January 23

Selma Extra Credit

I hope that you got a chance to see Selma, a moving drama about the events leading up to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the piece of legislation seen as the culmination of the Civil Right Movement (CRM) in the 1960s.

This particular article is written by an historian who thinks the movie is flawed b/c it omits a key scene or the reason behind why King turned back at the Edmund Pettis Bridge days after Bloody Sunday (when the original marchers were attacked and broadcast on TV).  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/02/dr-king-goes-to-hollywood-the-flawed-history-of-selma.html

1. I’d like you to read it and tell me whether or not you agree with the historian and explain why this makes the movie flawed or not flawed.

Pick from TWO of the following:

2. The movie doesn’t try to show King as a hero.  In fact, it shows his flawed marriage with Coretta and his infidelity and how it had affected their lives.  Give your thoughts on the portrayal of the King marriage.

3. The FBI and J. Edgar Hoover director are shown as creepy, invasive, and abusive.  They wiretapped the members of the CRM, they manufactured evidence to show King’s infidelity, and tried to prove that Malcolm X and King were communists.  What are your thoughts on the abuses of power by the FBI and Hoover?

4. Some historians, particularly those who have worked with President Johnson, have criticized the movie for not showing a more sympathetic Johnson (who was shown wanting to work more on his Great Society – War on Poverty and the Vietnam War which went barely mentioned).  Anti-racist activists have criticized a sympathetic Johnson as taking away accolades from King, a black man, and giving more credit to the President, a white man, for a pivotal piece of legislation, the Voting Rights Act.  Which portrayal do you think should have been shown?  Why?

5. Draw some comparisons to Lincoln (the movie) and Selma.  They can be favorable or unfavorable to either or both.  Explain your reasoning for the comparisons (minimum of 2).

 Your responses are worth 10 extra credit points and are due by Friday, February 6.   Response total should be 300 words minimum.  

Tags: , , ,

Posted January 23, 2015 by geoffwickersham in category Blogs

29 thoughts on “Selma Extra Credit

  1. Joey Devine

    As a self-serious kind of pretentious jerk, I like movies. I like judging movies and watching movies and talking about them. When I do this, I like to judge movies by their own merits. A historical movie like Lincoln did attract some controversy about how it portrayed Honest Abe himself, but whether the portrayal was historically accurate or not, it didn’t change that it’s one of the best movies of the 2010’s and the best biopic of a President I’ve ever seen. The film Selma has garnered some controversy of its own. Yeah, the reviews were ecstatic, and rightfully so, but some historians have had tiny little gripes about the accuracy of the story. It may, of course, shrink the audience that would be able to watch and enjoy it. Another example would be 2010’s The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, winner of that year’s Best Picture award. While the film gained critical acclaim, many veterans said that while they recognized the film as being very good, it was difficult for them to watch because the inaccurate portrayals of military life served the piece well, but broke immersion for anybody with military experience. Which is fair. Maybe historians feel that way about Selma. Does this make Selma a bad film, or does it make the film too inaccurate to be watchable? In short, no. In long, nooooooooooooo.

    Gary May, of The Daily Beast, says that tiny inaccuracies made it so that he couldn’t exactly acclaim the film. I could argue that the portrayal of President Johnson is actually very good, showing a stressed man dealing with too many problems, but I won’t. Yet. What I will say is that a lot of the things that May complains about are so tiny that they hardly warrant mention. He personally says that he would like if the interruption of an anti-Nazism film by the Bloody Sunday broadcasts were shown to draw attention to the connections between Nazi discrimination and the discrimination against blacks in America. He also says that he would have made Annie Lee Cooper’s backstory much more fleshed out. I won’t immediately say that he’s a self-serious jerk like me, but these are less of gripes with the movie and more like Gary May is playing director. He describes the Selma that he would have liked to see or make, not the Selma that played in theaters. While I’m cool with him saying that there are historical inaccuracies, the movie is still damn good, no matter what.

    There’s also the issue of King’s portrayal. Specifically, the portrayal of his marriage. Many biopics exist for the purpose of tearing their subject down, showing the dark side of them and how deeply flawed they were. Selma goes another direction. It says that part of what made King such a good leader was his humanity and his flaws. King is shown angering over his wife working with Malcolm X, who previously insulted Dr. King. King also laughs and jokes with his friends while they eat breakfast in a colleagues house. He talks seriously and grows worried when he is in jail with a friend. He riles up crowds in church and expresses his anger and passion for the movement he leads. He’s a human being! And most notably, King is an adulterer. It’s cruel, it’s harsh, it’s not good, and it made me feel genuinely tense. When the FBI anonymously contacts King, calling him a fraud and accusing him (correctly) of infidelity, Coretta confronts Martin, who hesitates a long time before finally telling her that he only loves her and there is nobody else. Their flawed marriage is also made clear in this scene, when Coretta grows stressed and upset about the future of their children. This is one of my favorite parts of the film, showing rational and flawed people struggling in an irrational world that doesn’t treat people like them kindly. Coretta and King struggle to kindle the last embers of hope for their marriage with the future of their kids tossed up in the air, serving as a vivid reminder that Martin is drawing attention from people who are too dangerous for him to counter. (I’m sorry if this sounds too dreary. Fact of the matter is, it’s a really sad part of the movie.)

    Historians also are bothered by the portrayal of Lyndon B Johnson, saying that the man was a good person who had good intentions for the American people. They regard that there is passing mention to his struggle with the war in Vietnam and his War on Poverty, but does not show the amicable relationship between Dr. King and Johnson. To which I say, in the most gentle way possible, be quiet. Movies are written by people with subjective perspectives. This one is about the human side of Dr. King and the Selma protests being orchestrated primarily by black men and women. There are so many movies from the perspective of white people, targeted towards an audience of whites. A portrayal like Selma shows the black men and women as being their own heroes, fighting for what they believe and overcoming the difficulties in the city of Selma. It was directed by a black woman, Ava DuVernay, (Who didn’t get nominated for Best Director. I’m sure the fact that she’s a black woman is completely unrelated.) who wanted to portray it as she did. It’s Dr. King’s movie. It’s made in his memory, with the purpose of showing how great of a man he is. Lyndon Johnson was a good guy, we all know that. Let him take the backseat to this black American hero. It’s about time it happened.

    Historically inaccurate? Maybe, I’m not a history teacher. Flawed? Yeah. But Selma is one for the ages. Good acting, good direction, good screenplay, nothing about this movie stands out as bad. And it couldn’t have come at a better time. Selma is a great movie. A spectacular one. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

    Go. See. Selma.

  2. Caitlin Mc

    I believe the historian is right in some retrospects but he is also asking for too much. It is only a two hour long movie and I feel like he was expecting the director to include the entire happenings during that time and show each person’s detailed backstory. There simply isn’t enough time for all of those things to be included in the film and not have four hour long movie and bore everyone in the theater with all the little details. On the other hand, some important details should have been included to get a better understanding of what went on. Such as, the reason behind why Dr. king turned around during the Tuesday march.

