Having watched a long movie on Malcolm X, I decided to check out a movie on Martin Luther King, Jr. since it was much more easily digestible on Netflix. MLK has been one of those American figures put on a big pedestal. He receives praise for his long string of non-violent marches and boycotts, as well as his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech. Being assassinated at a young age (39 in 1968) also gave him the martyr boost ala Abraham Lincoln and JFK. But this doesn’t mean he’s without his detractors and myth-busters.
Selma is certainly
not made by either of those, written as an empowering look at a particular successful
episode in MLK’s life, the march for the right to vote in 1965. In this year,
MLK was able not just to organize his usual supporters, but thousands of
Americans from diverse backgrounds, into a big march from Selma to Montgomery,
both in Alabama. Despite constitutional guarantees in the 14th and
15th Amendments, Blacks had been denied the vote in the Jim Crow
South thanks to various questionable laws and loopholes. The march, and the publicly
broadcast violence on the part of the Alabama authorities, raised further
support for the Voting Rights Act.
Directed by Ava DuVernay, Selma was a hit at the awards shows, with four Golden Globe nominations and a best picture nomination at the Oscars (though curiously with no other nominations outside best song, unusual for a best picture nominee). So imagine my disappointment when I found the movie to be somewhat mediocre. I felt it got obligatory hype just because of the subject matter, since Hollywood loves to praise itself as a progressive institution.
Selma’s not bad, it
just never really gripped me on my viewing and that’s a problem for such a
weighty and inspiring episode of American history. Comparing it to Malcolm X, it’s less interesting in its
techniques, lacks the deep character work on its main protagonist, and just isn’t
too exciting. Regardless, is it faithful to history? Except for one controversial
aspect and some necessary streamlining, it very much is.
MLK (David Oyelowo) poses with his wife Coretta (Carmen Ejogo)
This
is one of those movies that amusingly casts most of its major roles with
non-American actors. Dr. King himself is played well by British David Oyelowo. Oyelowo
worked hard to get the cadence of his speech right, and put on weight to match
the historical figure’s physique. Unfortunately MLK’s speeches are actually
copyrighted, so we don’t actually get his real well-crafted lines. Instead screenwriter David Webb had to write new speeches that said the same thing. Perhaps that’s
why many of the high moments don’t feel right. You’d think that the King estate
would have been willing to allow the real speeches considering the movie’s
positive portrayal.
Personality-wise,
King does come off as an impassioned man with strategic thinking (for example,
actually being happy to have the more thuggish Sheriff Jim Clark in charge of
stopping his attempts to begin the march, because he knows he’ll react
impulsively and violently in front of news cameras). If there’s one criticism
about King’s depiction, it involves his married life.
Carmen
Ejogo plays Coretta Scott King as a woman who is fully committed to her husband’s
cause, but has tensions because of his alleged cheating. DuVernay seemed unable
to decide how to address MLK’s philandering, which has substantial evidence
behind its veracity. Very early on Coretta tells her husband she knows he’s
been committing adultery, but after being given a disgusting audio recording of
one episode (sent by a government agency to sabotage the Selma to Montgomery
March) she seems to completely dismiss it and declares she’ll support her
husband. Thus the movie tries to say that it’s not ignoring MLK’s flaws, but
refuses to actually delve into them. (Here Ejogo acts opposite Oprah Winfrey famous women's and black suffrage activist Amelia Boynton)
Lyndon B. Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) watches unfolding Alabama events on TV with concern.
Another
Brit, Tom Wilkinson, portrays President Lyndon B. Johnson, who as a Texan went
against the usual Southern bias in favor of Jim Crow and worked to advance the Civil
Rights cause (though the genuine nature of his motives is a subject I will not
dive into too much. Let’s just say many believe he saw the writing on the wall
regarding Civil Rights and took advantage to create a reliable Black voter base
for Democrats). At the start he tells MLK he has to put the Voting Rights Act
on hold as his true mission is the War on Poverty. Not only that, but the movie
has him actually working against King by giving assent to anti-Civil Rights
players in the government, including FBI head J. Edgar Hoover (played by Dylan
Baker in just one scene). Historians were miffed by this portrayal, pointing
out that LBJ never did anything to sabotage the Civil Rights movement.
Furthermore, he and King never had any major argument and that the latter
understood the limitations even the President might face in trying to get his
policies through. On the matter of the FBI spying, it was actually the beloved Robert
F. Kennedy who authorized it. Also, the movie fails to present any of his colorful characteristics.
I
will confess I don’t know enough to fully assess the large cast of supporting
players in the March. There were complaints by many of significant allies being
absent, especially when it comes to non-Black participants such as Jews, white
Christians, etc. However, the movie already has its hands full with many
prominent Black activists from several organizations. These organizations were
not all in lock-step, and could have arguments about how to advance their
cause. Selma zeroes in mostly on the tensions between MLK’s national top-down
Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the younger ground-up Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Throwing so many more people in would have
left no room for any character work. I suppose they could have at least had
them show up on screen as small cameos.
The rapper Common was acting around this time. Here he
plays minister and activist James Bevel, who wore overalls
at the time to show solidarity with working-class Black
farmers.
Indeed,
there are a few small cameos that aren’t always necessary. More understandable is
Martin Sheen as Frank Minis Johnson, an Alabama judge who ruled in favor of
equality for Blacks, though this doesn’t really come across because he just
appears for one scene sitting on a couch and talking on a phone. Nigel Thatch
shows up briefly as a post-Mecca (and thus more charitable) Malcolm X. His
appearance in Selma was not a fiction
to cram in another major African-American figure, but an actual event when he
tried to get to a jailed MLK. It’s interesting, but the scene doesn’t really
add much to Selma’s particular focus.
LBJ’s
opposition to the Voting Rights Act is ahistorical, but the hostility of
Alabama Governor George Wallace is not. Tim Roth, yet another Brit, plays him
as your average racially villainous character. Wallace is rightfully seen as the
exemplar of the Jim Crow South of the mid-20th Century, largely due
to his famous speech line “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and
segregation forever.” This line was uttered just two years before segregation
began to fall apart. As for the portrayal of white Southerners, they’re pretty
much typical for this type of movie with little nuance. Outside the cops, who
act brutally (thus causing traumatic moments for many of the black protagonists
while also playing right into MLK’s nonviolent strategy), the ordinary citizens
stand around scowling or throwing out stock racial insults. I wish more movies
came out with some nuance. I guess I haven’t seen the right ones.
Overall,
Selma is a serviceable and fairly
accurate presentation of a defining moment of the Civil Rights Era. It just
doesn’t feel like a best picture nominee because of its underwhelming and not
too engrossing look. I also felt it missed the boat on MLK and LBJ (there are a
lot of three-letter figures from the 60s) despite having top-notch actors.
Maybe it’s just me, but this movie failed to give me the emotional investment
and highs of historical films with similar subjects (see my positive reviews of
Lincoln and Malcolm X).
Rating:
5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment