At the Movies … Again

Next week marks the sesquicentennial of Francis P. Blair, Sr.,’s trip to Richmond in hopes of reaching an agreement with Jefferson Davis that would lead to a negotiated settlement of the American Civil War. That mission was a key part of the movie Lincoln (2012), which covered the sixteenth president’s role in the congressional passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Everyone recalls the kerfuffle that accompanied the release of that movie concerning its historical accuracy, including the movie’s tendency to privilege Lincoln’s role over that of African Americans in seeking black freedom.

Now we are once more engaged in a dispute over the same dynamic. The movie is Selma (2015), and the kerfuffle involves the portrayal of Lyndon Johnson in the movie as an ambivalent, uneasy, and sometimes untrustworthy ally of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the struggle to secure voting rights for African Americans. Former LBJ aide Joseph Califano immediately jumped to his chief’s defense, claiming that “Selma was LBJ’s idea, he considered the Voting Rights Act his greatest legislative achievement, he viewed King as an essential partner in getting it enacted — and he didn’t use the FBI to disparage him.” The movie’s director, Ava DuVernay, responded to such criticisms on Twitter, declaring that the claim “that Selma was LBJ’s idea is jaw dropping and offensive to SNCC, SCLC and black citizens who made it so.” After all, it was King who devised the march aware that the resistance that white southerners would offer would force the federal government to act. As DuVernay asserted, “Bottom line is folks should interrogate history. Don’t take my word for it or LBJ rep’s word for it. Let it come alive for yourself.”

Other historians entered the fray, which had taken on the appearance of defending LBJ against the movie’s portrayal of him. Some of the criticism became heated, as did DuVernay’s more considered response.

Every filmmaker imbues a movie with their own point of view. The script was the LBJ/King thing, but originally, it was much more slanted to Johnson. I wasn’t interested in making a white-savior movie; I was interested in making a movie centered on the people of Selma. You have to bring in some context for what it was like to live in the racial terrorism that was going on in the deep south at that time. The four little girls have to be there, and then you have to bring in the women. So I started adding women.

This is a dramatization of the events. But what’s important for me as a student of this time in history is to not deify what the president did. Johnson has been hailed as a hero of that time, and he was, but we’re talking about a reluctant hero. He was cajoled and pushed, he was protective of a legacy — he was not doing things out of the goodness of his heart. Does it make it any worse or any better? I don’t think so. History is history and he did do it eventually. But there was some process to it that was important to show.

[We note here for the record that the best that the website “History News Network” could do was to link to other stories appearing elsewhere without commentary, despite its claim that it is the place one should go to get answers to historical questions from experts. Yeah, right.]

And so here we go again. I find the idea that Selma was LBJ’s idea ridiculous. King had used these tactics of non-violent confrontation before, and at best Johnson understood the dynamic of protest-response-reaction to response. Moreover, I think DuVernay’s spot on with how she chose to tell the story from the perspective of the people who did the actual marching … and dying. Indeed, one could read her reference to “a white-savior movie” as directed at Lincoln.

Yet, in the end, the problem remains the same. DuVernay could have played LBJ straight instead of twisting the story to make it appear as if King dragged him, kicking and screaming, into proposing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the references to LBJ’s use of Hoover to spy on King are another needless distortion (the truth of how Hoover used the FBI against King is sordid enough). She could have done so without going to the extremes suggested by Califano, and she could have done so without doing violence to the historical record while keeping true to her commitment to avoid making “a white-savior movie.”

Instead, DuVernay risks embracing the fate of Lincoln screenwriter Tony Kushner, who repeatedly stumbled in response to historians’ criticisms of what took place on the silver screen. In saying that she is “a student of this time in history,” DuVernay opens the door to questions as to whether she’s a good student and made good interpretative choices. Ask Kushner. After all, his flailing efforts to defend his movie’s historical accuracy hardly helped his chances of securing an Oscar, and the controversy opened the way for another historically flawed movie, Argo, to take home the big prize that night. Better, it seems, to ponder the sensible advice offered by in this piece by Ann Hornaday on fact-checking and film.

If DuVernay’s a student of history, she might heed the lessons offered by Kushner’s collapse. This is all the more important because the controversy over LBJ’s portrayal threatens to obscure the real story she wants to tell: how the courageous actions of people in 1965 brought about major change in the interests of justice despite the efforts of others to prevent that change. When you sweat the small stuff, it doesn’t remain small, and the result may detract from one’s real achievement.

5 thoughts on “At the Movies … Again

  1. M.D. Blough January 6, 2015 / 9:16 pm

    I agree, Brooks. The idea that LBJ would have proposed Selma is patently absurd. As it was, there were tensions between King and the younger activists of SNCC over the marches. However, there was nothing reluctant about LBJ’s pushing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the cloture vote on that was VERY narrow) or the Voting Rights Act of 1965. His speech about the latter is one of his most magnificent ones. See Johnson knew that in advocating for and signing the Voting Rights Act, he was signing away the Southern white vote for the Democratic Party for many, many years. Indeed, I’m not sure it will change any in my lifetime and I was a teenager when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law.

    As for Hoover, he needed no one’s direction to go after Dr. King, who he was pathologically obsessed in trying to discredit. He had no interest in going after crimes against civil rights activists. The FBI getting involved in the Goodman, Chaney, Schwerner assassinations was Johnson forcing Hoover, allegedly with threats of political retaliation.

    It doesn’t need to be a white savior movie to treat the role of whites involved in bringing a significant advance in civil rights for blacks honestly. The blood, sweat and tears of the civil rights movement brought about the conditions where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could be passed but it took an administration and leaders of a House and Senate that were the result of LBJ’s landslide 1964 win to have them become the law of the land.

  2. Lyle Smith January 6, 2015 / 9:42 pm

    Well said.

  3. Jimmy Dick January 7, 2015 / 7:11 am

    Another semester of America on Screen II begins Monday. Following my Syllabus Day informational session, my next line is, “No movie will ever be 100% accurate in depicting actual historical events.” In fact, that is a very good essay question for tests in that class. Movies are about telling a story. They are also about telling a story that puts people in the seats so that a financial profit is made for everyone involved in the production, distribution, and showing of the movie from the people that finance them to the people that sell the popcorn.

    Telling an accurate history is secondary or tertiary to the story. I use an example of Tora! Tora! Tora! vs Pearl Harbor to illustrate this point. TTT is pretty accurate, but barely made a profit. It told a very good historical version of what happened. Pearl Harbor on the other hand told a great and riveting story full of inaccuracies that focused on a love triangle set against the historical events that took place. It made a lot of money.

    So with that in mind we then watch movies and compare them against the historical record which is an interesting way to actually study history.

    • M.D. Blough January 8, 2015 / 12:47 am

      I’ve responded to those who criticize the movie “Gettysburg” because it left out a part of the battle or a participant who fascinated them by saying that there is simply no way of covering more than a small part of a complex, three-day battle in a movie, even one long enough to have an intermission. Heck, it could have been long enough to make “Shoah” look like a short subject and still leave a lot out.

      • James F. Epperson January 8, 2015 / 10:22 am

        The new Turing movie (Imitation Game) is a great film to see, but is getting hammered for some of the historical liberties it took.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s