Either I'm not using the search function correctly, or there is no thread, in Hangout or otherwise, about the movie Selma. It relays Dr. MLK Jr.'s life and efforts in the narrow window of time (circa 1964-1965) leading to the Voting Rights Act. I hope this thread can exist in Hangout, but maybe I am crazy. Mrs. B-Bob and I saw it last night with two friends. I'd seriously like to know what other people think. I'll avoid spoilers, as much as I can, but the historical story should be fairly well known. Overall, it's an important period for us all to acknowledge, apart from whatever success or merits the movie may have. It is incredibly depressing, at one level, since we are still having some very similar conversations in the nation. I think we can all agree there has been progress in some ways, and very little progress in others (the details of how we see that are probably best handled in D&D). But I don't think 2015 has worked out completely the way MLK Jr. or President Johnson might have hoped -- I think that's safe to say. What I loved about it: Some of the dialogue, and the imaging of conversations (as in between the governor of Alabama and the president, or the president and MLK Jr., or even between CSK & MLK Jr.) Not shying away from the violence of the period. It would have been easy to make this movie a little more palatable. The incredible attention to authentic period detail, from clothes to automobiles. I felt totally immersed in the mid-1960's in Alabama. Most of the acting was amazing, especially, I thought CSK & Johnson (even though there's been a lot of criticism for the Johnson depiction). Anyway, I thought Ejogo and Wilkinson consumed every scene they were in. A lot of the minor characters were wonderfully portrayed as well. Showing that MLK Jr. had inner doubts & feet of clay. This made him a more powerful character. Showing the tensions that existed within the movement, particularly with the students. Explaining, in a clear, efficient and moving way, all the barriers to voting that existed. What I didn't like, just in terms of a movie goer: Soundtrack rising up loudly in key moments. The emotion of the scenes didn't need "help" from a soundtrack. To me that got in the way, but I'm super attuned to soundtrack music. I just thought it could risk cheapening some really deeply moving and historically devastating scenes. Overall pacing. It's odd, but the movie, maybe intentionally, plays like it was made in the 1960's. You have very long shots of people just glowering, or holding a phone, or writing in a notebook. Having watched a ton of footage of MLK, Jr., it's easy for me to say the lead did a wonderful job, particularly in capturing vocal intonations and rhythms. but to me he really lacked the startling charisma and sparkle of MLK, Jr. This was probably an impossible task, and kudos to Oyelowo for trying it. What did y'all think? I know some of you even have quotes from the good Dr. in your sigs, so surely I'm not the only one seeing it.
Even more than one scene, and at least one scene with the government talking about his family. SexyButIgnorant, that's part of what I meant by feet of clay.
And the Walls Came Tumbling Down discusses that in little detail. Of course, no one wants to talk bad about such great man. Probably will be frowned upon to even mention it in larger circles. Thanks for that review, B-Bob. I'll probably will wait to see it on Redbox for a dollar.
Wife and I couldn't come to a consensus between this and American Sniper, so we just didn't go. I'm wishing I would've caved so that we could have watched this.
Movies “based on” historical events are, to say the least, a mixed bag. Try as they might, filmmakers often don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, bending history for the sake of their narrative’s arc or tempo. Paramount Pictures’ Selma, depicting the bloody civil rights campaign in Selma, Ala., does an admirable job of humanizing the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the colossal burden he faced in 1965, leading a fractious movement that was so perilous for his flock. But it misses mightily in faithfully capturing the pivotal relationship — contentious, the film would have you believe — between King and President Lyndon Baines Johnson. In the film, Johnson resists King’s pressure to sign a voting rights bill, which is getting in the way of other legislative priorities. Indeed, Selma’s obstructionist LBJ is devoid of any palpable conviction on voting rights. Vainglorious and power hungry, he unleashes his zealous pit bull, FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, on King, who is determined to march in protest from Selma to Montgomery despite LBJ’s warning that it will be “open season” on the protesters. In truth, the partnership between LBJ and MLK on civil rights is one of the most productive and consequential in American history. Yes, Johnson advocated stripping a potent voting rights component out of the historic Civil Rights Act he signed into law in the summer of 1964. A master of the legislative process — and a pragmatist — he knew that adding voting rights to the Civil Rights Act would jeopardize its passage. Break the back of Jim Crow segregation, he believed, and then we’ll tackle voting rights. Yes, King kept the pressure on Johnson to propose voting rights legislation, but Johnson, the political mastermind, knew instinctively that Congress would reject it. As King’s former lieutenant, Andrew Young, recalled earlier this year at the LBJ Presidential Library’s Civil Rights Summit: In December 1964, “President Johnson talked for an hour about why he didn’t have the power to introduce voting rights legislation in 1965. He kept saying, ‘I just don’t have the power. I wish I did.’ When we left, I asked Dr. King, ‘Well, what did you think?’ He said, ‘I think we’ve got to figure out a way to get this president some power.’” That’s exactly what LBJ wanted — and that’s what MLK did. It’s a matter of archival record. A taped phone conversation between Johnson and King on Jan. 15, 1965 — seven weeks before the first Selma march — shows the two spurring each other on. King pointed out that unimpeded access to voting would expand Johnson’s electoral base in the Deep South. Johnson encouraged King to wage a campaign that would expose the worst of voting oppression, creating a moral imperative for the legislation. As LBJ told King: “I think you can contribute a great deal by getting your leaders, and you yourself, [exposing] very simple examples of [voting] discrimination ... and pretty soon, the fellow that didn’t do anything but drive a tractor will say, ‘That’s not right, that’s not fair.’ Then, that’ll help us in what we’re going to shove through [Congress] in the end.” LBJ ultimately used the crisis of Selma to compel reluctant lawmakers to pass the Voting Rights Act, which he signed on Aug. 6, 1965, and considered his greatest legislative triumph. Why does the film’s mischaracterization matter? Because at a time when racial tension is once again high, it does no good to suggest that the president himself stood in the way of King’s efforts on voting rights — even for the sake of a good story. http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/l...grove-selma-is-an-unfair-portrayal-of-lbj.ece All kinds of archival material and links here: http://www.lbjlibrary.org/press/selma-movie
Buck, have you seen the film? To me, it's like that Dallas reviewer and I saw totally different movies. Johnson is clearly working with MLK, suspects creepy J. Edgar, and talks harsh smack to Wallace. That Dallas reviewer seems like he wanted the movie to show Johnson with angel wings or something. Dude was too tough for that. I'm sure the movie ramped up whatever tension MLK and Johnson had, for the good of making a movie. I'm sure it has inaccuracy in that, but this idea that the movie made Johnson out to be unsympathetic or "vainglorious" is really an odd viewing of that film. Weird!
haven't seen the movie but wanted to wish all a happy MLK day I typically don't watch movies due to the extreme bias that writers and directors inject into the stories, but I have read extensively about Dr King and hold him in high regard.
No, I haven't had a chance to see it yet but plan to. "That Dallas reviewer" is the director of the LBJ Presidential Library, btw.
LOLOL. Well, my idiocy notwithstanding, I think his position (basically guarding the legacy of Johnson) makes him a very biased reviewer. Also, a very informed one, clearly. It could be the writers and the director simply didn't want to make it look like Johnson was a major puller of strings. They wanted to emphasize MLK's agency, and the real collaboration would have undercut that narrative a bit.
No doubt he's biased. I just thought it was an interesting op-ed and was curious what those who've seen the movie thought. The other link to the LBJ Library has lots of cool audio and such, check it out if you're inclined.
The director has admitted to eschewing history with lbj because she didn't want to portray a white savior in film. I agree with the reviewer. Films like this unfortunately do more to educate our youth than anything else. In order to empower mlk on film she chose to diminish the white character role in civil rights and further the narrative that white peoples were the enemy that had to be dragged along, forced into being fair.
Pretty stupid thing to say when the truth of MLK's story is just as fascinating as it would be without the liberties she took. The only thing she does is tarnish her own credibility and give the film an unneeded source of controversy.
That's what I dont get. It wouldn't diminish mlk in anyway to portray the reality of lbj. I don't think anyone would decide he was the savior and mlk was just another guy.
Yup. It'd be one thing if she just decided to largely omit LBJ from the film and focus on MLK's role alone. It's another to actively go against the reality of the situation and wrongly portray LBJ. Really just pointless controversy that the director invited onto herself.
So, am I right that most everyone in this thread has read about the movie but not actually *seen* the movie? I agree with the idea y'all are talking about, but I'm not sure it's so egregious on film. Here's a very fair and well-researched counter-point article, both citing historians *and* the fact I'm saying: that the defensive reviews aren't even accurate about what's on film. http://inthesetimes.com/article/17512/selma_criticism In the end, I think people should learn the history to their hearts' content, see a very good film, and judge for themselves. This country is too knee-jerk in every direction on these issues. Bleh.
Obviously reviews are quite positive of the movie and I do want to see it. I'm going to wait to watch this one at home. I've heard many reports of a lot of audience members talking at the movie screen and yelling, which interferes with my enjoyment of the movie.
