and it’s at the very factory Mercer works in. Using the social disarray as cover, Riggin leads a small group into the factory with the intent of robbing it of its platinum supply, unaware that Mercer, in a bid to keep Antoine safe, is bringing him to work, resulting in fathers and sons coming to a crossroad in a bid to survive the encounter.
Scott Eastwood as Riggin Bigby in the Action, Crime, Thriller film, 1992, a Lionsgate release. Photo courtesy of Lionsgate.
1992 is not entirely the film the marketing sells it to be and that may prove disastrous for it. If one believes the marketing, 1992 is Die Hard (1988) in a factory, with Mercer battling Lowell in close-quarters combat. The truth is far more interesting and character-driven with the confrontation building into a powder keg before the two sets of families intersect thanks to the activity exploding on the streets of L.A.. Where the marketing implies that the film is a cat-and-mouse game, of its 90+ minutes, the first hour is meeting the characters, setting the stage for the events, and Riggin getting into the factory well before Mercer arrives. So rather than it appearing (via marketing) that 1992 uses the real-world event as some kind of tasteless cover for a heist-gone-wrong type of film, 1992 leans far more into the racial inequity of the time asking hard questions, especially with so little having changed in the following 32 years. Look no further than Liotta’s (Goodfellas; Cocaine Bear) Lowell who will, without awareness of the irony, scold those rioting in the streets for disrespecting other people’s property, coldly calling participants “animals,” while riding in a van on his way to rob $10 million in platinum from a factory. It’s this disparity that powers 1992 and enables it to transcend what the marketing implies, revealing itself to be a thoughtful and engaging work.
Much of this is because of the cross-cutting the narrative does in the build up to the confrontation. Mercer is introduced first, exposition treated naturally as the audience is shown Gibson at a table talking with someone we can safely presume is a parole officer based on the dialogue we hear. Next, by the way he and Antoine interact, even before Antoine expresses frustration at their living arrangements, we can already tell that there’s conflict, but it hasn’t reached a point of no return. Similarly, when it cuts to our first meeting of Riggin via his conversation with Clé Bennett’s (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) Copeland, the physical presentation and dialogue conveys familiarity and comfort between the pair, the discussion presenting the discord between himself and Lowell, Riggin’s lack of desire to do any kind of wet work (therefore illustrating a giant philosophical divide between Riggin and Lowell), and a recognition that the work they do isn’t honest. These introductions set the stage for the tidbits we’re given either through character interaction (Mercer confronting two kids pulling guns at a convenience store) or production design (Riggin at home where we can see his service memorabilia), a prime example of showing vs. telling, establishing that these two men are not so dissimilar even if their methods are a gulf’s width apart. These choices enable the audience to buy into the stakes these characters set, allowing a simple wrong place/wrong time heist story to be filled with complexity, especially as one realizes that the true character correlation isn’t Mercer/Riggin, but Mercer/Lowell and their respective familial bonds.
L-R: Ori Pfeffer as Murphy, Dylan Arnold as Dennis, Ray Liotta as Lowel, Clé Bennett as Copeland, Scott Eastwood as Riggin Bigby, and Oleg Taktarov as Titus in the Action, Crime, Thriller film, 1992, a Lionsgate release. Photo courtesy of Lionsgate.
Gibson’s been working for decades now and his on-screen reputation is one of a fast-talking funny man, a notion cemented from his work as Roman Pearce in the Fast Saga, of which he’s played a significant part in recent years. He’s always had the potential for dramatic work, a personal favorite being his role as Angel Mercer in 2005’s Four Brothers (though that role did include a bit of comedic work, too). Here, however, Mercer is stoic, thoughtful, and aware that the hand he’s been dealt is unfair, but also of his own making. It’s not important for the audience to know precisely what he’s done to earn prison time, whereas it matters how he reacts to the way others on the street speak of him versus how the man who hired him at the factory, Joseph Francis (Michael Beasley) does. In the first, Gibson gives Mercer a quiet defiance, a recognition that who he was, who the streets believe him to be, is not who he wants to be any longer, for both himself and his son. In the second, Gibson allows Mercer to relax, to chat, to exist as a person in the world who embraces his responsibilities and opportunities. Through these responses, Gibson gives Mercer shape that makes all the things that come later, all the actions that Mercer takes to keep his son and himself safe, a true sacrifice.
Christopher A’mmanuel as Antoine in the Action, Crime, Thriller film, 1992, a Lionsgate release. Photo courtesy of Lionsgate.
As strong as the film is, it’s still a little strange to see a real event being used as a backdrop for this story. Racial components are very much a factor, with the riots not just being a cover but an opportunity to highlight what a piece of crap Lowell is and the baked-in racism that exists within the United States of America. Sometimes the script is overt, sometimes subtle, but the way that Lowell identifies “good ones” vs. “bad ones” and adjusts his behavior toward them speaks volumes in terms of the messaging of the film. It certainly helps that Liotta, in his last film before passing, doesn’t hold back vocally or physically, demonstrating just why his roles are often spoken of with reverence. In that regard, audiences looking for a solid crime thriller may be frustrated to discover how much of 1992 is character work, while those looking for a period drama may struggle with the fabricated heist. As a result, 1992 doesn’t necessarily hook its audience and keep them locked in, but, for those open to it, for those who are willing to push more deeply than the surface, there’s a richness supported by strong performances which may resulting in audiences having complex conversations post-credits.
In theaters August 30th, 2024.
For more information, head to the official Lionsgate 1992 webpage.
Final Score: 3.5 out of 5.
Share this:
Categories: In Theaters, Reviews
Leave a Reply