A second opinion: “One Battle After Another” review | Opinion

The op-ed below does not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan and its members.

Director Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film, “One Battle After Another” has been in the works for years. With so much excitement following the film, a lot of his fans and movie buffs were waiting for him to deliver. I believe he did, because I thought the film was great. Yet, I couldn’t ignore the sour taste in my mouth from the way Perfidia Beverly Hills, played by Teyana Taylor, is portrayed.

Beverly Hills is a Black revolutionary woman who is a part of the French 75. Her romantic relationship with Bob Ferguson, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, leads to my biggest complaint about this film, which is Beverly Hills being depicted as a sex craven woman.

In one scene, she goes with Ferguson to plant a bomb to destroy the power network of a city. When the bomb is about to go off she pleads to him to have sex by the bomb, showing how she is obsessed with the thrill and excitement that the act would give her.

This is odd to me. Why would she want to have sex immediately after pulling off this big plot? Is this really an accurate depiction of how a black woman would think in a revolution? Knowing the way that black women have been depicted in the media over the course of history makes this sting for me and hard to think of positively. 

Another plot point that really stuck with me was the pregnancy plot. I cannot speak about a woman’s emotions when she is pregnant, so I have no quarrel with her being upset and depressed about her daughter. My issue comes with the way that she handles the situation.

At one point she is fed up with Ferguson and her daughter. Ferguson makes it very clear that he doesn’t want to be a part of the revolution anymore and he is now focused on raising his daughter. However, Beverly Hills doesn’t want to be a part of this life with her family anymore; she wants to go back to the revolution.

At least that is what she says, but I don’t think that’s the reason she leaves her family. She leaves because she doesn’t want to accept the responsibility of her child. She leaves based on her own selfishness and gives Ferguson this spiel about how he could never understand her perspective. 

The truth is that she wants to feel the pleasure that she gains from the revolution, and that is not accurate for her character archetype. Black revolutionary women are known for sacrificing everything they have in order to help. They are selfless leaders and this film doesn’t represent that with her character.

To give some background for my next point I will talk about certain parts of the film, so beware of spoilers ahead. Willa Ferguson, played by Chase Infiniti, is being chased down by her biological father Colonel Steven J. Lockjaw, played by Sean Penn, who is trying to kill her because he, as a white man, can’t join the Christmas Adventures Club. This is a white supremacist group and they won’t allow him to join if he has a Black daughter.

With Lockjaw chasing after her, Deandra, played by Regina Hall, helps Willa elude him and gives her shelter. She takes her to a church of Black nuns that help revolutionaries. Eventually Lockjaw finds them and then kidnaps Willa. We then see Deandra and all the Black nuns get arrested and never we never see Deandra or the nuns again.

My problem with this is the gain to loss ratio. Beverly Hills, who is selfish and the cause of all the bad things that happened to the French 75, gets to walk away freely with no losses.

Now, compare her to Deandra, who gets hunted due to Beverly Hills’ actions and still decides to help her daughter. Deandra helps Willa when she doesn’t have to. She had evaded the government for all that we know, despite that she saw a girl in need of help and decided to sacrifice her freedom for her.

This is a more accurate depiction of Black revolutionary women. So, why does the woman that sacrifices all she has get imprisoned, while the selfish and horrible human being gets a happy ending? This doesn’t sit right and maybe that is how it is intended, but if that’s true I think it’s a poor choice.

I say that because rewarding Beverly Hills not only leaves a poor taste in my mouth, but also makes me wonder what the film is trying to say. I have already made it clear why I believe it is a poor depiction, yet this makes it sting even more. Why this character is the one to get a happy ending is my issue.

While I have problems with how this film handles certain characters, I do believe the film is very good, but the decisions Anderson makes, like his portrayal of Beverly Hills, are questionable. So with that being said, I encourage people to watch it and form their own opinions on the movie. If you happen to disagree please email me and show me a different outlook on the topic.

Jayden Shipley (jaydenshipley93@ku.edu) is a sophomore from Waukegan, Illinois, majoring in multimedia journalism and minoring in film and media. He enjoys discussing films, shows, and music.

This article was edited by Opinion Editor Arien Roman-Rojas. If the information in this article needs to be corrected, please contact arienroman@ku.edu. We want to hear from you!

The University Daily Kansan accepts Letters to the Editor as an open forum for individuals to voice their concerns, opinions and thoughts in our Opinion section. If you are interested in sharing a written piece, find more information about our guidelines here and send your article to editor@kansan.com.