Mild *SPOILER ALERT* - I saw “Selma” over the weekend and was thoroughly impressed with the film and characterizations. However, I feel like I knew too much about it going in. For instance, I knew going in that the filmmakers didn’t have the rights to MLK’s speeches - Steven Spielberg does - so the speeches given in the film were rhetorical facsimiles. The writers did splendid work, but I couldn’t help but think throughout that the public is being cheated out of King’s original inspirational speeches. And don’t get me into the idea of “rights” to speeches. The other thing I wish I didn’t know going in was that the four lead roles are played by Brits: David Oyelowo as King, Carmen Ejogo as Coretta, Tom Wilkinson as LBJ, Tim Roth as George Wallace. All four are fine actors, and other than Wilkinson’s usually shaky American accent (see: Batman Begins), all acquitted themselves extremely well. Yet, is it a reflection of the American acting scene that all of the supporting roles went to Americans while the lead roles went to Brits? The few African Americans pulling lead dramatic work are limited to Will Smith and Denzel Washington. Younger male lead roles are practically dominated by British talents like Oyelowo, Idris Elba, and Chiwitel Ejiofor, with an occasional appearance by Jamie Foxx. (I fail to understand how Anthony Mackie and Derek Luke arent in these discussions.) Often, an American-run version of a foreign story will have an American in the lead, such as Matt Damon in “Invictus” or Tom Cruise in more than one film set in Japan. Americans got the table turned this time. Ironically, none of the great British actors were nominated for an Oscar. Sometimes it’s simply better not to know how a film is made, better to appreciate it for what it is.
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:03:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015