    I was actually confused during the seen when Coretta listens to the FBI tape then asks Martin about it. I felt it was slightly slow or I might have just misunderstood, I did find out he cheated on her until I asked someone later and I was surprised. Before the movie I saw MLK as basically a superhero and I felt showing those aspects of his life in the film helped audience members like myself see Dr. king as a man who is flawed instead of a superhero. I also felt bad for what Coretta king went through, her family constantly being threatened, always worrying about her husband’s safety and his infidelity.

    I think the portrayal shown of President Johnson was good for the film. He was a side character in the film and though he played a pivotal role in the Civil Rights Movement he also isn’t what the film focuses on. It’s about what went on in Selma and not what a great person President Johnson was and what he did for Vietnam and the War on Poverty. It’s true that the President was preoccupied and the film might not have portrayed that as well and almost just showed him resisting to support the Civil Rights Movement.

  3. Grace Sleder

    I do agree with the historian’s view on the movie Selma, that the truth of the days after Bloody Sunday make the movie flawed. The historian says that Martin Luther King Jr. actually had an agreement to kneel on the bridge and turn around and go home to avoid another deadly attack. In my opinion, that scene was a major turning point in the movie, it makes King look like he’s making a decision from outside himself. In the movie, as the protesters turn around to not continue their march it makes them look morally above the soldiers; but in reality King already planned to stop without telling his supporters.

    2. How the movie portrayed the King marriage really intrigued me. I never knew that Dr. King cheated on his wife, it seems to defy all I have learned about him through my life. This movie showed the complexities of King, flaws, and good deeds without painting him as the clear hero which was a change from the norm. Selma shows how the King’s marriage was strained with Dr. King not always being around, Mrs. King handing threats against her family, and Mrs. King’s worries about her children’s safety. It’s sad how Dr. King cheated on his wife, even though in the movie she supported him and single handedly took care of their children.

    5. One element that Lincoln and Selma shared was deception of the public, not only in historical accuracy but in the characters themselves. Both movies have historical inaccuracies for dramatic effect for example In Selma, the days following Bloody Sunday and in Lincoln how Mary Todd Lincoln observed the final amendment tally in the House Gallery. Another similarity the films shared was the element of family. In Lincoln, Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, and Lincoln’s two sons are shown in the movie. In Selma, Martin Luther King’s children and wife, Coretta Scott King, are present. The family in both these movies provides dramatic effect and provides some general idea of what the main characters were dealing with in their lives even though not all the events with them can be exactly proven.

  4. Sam Z

    1. I think some of the movie was factual and interesting and a lot more real than everything I’ve been taught. I disagree with the historian that it is unfactual because of things that were left out. I think it’s impossible to include every event, even if it’s only a three month period. You will never be able to please every historian with a historical movie, it just cannot be done. I also don’t think the movie is unfactual because of tiny inaccuracies (that don’t change the plot) that historians probably score through movies to find. I do, however, think it’s a little misleading how the director didn’t show what really happened during the second march and why, and I’m still a little confused about that. Overall, I think the movie does have flaws, but most all films- especially historical ones- have flaws. I think this movie is the least flawed and most realistic out of other movies of this type.

    2. I think it’s very important that the movie showed the struggles of his marriage and his affairs. When I’ve learned about him in the past he was taught to me as if he was a magical creature why just gave speeches about dreams on glittering pedestals in DC. I had never even thought about his relationship with his wife. In fact, I had never even thought about him having a wife before because I had never thought of him as a normal human being (more of a super being who just did good things for equality). I think the fact that they showed his marriage struggles the way they were made the King seem more like everyone else. He can get scolded by his wife and make very human mistakes just like everyone else. The real showing of their relationship made me see how much his wife was actually a hero as well. She knew this was going on and she probably could have used it against him majorly, but she stayed true to him and still supported him and cared for him. She never even remarried after he died, and that’s very real to me and meaningful.

    5. I think the way Johnson was portrayed was a little bit harsh at times, but then again, I’m not sure how he actually was. I think they could have been a little more sympathetic about all the other major issues the president had to face at the time, instead of mentioning them just to mock them. I feel like they shouldn’t have replaced all his sympathy with blatant racism. That said, I think civil rights (especially for voting) should have been higher up on his list of priorities. If he was like Lincoln, for example, there probably wouldn’t have been a second thought and the bill would have been written and passed right away. Then again, not all presidents are the same and are in the same situations, so its impossible for me to determine what was right and wrong for him to do.

  5. Emily Lulkin

    1. I agree with the historian that the movie is flawed, but I don’t think it was as bad as he was making it out to be. I thought the movie did show how all the other people worked together to help with the movement. From a historian’s point of view, the movie missed a lot of pieces and left out a lot of people. However from a person with limited knowledge on the civil rights movement (like most people who saw the film), it seemed to highlight the other people involved in the movement more than I had ever seen or heard of before. I thought it showed a lot of inside information from King’s team that I never even knew existed.
    3. The abuse of power that the FBI and Hoover used by spying on King and other civil right movements was unfair. It made the playing field uneven because King did not have access to any kind of information like this on the other side. It also brought personal matters into a political battle, which is just unnecessary. It could have taken a much worse turn by people forgetting what the civil rights movement is all about. Luckily, however, King and other people working in the Civil Rights movement worked past it and got to continue with their work.
    4. I think the Johnson shown in the movie was the right way to portray him. Like the historian said in the article, there are not many movies where African Americans are portrayed as the hero in civil rights movements. If the movie had shown Johnson saving the day and putting his reputation on the line to pass the Voting Rights Act, they would have made another movie about a white hero saving the civil rights movement while King does some work on the side. In this version, King was the hero and it really highlights his role as a leader and his influence in politics and the Civil Rights movement.

  6. Allison Lammers

    Selma to me was a worthwhile movie that I really enjoyed. At first I thought it would be mostly focused on politics, but I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that they focused a lot more on MLK’s life in showing that he was a real human being and things at home weren’t always great for him either. It just made me admire him that much more and realize all of the struggles that he went through. In my opinion the history wasn’t flawed. I do though understand where the author of the article is coming from but I believe that they just have a different point of view than that of how the movie was portrayed. As the person who created the movie said, they wanted to show King as more than just speeches and a podium but his flawed life and how he overcame those things. The author doesn’t agree with how Johnson is portrayed as ignoring King and shutting him down about the bill but says that he fails to show how much of a struggle it was to get the voting bill passed. I half agree because we don’t really know went on behind closed doors with Johnson and his people but it also seemed like he didn’t give King a chance.

    I think the way they portrayed the King marriage was accurate and it showed a human side of King. Although the FBI agents in the movie sabotaged it to try to make it look like he was being unfaithful it still showed the struggles within his life. It showed he was human and his life away from politics. Not only did he have to deal with tons of people that disliked him and disagreed with his actions with the civil rights movement, it also showed even at home he wasn’t always liked. Although we were shown in parts of the movie how much love Coretta and King had for each other and that they stuck together through the hard times.

