Selma is right now my favorite movie of 2015. Which isnt saying a lot since the year just started. Just a great film well deserving of an Academy Award for Best Picture Nomination. And I do agree David Oyelowo and Ava DuVernay got snubbed, not because they are black but because they did that damn good of a job. I still think Jake Gyllenhaal deserved to win a Oscar, seriously his performance in Nightcrawler was chilling. However, Oyelowo brought Martin Luther King Jr back to life. As an actor he has my attention. As for DuVerbay, she did her job as a director. She managed to get great performances, and managed to pull emotion from the audience. I think people misinterpret the goal behind historical films. It is to tell a story, usually with a purpose, within a time frame. If you want a historic account of the civil rights movement, pick up a book. This film was constructed to tell the importance of the three marches in Selma, the struggle for blacks to vote, and the importance of Selma to MLK Jr. Did it leave out a few things, or gloss over a few details? Yes. Every single historical film does, it is a movie. But it does an incredible job portraying the real struggle this country had. The violence inflicted on the innocent for standing up for themselves. The ugliness of hatred, and the beauty of standing together. The passion for peace and equal opportunity. As for the LBJ criticism some media outlets have, I think people hero worship politicians a little too much. Are those conversations accurate to every detail, no because stenographers do not follow everybody around. However, LBJ, before becoming president, had a history of opposition to Civil Rights legislation. It was only after he got into office and faced the civil rights movement that he gave in. Does that mean we erase his legacy with the civil rights act? No. He still jumped forward with legislation that many other politicians would of been afraid to move forward with. Legislation that was very aggressive for its time. For a President to push the legislation he did at that time took balls, even if he was hesitant. I think the movie did a great job of portraying him. He had backwards views on a personal level, but even he knew when to step it up. There are times in the movie where his administration shows great concern over Kings well being. Yes he thought of his own legacy first, what politician isnt a prima donna. But I object to the idea, that some media outlets have stated, that he was the main antagonist of the story. MLK Jr and him had some back and forth, but the main antagonist was the southern opposition to the civil rights movement and legislation. At the same time, LBJ isnt the protagonist. Not in the movie, and not in real life. This movie is about the struggle. About a movement for a basic right, the right to have a voice. The only person with a just a complaint is the daughter of Rabbi Heschel, and I am almost positive that was just an oversight on the part of the production. The gathering of marchers in both the second and third marches is very multi-racial with people representing multiple religions. I mean if we want to get technical, the pictures of that march also show King wearing different clothes than he does in the movie. The concept that the movement had supporters outside the black and christian communities is not lost on the movie. But again this movie isnt about patting ourselves on the back, it is about a statement. Go see Selma for the importance of the story. And the message that there is greater strength in peace than violence.
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 05:01:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015