Selma(2014)

I\'m surprised this didn\'t get a topic yet. Guess i\'ll start.

In 1996, I wrote in a preschool project \"I have a dream...to be like Martin Luther King.\" Now in 2015, nearly 20 years later, I see a movie which finally does my vision of King I\'ve had over the years justice. Selma was a great movie. Filmed with all the careful detail and nuances of a documentary, cutting between newsreel footage of the actual Montgomery and Selma Marches, this historical film portrays King as a troubled but kind chessmaster, gambiting on public support and the actions that go on around him to further his goals; granting basic human rights that for so long were denied to the black man. There is also a powerful supporting cast, including a brief appearance of Malcolm X. Carmen Ejogo provides a compelling performance as Coretta Scott King, carefully supporting her husband while balancing her children\'s lives at the same time. I AM SO DISAPPOINTED THIS MOVIE WAS SNUBBED AT THE OSCARS.

Since I have MLK Day off from work, I will most likely be seeing this next Monday.

That last sentence, although understandable, must not lead to simple complaining or bashing. We'll stick to talking about the movie and the characters, not the Oscars' decision (you can talk about that in this year's Oscar thread).

Anyway, how faithful is the movie in regards to historical accuracy?

Understood Quag.

Well they apparently had to rewrite some of Dr. King's speeches due to The King Center legally barring the film from using the actual texts, and LBJ's estate is throwing a fit over the movie.

Why would the King Center stop the use of a speech? Isn't a speech public domain?

If I had to guess I'd say they could either be threatening to sue because the speech (Hypothetically) would be used in a way to denigrate Martin Luther King, or not take any legal action but raise Hell and highwater in the media which would fuck up the movie royally.

The former is unlikely, since the movie is pro-movement, but the latter might be a case of intentional PR and publicity.

They are extremely protective of MLK's image. It's taken this long to get a MLK movie off the ground because no one could ever agree on how to properly portray his infidelity.

On accuracy, from what's been said, it is highly accurate. The one dispute is Lyndon B. Johnson's portrayal. In the movie, he's portrayed as being opposed to the March and tries to hinder MLK and even orders for the FBI to bug him ^note That last part is definitely not true, because it was the Kennedy's who gave that order. In real life, LBJ coordinated with King because he wanted to win the Democrats the Black Vote. How racist LBJ really was and how much influence he had on the creation of the March is another big debate.

I see. The portrayal of LBJ is partly wrong, but kinda sorta understandable.

Now, being protective in regards to an infidelity, especially after so many years... anyway, it shouldn't be difficult to acknowledge that even the greatest leaders in history had flaws.

Regarding the King Center: MLK's descendants did not inherit his moral character. The battle over the right to make as much money as possible from MLK's legacy is documented in this Newsweek article. The absolute nadir of the King estate's selling of MLK was this travesty.

edited 19th Jan '15 2:51:07 PM by Achaemenid

I heard that the speeches were already licensed to Steven Spielberg... Oh, I see that Adblock stops me from reading the Newsweek article.

I'm surprised that there was apparently a kerfluffle about portraying his cheating. It's addressed in the film but it's a very small part of it overall. All it really shows is like a lot of great people he had his demons and personal flaws but that doesn't undo the good he accomplished.

edited 20th Jan '15 2:48:15 PM by comicwriter

King has for a very long time held up an ideal leader. The fact that he cheated was a huge blow for many people who grew up revering him, so it's understandable they'd be upset. Me and my family saw it yesterday and my uncle's only com ain't was that they showed him as a cheater, so this is a thing several generations of people either didn't even know or are unhappy to acknowledge. People may love for their fictional characters to have flaws, but for a real life idol it's seen almost as a severe let-down.

It doesn't help that Wikipedia seems to see-saw on whether he actually cheated or not, the FBI's claims are suspect and they've sealed off their King files for the last several decades, and the websites that seem to delight most in pointing out King's adultery are Neo-Nazi sites.

I saw people on the news complaining about LBG's portrayal but I can't see why. To me, he was shown to be relatively sympathetic. So he asked Hoover to help him put off the march but the film never outright stated Hoover had been ordered by the Johnson to bug King. The movie suggests Johnson specifically ordered Hoover not to destroy King's reputation in the event the Stokley Carmichael or Malcom X types gain more influence. I always thought the biggest point of contention between the two was the war in Vietnam, but this covered events prior to King's active denunciation of it, so I suppose that might be my accuracy complaint but I don't have one.

I did notice the alteration of his lines, but the film did a pretty good job of hiding them, so I probably didn't notice them all and I found it fascinating in that they more or less preserved message when they restated something every time I did notice.

And they found room to highlight other preachers, other clergy, the larger Southern Christian Leadership Council, they got the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee right. I've honestly seen the latter group referred to as black panthers just because a few of them suggested they get guns for protection, which was also addressed in the movie.

As for the cheating, I never saw Dr. King as perfection and don't think people should have the allusion that he was (if King did cheat, so did Presidents Kennedy and FDR, and that doesn't stop people from holding them up as the nation's saviors). I think that line about Jesus being thrown in jail if he operated in King's era summed it up nicely. You don't have to be Jesus to do his work.