    In my opinion they showed Johnson in the right light. Although some may disagree in thinking he was more sympathetic; he may have been, for this particular movie the way he was portrayed was correct. Within it although other big issues like the War on Poverty were current the movie was about how he wouldn’t allow the Voting Rights Act and just kind of made it seem as though it wasn’t important. Even though riots and violence were happening daily as a result of delaying such an important movement Johnson pushed it aside and said he needed time to think and figure out how it would work.

  7. Cassie D

    1. I disagree with the historian that said that the movie is unfactual because of the parts that were left out. I think it’s nearly impossible to incorporate every single event that occurred during that period of time, there’s just too much information and too many impatient movie-goers. I think the important factual portions of the story were put in, showing the flaws of either side of the time period, and I don’t think much more needed to be said. I do agree with adding the portion about King’s decision to turn back. Walking into this movie I didn’t know there was any reasoning behind why he turned back, I only knew that he did turn back. I think knowing the reasoning behind it would have made that part of the movie easier to understand. When the part where King is trying to explain why he turned back in the church I got confused because I didn’t understand his explanation, and it seemed to just continue on with the story. I think adding that part would have made the overall story more complex and real to viewers, as that time was.

    2. I think this movie did a superb job of showing that King was human. I feel like I’ve always been taught about Martin as a glorified god-like person, and although he is incredible I liked being able to see his flaws and being able to connect with his story more. I never knew about his marriage and his infidelity, so seeing it in the movie seriously shocked me. I’ve always had this image of MLK in my head as this god-like being that had a really rad voice, waved his right hand around during his speeches, and had dreams that came true, but seeing him as a actual like human made me able to connect to the story and really understand that he wasn’t perfect and he made some bad choices, but at the end of the day he still managed to make a difference in the world.

    4. I think Johnson’s portrayal was a bit harsh, but I’m not completely informed about how he actually acted and what he actually said and all that. I know he wasn’t a very likeable person and that he made some faulty decisions, but I feel somewhat sympathetic for his portrayal in the movie. I feel like the movie was set out to show both sides equally, not glorifying either one. I think the movie did a pretty good job at this, but at times it was obvious that they wanted you rooting for MLK – like at the end where all of King’s followers ended up having incredible lives and all the white government officials had moments like “lost his job and failed at all things related to life”. I feel that Johnson just had a different plan for his time in office. I think he wanted to focus on different issues, and although I think his list should have had civil rights way up at #1, I don’t think he was purposely ignoring King but rather wanted to focus on other things. I think that Johnson’s portrayal was relatively accurate, but then again it had people whispering death wishes upon him in the theatre whenever he would come on screen. I think Johnson finally got some courage and did the right thing by passing the bill and owning up to what he had been ignoring.

  8. Skyeler McQ

    Skyeler McQueen
    APUSH
    Wickersham
    February 2nd, 2015
    Selma Blog
    1) Though I agree with the historian that Selma did leave out many important moments during King’s time in Selma, I do not think this makes the movie flawed. One of the repeating messages in the article is that the movie left out many important events and stories, such as the teachers’ protest. I think this was probably left out because of time constraints. Selma was a relatively long movie; if they had included all of the scenes mentioned in the article, Selma would have been longer than The Lord of the Rings. I do think it was odd that the writers/producers left out King’s reasoning for praying on the bridge, but that may have been for timing reasons or because they thought it was irrelevant. I understood what was happening without the deal being mentioned; King said something along the lines of, “I care too much about these people’s lives to march”.
    2) I was very shocked when I watched Selma and discovered about King’s infidelity. I could not believe it! How could a hero, like Martin Luther King Jr., have betrayed his wife like that? His affairs were never mentioned in textbooks or biographies. But so many things aren’t ever mentioned in history. Many men who are portrayed as martyrs were not perfect. Despite their adultery, they still made changes upon the world. An example of such a man would be Thomas Jefferson, one of our nation’s founding fathers. Jefferson had an affair with one of his slaves, resulting in many children. We do not think of T.J. for his affair as much as we think of him for the creation of the declaration of independence. I believe that is how we should remember MLK, not for his faults but for his benefits.
    The portrayal of Martin and Coretta’s relationship made me respect Coretta. Selma showed some of the difficulties, such as dealing with affairs, rude phone calls, and the fear of being widowed. Coretta remained tough despite these terrible circumstances. She knew that they had to remain a united front for the media, to protect the movement. Coretta King was strong. Though I was disappointed to learn about King’s infidelity, I was glad the movie portrayed the truth.
    3) I was not surprised at all by the actions of the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover in Selma. I had read a book once about the early FBI and their appalling methods, which almost remind of today’s NSA. The NSA can record our phone calls and read our text messages similar to how the FBI wiretapped members of the CRM and helped create evidence on Martin Luther King Jr.’s affairs. I thought it was so interesting that the FBI would tape MLK’s clandestine activities. I agree that Coretta had a right to know, but I do not think that sending a message with a sound recording of it to Mrs. King was effective. I think that was rude and pitiful; the Federal Bureau of Investigations should be above that.

  9. laura maclean

    1) I think the movie Selma for the most part was very interesting. I disagree with this historian because he claims that the move was unfactual because of tiny things that were left out. It is impossible to have every detail of his life in this movie. I mean it was long enough with out these little things. The major things were kept. No historical movie can be 100% accurate. This movie is made for people that may not know much about the civil right movement. And the movie does a good job of showing the big picture. If your an expert that already knows everything than of course you are going to be disappointed.

    2) I was very shocked to find out that King cheated on his wife. But I am very glad the movie showed it. It reminds us that king is a flawed person and that he had his own personal issues while he was leading the entire civil rights movement. It shows what his wife had to do through while her husband wasn’t at home and all the worrying she had to do for her family’s safety. It highlights her strength as long as his. The movie shows a whole other story that is rarely told and that is both shocking and interesting.

    3) J. Edgar and the FBI’s actions did not surprise me very much at all. But it was very much abusive it gave the government a huge advantage. It also hurt a family and almost ruined it. The FBI was gathering unnecessary information that had little to do with civil rights movement. It was impressive and somewhat satisfying that these low blows by he FBI didn’t affect the civil rights movement in a way that would have stopped it King was focused on the big picture.

  10. Paige Baccanari

    Selma to me was an amazing movie that I really enjoyed. At first I thought it would be mostly focused on politics, just like Lincoln was, but I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that they focused a lot more on MLK’s life in showing that he was a real human being and things at home weren’t always great for him either. The movie made me look up to him even more, because not all of his life was easy like I’m his home he would fight with his wife, but he got through it and it made me admire him even more. Not everyone will view the movie in the same exact way, that’s why I think that the writer of the article say the movie in a different light. As the person who created the movie said, they wanted to show King as more than just speeches and a podium but his flawed life and how he overcame those things. The author doesn’t agree with how Johnson is portrayed as ignoring King and shutting him down about the bill but says that he fails to show how much of a struggle it was to get the voting bill passed. You could argue it because Johnson tries to put king in the best light possible but no one will know what they did behind the senses to figure out how to show the king.

