From Covenant Avenue to St. Nick-Harlem, once
the mecca that African-Americans lived, breathed and
thrived in, has become a pocket of infestation, a neigh-
borhood in hell, a timeshare in Vietnam. There's a war,
children, a war of values, of ethics, of lives, of genera-
tions and, ultimately, the spoils are simply blood, mate-
rial goods and empty futures. Wesley Snipes stars in the
new film Sugar Hill, which follows Roemello, a mid-
level drug kingpin, through the course of what seems to
be a week. Roemello is tired, but why he is exhausted is
never made clear. The film, directed by Leon Ichaso,
takes an unflinching look at both yesterday's addicts
(Roemello's parents) and today's (Roemello's brother
and partner Ray N athan) .The central theme is whether
or not Roemello will choose the true love of his girl-
friend Melissa, played with a defiant presence of char-
acter by Theresa Randle, or his surrogate father Gus,
mafia lord, supplier and the man who attempted to kill
Roemello's now-decrepit father. A battle over territory
ensues between Roemello and a competitor brought in
by Gus.
Roemello's father, played by Clarence Williams III
(who will be overlooked for an Oscar due the film's
release date), dealt drugs, supplied his wife's habit
(which leads to her death) , and lives in a walking death
of memories, regrets and heroin when the film opens.
Ray Nathan, played by Michael Wright, is the clingy,
needy older brother who relies on his Georgetown-
educated brother to balance his street insanity with
calculation and diplomacy. We then begin to see that all
Roemello is, all he has trusted, has abandoned him. Seen
this way we can finally understand why he's looking to
distance himself from his past. But the past is a curious,
vengeful, entangling animal tha t stalks all of Roemello' s
attempts to leave behind a vicious life for...? Well,
Roemello is never quite clear about where he'll go.
Sugar Hill is not one film, but several, and not one
story, but a legion of tales that fold into one another and
entangle tentacles of power, greed, lust, loyalty and
even family values. Two criticisms of this film are, one,
Roemello's character is made peripheral to the business
he actually controls. In a sense, we only see his hands
dirtied twice by murder. One is understandable, though
unjust, while the second is both unjust and inevitable.
Roemello, for all that his character embodies as an anti-
hero, becomes heroic as a drug dealer. His sense of
honor, supposedly gained through experience, makes
his moral caliber above those he deals with, and this is
where the film falters. How can the audience relate to
a good man who commits such a vile act as the extermi-
nation of his own people, his own father through
providing drugs? Is this a good man? Secondly, the film
also falters in that we, the audience, see the shadowed
results of murders-some not even shown. The audi-
ence can't visually connect to the crimes of the film
actually being committed by those we're supposed to
feel something for. In fact, a split occurs between the
good-bad guys and the bad-bad guys. Too many loop-
holes of justification and reverse condemnation perme-
ate the film. Are we, as an audience, so often spoon-fed
pabulum entertainment that we can't handle a mature
film where the characters redeem themselves not into
angels, but at least into something better than what
they were before? Do we need the hero going off into
the sunset so badly that we're willing to justify murder,
drug dealing and racial supplication just to feel good?
Make no mistake, Sugar Hill, even with it's intermit-
tently hard-soft hitting, is a film that needs to be seen, that
needs to beunderstood, and whose complexity and shades
of grey needs to be revealed and delved into. I highly
recommend it and feel strongly about the film, but I do
resent the soft-shoeing around the total impact that could
have been made. It's rated R, we're all adults, so let's live
in reality.