    I think the way they portrayed the marriage of king like he was areal person and didn’t only be a robot trimg to get black equality.Although the FBI agents in the movie sabotaged it to try to make it look like he was being unfaithful it still showed the struggles within his life. It showed he was human and his life away from politics. Not only did he deal with people hating him but he also drakes with people trimg to ruin what he works so hard to do and people who would do anything to ruin his life. Although we were shown in parts of the movie how much love Coretta and King had for each other and that they stuck together through the hard times.

    In my opinion they showed Johnson in the right light. Within it although other big issues like the War on Poverty were current the movie was about how he wouldn’t allow the Voting Rights Act and just kind of made it seem as though it wasn’t important. Even though riots and violence were happening daily as a result of delaying such an important movement Johnson pushed it aside and said he needed time to think and figure out how it would work.

  11. Vickie L

    I agree with the historian that the movie was flawed because it was lacking many of the points that the historian had stated in the article. Such as, the fact that those around Mr. Martin Luther King were not emphasized as crucially needed. In the movie, you could only sense that the other characters were just supporting Mr. Martin Luther King and were not given as much screen time. The director explained to the viewers that the movie, Selma, was about events from “January through March 1965, that gave birth to the Voting Rights Act,” not Martin Luther King. However, the director still expressed the actions of Martin Luther King importance in the film and didn’t pay more attention to others who were included in the film like President Johnson. The director’s use of Martin’s faults both personally and politically was well done but I believe there was too much time spent on exploring these faults when it should’ve added the extra time to more facts about Selma and the Civil Right Movement. It was a captivating film that pleased viewers rather than the actual history behind the story of Selma.
    ( I chose 2 and 3)
    Martin Luther King’s marriage was very similar to modern close-to divorcing couples of today. Martin’s participation in his family was not as valued as more dedicated fathers. Martin Luther King made many mistakes as a husband of a big family. His wife, Coretta, was a woman who had to get use to the feeling with a husband not always with the family because of his preaching and motivational speeches. Summing up Martin’s mistakes as husband, the main ones were his cheating with other women and his time away from his family. He forgot the value of a family that he can come home to while being with other women. He didn’t invest enough time for his family and this lead to his flawed marriage. His wife was a very patient woman and should’ve expected more from her husband. In the end, Martin Luther King expresses his deep regret to his behavior for cheating. This behavior made me lose some respect for Martin after watching the film and I bet others during the time did too.
    It gave Martin a less mighty and faulted outlook on his life despite his inspiring actions.
    The FBI and Hoover’s use of their power to get people to question if Martin was really a good man at heart was abusive and not necessary because not only did it hurt Martin’s marriage but also shows the loopholes of our government. The FBI and Hoover should never interfere with personal affairs of any person unless it is reasonable. I believe that the FBI and Hoover’s excuses for doing these actions should not be taken easily and there needs to be a strong protective system that can prevent these types of things from happening. The FBI and Hoover made their actions based on their opinions not the nation’s opinion. They were releasing information that supported their personal benefit. I will only let this slide if the FBI had reasonable reasons to do so and were not harming others for their own opinion.

  12. Ellie Chapman

    I agree with some aspects of what the historian says about Selma, but I also disagree with some of the things that the historian says. I think one of the good things about the movie is that it shows us some of the stuff that was left out when we we learn about the time period, like the violence of the time period. I disagree with the historian where they say that the movie does not stick to the facts, just because the director left some parts out. I think it isn’t possible for a director to include every event in a historically based movie, even if it’s in a short three month period. I think that any review from a historian is going to be different, because of the historians beliefs and biases. I also don’t think that just because of small additions or extractions to the movies plot line should penalize the director, seeing that many critics thrive off of finding these little wrongs in movies. I do, however, agree with the historian about the confusion of “turn around Tuesday” during the second march. I think it’s a little misleading to viewers how the director didn’t show what really happened and all of the behind the scenes stuff that occurred with King, Wallace, and Clark. Overall, I think the movie has a few flaws here and there, but lot of films, especially historical ones which have many little details that have to be included, have flaws. I think that the director overall does a good job of informing viewers of the event and of Kings life.

    I think this movie does a really good job of showing that King was human, with insecurities just like anyone else. I think that since I was little, teachers, movies, books, and T.V. shows have portrayed a glorified version of King. While king achieved major accomplishments in his lifetime, and reached many of his goals, I liked being able to see his less perfect side. I had never been taught about his marriage or really much about his personal life, so seeing the behind the scenes parts of his life was very interesting. Seeing Selma made me connect to a deeper level with King. Knowing that King himself also had personal issues that he fought through makes his story even more interesting, and easier to connect to.

    I think that the way the Johnson was shown in the movie was the correct way to portray him. Like the historian said in the article, “The real heroes were the African Americans who risked everything—their jobs, their homes, and often their lives in their struggle for freedom.” I agree with the article author in saying that there aren’t a lot of times in history where white men aren’t portrayed as the hero, and Selma does a good job of showing blacks as the hero. If the movie had shown Johnson as the man who saved the day, the movie wouldn’t have been as much about King and his doings, but more about the “typical white man” and his roles. In the movie, it shows that King was the hero and it really highlights him as the main leader and influence of the time.

  13. Caty H

    Even though the movie was titled “Selma” it was really a depiction of Martin Luther King Jr. and the three months he spent at Selma. I believe this because the character who was seen the most during the movie was in fact Martin Luther King Jr. All of the other characters seemed to play a supporting role. Clearly the key moment in the movie was the second march on the Edmund Pettis Bridge, when King marched halfway and then stopped to pray and then turned around. If what the article said was true about King’s motive for turning around, then yes the movie is flawed, greatly. The movie depicted “Turn around Tuesday” falsely according to the article, changing it from a documentary to fiction. In the movie King in ending the second march claimed to his followers he did not know why he did that. But, according to the article the act was an action that was negotiated previously with Dr. King and the authorities. President Johnson had made a deal with Wallace and Clark allowing King and his followers to stop and pray midway. If they turned around they would be free from another attack like “Bloody Sunday.” Why would the director, or screen writer, leave out such an important aspect to the history of that moment, especially because that march on the Edmund Pettis Bridge was such a key factor in the movie. In fact, it was THE key factor in the movie in my mind. I thought the portrayal of the King’s marriage was very humanizing. I think the movie tried to take away from Dr. King’s holier than thou status by portraying his infidelity. Instead of taking away from his status, it actually improved it. By portraying him as a man with flaws who was still able to do so much played in his favor. Showing his infidelity made him more of a normal person; someone with fault, that was much more of a person that one could relate to. I think that the abuse of power portrayed by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI made Hoover and the FBI seem desperate. And when someone is desperate, they are afraid; afraid of the power and sway Dr. King seemed to have on people. If Hoover had spent more time being the director of the FBI, doing the business of the FBI, instead of trying to destroy Dr. King and his peaceful and non-violent protest, he would have done greater things as the director. King and his followers were able to overcome many of the obstacles that were thrown at them by the FBI, which made them look even better in the public eye. In other words Hoover made King look better.

  14. Olivier Rochaix

    I agree with the historian that the movie was flawed in its representation of the events that occurred in Selma. I did not have much knowledge about the events before going to the movies, but I do know that by editing out some of the less interesting parts, they are hurting the film. The film is hurt because it means that we miss vital information that tells us why things happened. Knowing what happened is not, and should not be the goal of historical entertainment. I believe that it far more important to know the cause of events and how the events effected its surroundings than the actual event himself.
    My thoughts on the movie’s portrayal of King’s marriage is that it was an important point to touch on. While it degrades King’s image to an extent, it also humanizes him, and makes him a much more realistic personality. I believe it helped the movie in that it exemplified the fact that Martin L. King did make mistakes, and it sets us up for the representation of Turn Around Tuesday, which was one of his bigger mistakes. Coretta’s constant worrying gives insight on the how life was for the preacher, showing how similar his life was to common people.
    I believe that President Johnson’s portrayal should be best kept as it is. This is because this story mainly follows Martin L. King, and his relationship with Johnson wasn’t the best it could be. I believe that that is accurately portrayed, as the only scenes in which he seemed temperamental were when he was in the same room as King. I’m sure Johnson was a great person, but I do not believe that he could be portrayed as patient and kind when he was talking to King, who he did not like.

  15. Nate Higley

    1.) I do agree with the historian about the movie Selma, the truth and what actually happened on the days after Bloody Sunday make a flawed movie. The historian said that Martin Luther King Jr. had made an agreement to take a knee on the bridge and turn 180 degrees to go home to avoid letting his people get attacked viscously again. I believed that, that particular scene in the movie was an actual turning point, it made Martin Luther King Jr. look like he was making a choice from outside himself. In the film, as all the protesters turn around, ending their march, it makes them look better then soldiers; but what they didn’t know was that King already had planned about stopping without telling all of his followers and supporters, so no one would interfere with his plan.

    2.) The way the movie portrayed the King marriage was quite interesting. Learning that Dr. king cheated on his wife was a big surprise to me, that made me look at him more carefully. I thought that the movie did a good job by showing the complications of King, like his mistakes, and good doings without it making him look as if he was a super hero. I thought that made the movie better because it was different and you don’t see that a lot, so it stood out. This movie portrayed how the King’s marriage was difficult with King not being there all the time. Mrs. King’s and her worries about her children and there safety, especially because of all the threats Mrs. King had to deal with. I was disappointed in Dr. King for cheating on his wife like that, especially because she did so much for him and supported him even though they didn’t see each other much. Although he cheated on his wife, I still think that what he did for the Civil Rights Movement was amazing.

    5.) I thought both movies portrayed family. In Selma, Martin Luther King’s house family is shown in the movie concluding of his children and wife, Coretta. In Lincoln, the movie shows Lincoln’s two sons and Mary Todd Lincoln. Showing the families in the movies in my opinion provided dramatic effect and shows that those two guys, Lincoln and King had other thing to worry about then just what they wanted to accomplish, i thought it showed that its hard to raise a family and be a strong leader and shows sometimes a sacrifice might have to be made in a really tough situation.
    Another element that Selma and Lincoln both possessed was public deceit, in accuracy of the history and in the characters themselves. There were historical inaccuracies in both movies that i think were used to show dramatic effect like in Lincoln how Mary Todd Lincoln observed the final amendment tally, in the House Gallery. A historical inaccuracy in Selma were the days that followed Bloody Sunday.

  16. Maya R

    1.I agree with the historian when he said that the movie was flawed. The historian really didn’t like how the director did this film. I do not think the movie was as flawed as he made it out to seem. In any historical movie there is no possible way to include every event that happened. When a historian sees a movie like this they are going to be very critical. When an event that they thought was very important isn’t included its going to bother them a lot more. From my perspective a person not knowing very much I thought that the movie was done very well. I knew what Martin Luther King Jr. did but I didn’t know the steps he took to get what he was fighting for. I saw that lots of people were involved as well. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his speeches and empowered people and we knew that but it showed how involved the people were and thats not something we are always taught.
    2.We only hear and see King as a hero, I thought it was very important that it showed him as a flawed man. Everyone has struggles and nobody is perfect, and its important to show someone like him have those struggles as well. Finding out that he cheated on his wife was something I never expected to learn. Mrs. King had a lot going on in her life from the constant threats from people and being a parent with her husband gone all the time. She was only ever supportive to King. After everything she did for him and finding out he cheated on her was very shocking.
    5. I believe that the movie showed President Johnson in the right way. Johnson obviously had more going on then just the Voting Right Act. I felt that was trying to do his best for the country. At times I didn’t think he was making the right choices but seeing how people reacted to the African-Americans he was just trying to control it. In the article the historian talks about how Selma showed an African-American as a hero and during this time period that was rare. If they showed Johnson being all easy and a hero then it would have defeated the purpose of this movie.

  17. Sydney B

    1. I both agree and disagree with this historian because in the movie when the marchers first marched through the streets and onto the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, it was a huge deal. The troopers were brutally attacking as many people as they could get to from the marchers. Although this was a huge deal, in real life the reports weren’t actually showed to the public until hours after the actual occurrence, but in the move it was shown as live news. I don’t think that this makes as large of an impact on the movie overall, however I definitely believe that the reason behind why Martin Luther King turned back at the bridge on ‘Turn Around Tuesday’ would have been very useful information. I know that when I was seeing the movie, I was one of the confused viewers on why he turned back and I feel that that information should have been elaborated on. In actuality, King made an arrangement with Johnson that he could march with his people and kneel down to pray, but if they returned to where they came from there wouldn’t be a second attack on them. I think that if I had known this information it could have cleared up that part of the movie which is why I agree with the historian in this aspect.

    2. I think that Martin Luther King’s and Coretta King’s marriage was portrayed very well throughout the movie even through the hard struggles of their marriage. In the beginning of the movie, Coretta’s and Martin’s marriage seemed pretty normal given the circumstances of the two of them and their family. However, when Martin and Coretta were in the kitchen listening to the recording on the phone about Martin’s affair, it shows their relationship as dysfunctional and not perfect as one would have thought it would have been. Although their marriage seemed dysfunctional throughout the duration of the movie, at the end when Martin and Coretta were holding hand marching over the bridge for the final time you can see that even through everything, they could still make their marriage work.

    4. I think that President Johnson was not shown as being given all the credit or being given the honor of the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Although President Johnson showed sympathy to the black’s cases and what they were fighting for, in the end I thought that Martin Luther King was given the majority of the credit and honor even though he was black. Also, when Martin would go to Johnson’s office to talk Johnson didn’t always fully support and agree with every decision that Martin was making or thinking about making. Therefore, I believe that Johnson was not portrayed in the movie as receiving all of the honor for the success of the Civil Rights Movement and that even though he was white and Martin was black, Martin got the credit for the Voting Rights Act (hence the reason that he gave the final speech at the end of the march for the Voting Rights Act.

  18. Daniel A

    1. I agree with the historian and I believe that the movie Selma is flawed in both major and minor ways. Many of the minor flaws in the movie have to do with missing content. The director said that her focus was on the civil rights movement that occurred within Selma and that the movement was going to be what got the most screen time. However this didn’t turn out to be the case. The movie seemed to be more focused on the work of Mr. King with the movement than the movement as a whole. While this would’ve been nice to have in order to give a fuller picture of the events that occurred in Selma, the extra information wasn’t really vital for the plot of the film. The inaccuracies with “Turn Around Tuesday” are another matter. The fact that they didn’t show what really went down with King in the days leading in to this creates an illusion that there had been some kind of divine influence or moment of clarity, when in reality it had been a careful set-up to give the illusion of one of those things. It is due to these reasons that I agree with the historian.
    2. I found the portrayal of King and Coretta’s relationship to be one of the best renditions of a marriage I’ve ever seen in film. It showed how the two of them weren’t a perfect couple that always got along and were happy all of the time; but rather as a couple that had a strong love for one another which could overcome the road bumps that life presented them with. The movie shows us that King wasn’t some kind of flawless hero from fiction, but rather just a man from the pages of history. He had his fair share of flaws and had to overcome them to do what he did, but I feel that he could’ve been portrayed a bit better. Going back to the last paragraph, it never showed the underhanded things that he did when he was a leader, so we only get a glimpse of the troubled and triumphant King and not the low and deceitful King.
    5. Both Selma and Lincoln were historical movies that broke the norm and they share a few things in common. First is how they portray the marriages of their respective protagonists. In both movies we can see that life at home wasn’t smooth sailing. This trouble at home served to display the flaws and true nature of the characters; it made them feel more human. The movies also have a few differences. One of the most notable is how they handle the darker side of each of their protagonists. While King is portrayed to be a mostly good person who overcomes the challenges that come his way, Lincoln is very clearly willing to do some underhanded things to get the 13th Amendment passed as soon as possible. Overall the films are similar even though they both deviate from the standard “biopic” formula and I think that they are both worth watching at least once.

  19. Lexie Seidel

    Selma Extra Credit
    1. I agree with the Author when he argues what details and stories were left untold from the movie, but I don’t agree with him when he says that this was a major flaw in the movie. Based on my watching experience, Selma made me understand on a graphic level, how truly horrific this time period was. I was given a good enough plot line to understand what was going on and how these people were treated without some of the details mentioned by the author. The movie was very well done and very interesting, and though it did not include every detail and every story, I don’t believe that it was flawed.
    2. I think the portrayal of King was very good, it made him seem very human and not as much of a “god-like” hero, like I’ve been taught before. One of the major aspects of the movie that made King more human was his relationship with his wife. In my opinion, the way that King was portrayed pulled me more into the movie. I was never taught or learned that King had cheated on his wife or that or that his marriage was being strained at all. All of these little details of his personal life showed how much he really had to go through to do what he did and I think that was one of the best things about the movie.
    5. One element that Lincoln and Selma had in common, which I liked, was how they portrayed Lincoln and Dr. King. Both movies made them seem more human and less of this amazing person that “never did anything wrong and only did good deeds for everybody.” One way both of these people were humanized in the movies was by showing the troubles in the marriages, families, and decision making. An element that I didn’t like in both movies was some of the inaccuracy of how the characters were played for dramatic effect and some of the events that happened. In Lincoln, there was an inaccuracy of how Mary Todd observed the final amendment tally. In Selma, the events that followed Bloody Sunday were inaccurate as well.

  20. Emma S.

    1) After reading the historians article on their point of view of Selma, I see they have made some interesting points on their disappointment in the film but I still don’t think the film had any major flaws. For one, I am no historian, but the parts the historian claimed were left out I feel were just nit picky little individual details. The parts that were included, I felt established the point very well and if these little details were included I feel it would take away from the quality of the film. It was already around a two hour film and in my opinion I thought it did a great job in showing me a side of the movement I had never seen before.
    2) I think it was smart to include the flaws of the king marriage in the film, but I don’t believed it was emphasized enough. Through out the film there was apparent tension between King and Coretta, which was expected at least to me, someone who did not know most of these behind the scenes details. Powerful figures in the world have to deal with endless stress, which wears on the entire family especially if they are getting death threats everyday. This takes a toll on the entire dynamic. Though this was obvious to me, the possibility that he could have cheated in her never crossed my mind until she confronted him about it. I think this story could have been developed a bit more and it would really add to the entire film.
    4) In the film, President Johnson is portrayed as mostly unsympathetic to King. He denies many of Kings requests by avoiding the real problem and telling him he will deal with it later. King and his followers are outraged by this because it is something that had been swept under the rug for too long and it a major problem that cannot be denied any longer. I believe that this portrayal was a good choice because many people (as the article mentions) have taken history to hollywood and ruined it by making the white man the hero. People were very passionate in preventing it, so the directors went the other way. Although this may not have been the only side of Johnson, it is a movie, and for its purposes I believe showing his unsympathetic side was a good choice.

  21. Jilly W

    I agree with the historians view on that Selma is flawed because the days after Bloody Sunday were not portrayed accurately, but I also feel he exaggerated on these flaws. If the common person were to go see this movie they probably would never notice the events that were left out, they would focus and drama that was being played for them. However, when someone with prior knowledge of the events that took place during the Civil Rights movement, then they probably noticed that the movie had some gaps and missing pieces. I feel that the main purpose of the movie was for people to understand what it was like for black people during the movement, not to show them an exact timeline of the period.
    2) I was extremely surprised to see that King cheated on his wife. The reason I was so shocked was because as Americans today, most of us, put King on a pedestal, and for the work he did on our country, we don’t focus on his life at home. Although I was shocked to find the he cheated on his wife, it kind of helped me to see him as a human, not just an American hero as many see him today. After grasping his flaws, I realized that learning these things about him made me more interested in the movie and in King himself.
    4) I think Johnson’s portrayal, although it may not have been accurate, was good for the film. I believe this because even though he may have been a some-what, important figure for the Civil Rights movement, he also wasn’t what the movie was about. The movie was about Selma and the problems the people were facing there. It was also about King and the problems he faced, both at home and in the real world. Johnson was a minor character who may have had other stuff on his plate, but none of that was important to the plot of the film.

  22. Mallory S

    1)Although there were a few “flaws” in the movie Selma, that they author pointed out, I do believe the movie was mostly factual. The movie was based on the three months leading up to the signing of the Voting Rights Act and could not include every confrontation between King and his followers, with the law. I thought the part in the movie when King took his followers onto the bridge and knelt down for prayer, then turned around without explaining why they were leaving quite odd. In the article is was explained that it was an agreement with Wallace and Clark was the real reason they left the bridge. But, was not mentioned in the movie. Also, another flaw was that the news networks broke into regularly scheduled programs as the exact moment of the attacks on the bridge in the movie but, in fact was delayed several hours. This was probably due to the fact that there time constraints and movie goers want to see action throughout the movie.
    2)I did not know about his infidelity until I watched the movie. Since the movie wasn’t meant to portray King as a hero, i think that it was good that the put that into the movie. Although we like to see King be put on a pedestal, he is in fact human and we all make mistakes. The movie did not go into great detail about day to day life of his marriage, whether they argued all of the time or they got along for the most part. What he did for the African American people should not be taken away because of his marital problems. Knowing this does not affect the way i see him as a person, and i still completely respect everything he did for our country.
    3) I do not agree with the FBI tracking every move that King made. The FBI thought that King was tied to criminal activity and wanted to find out his plans. It should have been against the law to have wiretapped his phone and his house. It is similar to the practices of the FBI and the CIA today with tracking information for terrorist suspects. The actions had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement. Its an invasion of peoples privacy.

  23. Sophie Erlich

    1. I disagree with the author of the article for many reasons. I believe that it is very hard to portray any time period in history in two hours or so. Although, it was only two months the director captured all the main bases and many details. I thought how the marches were portrayed proved a point. Although the turn around was inaccurate it got the point across. Not everyone is a historian and many people learn visually. Many people are very uneducated about the story in Selma and the director gave them a great basis of the story. The author of this article talks a lot about how the movie portrays Dr. King. He says that showing his struggles romantisizes him even more. I think that the director did a great job proving Dr. King’s humanity. The rocky relationships he had with his family really proved his flaudness. Over all I think the director did a great job portraying Selma. The author of this article seems to be a strict historian and wanting all the facts is logical, but not very possible to do in two hours, no matter how short the time period. I believe the director did a great job with the time and events that he had to work with.
    2. I think that the relationship between Dr. King and Coretta is a key component of the movie. This is the first film (at least that I’ve seen) that shows Lincolns weakness. I think the showing of this relationship humanizes Lincoln a little. Lincoln is always shown as this amazing big hero. However, he is human and had flaws. He did do amazing things for this country, but he shouldn’t be portrayed as supernatural. I thought it was the perfect way to bring the story full circle and to show every single aspect of Dr. Kings life

    4. I think a more sympathetic Johnson should have been shown. He came off as very mean and contradictory. He always talked about how he wanted to help, but never did it with his power and told King that he had to make the first step. He was portrayed well in the way that he knew what he wanted and he had ideas, but he didn’t show any sympathy and came off as an insane racist hypocryt. He may have been like this, but in history he is shown to be a little nicer, and the movie makes him out to be the bad guy, which was not always true. It was just a little too harsh for his history.

  24. Sloan K

    1) I agree with the historian in saying the movie was flawed, but I think that the directors did what they did to the facts in order to make the movie more appealing to people who may not be totally into the whole history thing. The movie is flawed because of important details that were left out of changed to fit the story line. For example, the historian said that the movie put emphasis on the white characters to make the movie more appealing to the white audience. He said that we see our heroes as the white people, so in order for the movie to be made in was kind of necessary for the heroes in the movie to be white. This shows the flaws in the movie, though they didn’t blatantly change facts and lie about what happened, they did stretch the truth. Even though there were flaws in the movie, there was one thing that stood out as true and was portrayed in a new way for a movie. King’s marriage was realistically portrayed which usually doesn’t happen in movies about King’s life. Another reason why the movie is flawed is that Johnson’s role was downplayed in the movie. He actually worked very hard to get the bills passed that he did and his portrayal in the movie made him look sort of like an roadblock in the civil rights movement even though he was very helpful. If the viewers of the movie don’t know very much about civil rights movement, then they will believe what the movie was showing and end up being biased in the information they attained. So even though there were flaws with the movie, the director did what she had to do to make the movie appealing to everyone, and if she hadn’t stretched some facts like she did, the movie might not have been as popular.
    2) I think that the showing of King’s marriage helped put into perspective that King was still a human and reminded everyone that he makes mistakes just like the rest of the people. Many people view King as some sort of hero who could do no wrong and only look to the good things he did, but what many people don’t realize is that not everything he did was hero like. The portrayal of his marriage also makes the movie for relatable to the viewer, not because he cheated, but because it shows that even the greatest people make mistakes and it’s not the end of the world, but people must learn from them. He made mistakes, including the infidelity in his marriage, but it also shows that even the best people make mistakes and no one is perfect.
    3) Though the movie might not have shown President Johnson as extremely sympathetic, the movie wasn’t about President Johnson, it was about Martin Luther King Jr. and the fight against racism and oppression. So of course the portrayal will be more towards the not as sympathetic Johnson, because the movie focused on the struggle of the blacks. I agree with the portrayal that was shown because the movie was supposed to focus on King and what he was accomplishing. If the movie was about Johnson then yeah he should be portrayed as more sympathetic, but that would be because the focus would be on him. But in the instance the focus was rightfully on King and focusing more on Johnson would only take away from King’s success story, even though Johnson was very helpful in getting the bills passed.

  25. James Voss

    The first think I’ll have to say is that the movie Selma was a great movie. This was one of those types of movies read the audience remember what people went through for their rights. Starting off with number one I’ll have to say that I don’t believe that people should change and fictionalized parts on a movie for the audience. I will be in the audience does need something to look at that’s exciting and motivating but when you change at fictionalized certain parts of the movie they can be stereotyped or bias towards a different audience. Somebody senses such as whites or blacks should be offended or kid like that certain fictionalized part. I believe that this fictionalized parts not only ate a bias liking to white audiences but it change the characteristic of Martin Luther King himself. Although they fictionalized certain parts and characteristics about Martin Luther King Junior probably will still great movie. Onto the number two, I think that their marriage the struggle they went through showed help the blacks prevailed and they stuck to what they believed in for the better rights of the race. I believe that marriage was a simple of the determination, motivation, and struggle. They showed the world thaanything to their marriage. Fants separated they wouldn’t show me the whites blacks that they were week and I could not get through the struggle but then show them that they had to stay together or in order to get the 14th amendment pass which was the right to vote for blacks. I don’t believe all slot because of the mirror and or the true characteristic a present chance. Show that the audience had something to relate to or something to have excitement about but if it were true facts and they were twisting the fax around then I believe you will be a injustice to show that on the movie screen.

  26. Jack McCaff

    1. I agree with the author and I believe the movie is flawed. As stated in the article many things that happened in the past are left out or changed in the movie. In the article he talked about how Oprah Winfrey’s character Annie Lee Cooper was not presented properly. At the beginning of the movie they show her registering to vote but what they didn’t show was that after doing so she was fired from her job as a nurse. Later in the movie we see her in a nurses outfit carrying a patient. On another note, the author stated that Selma was in fact centered on president Lyndon Johnson but the movie was centered on MLK. Small details like these portray how true facts were ignored in the movie in order to present the characters in a more Hollywood style.

    2. I believe the King marriage showed the flaws that Martin had. In the movie they told us about Martin cheating on his wife. All of us see him as this unflawed hero who incredibly influenced the civil rights movement, but when he is shown in depth with his marriage we see some of the not so great things that he did. In addition the movie showed how much faith Martins wife had in him to stick with him even when he committed adultery. Although they both struggled they stuck with each other through the entire situation. This showed they they still had a close marriage even though Martin did such a horrible thing.

    3. I found it to be inappropriate how the FBI was abusing their power. As professionals they are suppose to be unbiased. The fact that they used their power to show Martins infidelity is insane. However, I was not surprised to found out that this had occurred. The FBI and Edgar J. Hoover were incredibly racist and wanted to stop Martin in his tracks. They wanted to do anything they could do in order to stop this incredibly influential man. Although I disagree with the actions that the FBI an Edgar J. Hoover had, showing that they occurred did not surprise me in the slightest because of the time they were in.

  27. Isaiah J

    1. I agree with the historian to an extent. Yes maybe there could have been some things that deserved more justice or people that deserved more screen time, but I don’t necessarily think that makes the movie flawed. In my opinion, if you tried to fit every little detail in this movie, it either would have turned out getting too off topic or becoming too boring, long, or crammed. It is a movie not a textbook, it already did a well enough job expanding beyond King’s speeches and really showing us all of his adversities as well as his allies. I think that this historian may be taking things a tad too far. You can’t treat Hollywood movies like high school lectures. Their goal is more to be entertaining than perfectly and completely accurate. AT least they gave nods to things like the woman being a nurse. They could’ve not even included that in the movie. The movie did a good job staying on topic to me. This historian is wrong. The movie didn’t make me think of King as any more of some great hero just because of him overcoming his problems. I saw him as a normal person just trying to achieve what his race deserved.
    2. As I said in my first response, I admire this movie for showing King as a person and not as an icon. They showed that even he was far from perfect with his wife questioning him about adultery, and him making decisions that included his kind being brutalized. As far as his marriage, I enjoy that they didn’t make them some perfect family, as they story would have been less believable. They showed them struggling. A good scene was how King snapped on his wife for talking to Malcolm X, even when she tried to convince him Malcolm had changed. It showed that everything going on around them was just that close to tearing them apart.
    3. The way Johnson was portrayed, even if it wasn’t accurate, made the movie more believable and entertaining for me. I would have been bored if they showed the president too sympathetic and willing to help King whenever. I enjoyed the struggle they gave the president on the terms of when and if he should pass the Voting Rights Act. I’m sure even the president may have had quite a few burdens keeping him from passing the act sooner because he didn’t know how the people would act, and possibly because King was black. I do admire the sort of redemption it kind of hinted at when Johnson finally passed the Act at the end, though.

  28. PJ Roberts

    1. I can see why the writer said the movie was flawed because with the information about all of the other stories they could’ve included into the movie. They really only made the whole movie about Dr. King which is important but we already know so much about him. She could’ve highlighted some of the other people in the movie. I’m kind of disappointed now because I feel like I missed out educationally on an important part of the Selma story as a whole, but the movie was very entertaining and a very good depiction of what happened there and I thought it was all around a good movie.

    2. I thought it was really interesting that they showed this very real part of Dr. King’s life. I had heard about his infidelity in the past but it was interesting to see it in a movie. To be honest although Dr. King is a preacher I am not surprised that he was unfaithful to Coretta. I’m sure as making speeches all over the world he would go out to clubs and parties and what not. As rapper J Cole said in his song She Knows released in 2013 “This is Martin Luther King in the club gettin’ dubs
    With a bad girl in his ear sayin’ that she down for whatever
    In the back of his mind is Coretta”
    This is an interesting part of the song because was so popular and this is the first time I had heard of his adultery. I’m surprised that he spoke of an affair that Dr. King had with his wife. But Dr. King was a powerful man and although he was a preacher I am not surprised about his affairs. What I’m more surprised about is that Coretta stayed with him even though he was unfaithful. She also didn’t re-marry after Dr. King died which was also surprising.

    3. I think the abuse of power by the FBI is unacceptable and also an unconstitutional act. Dr. King and the members of his movement claimed to be non-violent. The FBI needed to spend more time paying attention to Malcom X. as apposed of Dr. King. The fact that the FBI presented them as friends is not okay. They share to completely different views. Malcom X represented Muslim beliefs that were very radical and he believed in being violent to solve race problems, while Dr. King was nonviolence. The fact that they tried to destroy his marriage because they thought if they broke his home life that would break him as a man. That was an interesting part of the movie when Coretta was interrogating Dr. King and although that wasn’t his voice on the recording it showed that he was being un-faithful to Coretta.

  29. nennaya lewis

    I disagree with the author of the article that the movie is flawed because the events in the movie were inaccurate. You can’t possibly fit all the details in the film about Annie Lee’s Cooper background and then tie it back in with the movie’s plot about Selma. There’s a possibility that DuVernay knew about exactly what happened on Turn Around Tuesday and Bloody Sunday. Many directors of movies that are based off books make their own twist to make it a little more interesting. Even in the movie Captain Phillips everything wasn’t accurate but the film was great. Some true story films aren’t made for accuracy but to do well in the box office as a cinematic film. The article says that the people who helped King are overlooked in the film. In the film I saw was the effort of the people themselves pushing for civil rights. The elderly man in the film risked his life to protest for he got beaten and his own grandson was shot. I felt like this part in the film captured what happened in the black community and really showed how families were torn apart for fighting for equal rights. The scene with the kneeling in front of Sheriff Clark and the march with people of many ethnicities far and wide really captivated the people’s effort. The movie Selma was inspirational and taught me how one small dream of change can lead to a movement.
    I feel like the iffy Johnson about the Voting Rights Act to prevent the KKK and violent white supremacist from agitating blacks at the poles gave the movie Selma the cinematic feel. Having two great figures battle it out gave the movie a pivotal point and something to look forward to in the end. The movie could’ve mentioned the Johnson pushing for the Great Society, War on Poverty, and the Vietnam War but I guess the movie just focused on racial justice. If the movie made Johnson a little more sympathetic the movie would’ve showed less of the process on getting the law passed and more about violence in Selma and what went on in Dr. Kings home. The fight for the passing of the law with Johnson and King kept me at the edge of my seat because it really captured King’s determination for justice. It really amazed me and I’m sure others at the time how articulate and wise he was as a black man. The movie made 3 different sides the racist in Selma as the antagonist, Lyndon B Johnson as the mediator who went back and forth between Joe Smitherman and Martin, and those who supported the dream of justice who came to Alabama to march. I really liked in Selma the transition from the indifferent Johnson in the beginning to the supportive Johnson who eventually passed the public housing for blacks.
    I’ve once looked at a documentary that mentioned King’s infidelity with Coretta and ever since then I believed it was a conspiracy theory. I thought it was a conspiracy because as I’ve became older, people always created this image that King was such an inspirational figure and was a great example of a leader. When I saw in Selma that Martin had an affair with someone else it made me look at King as your average man looking for a change that had his flaws. I thought Coretta on the other hand was a strong willed woman. She stayed at home and waited for King when he was putting his life in danger. Coretta stayed at home and had many sleepless nights when people threatened the life of her family’s. She went to his trial in the end of the movie for she truly believed that their marriage could still work. It’s quite interesting that she never married after her husband’s death, she was a beautiful woman.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*