Miss DuVernay is a publicist and she "didn't see it coming?" Was history on her agenda at UCLA? When major events of history are involved and the director chooses to put forth a personal view of events, the film may start to look amateurish. The Academy seems to have agreed.
6
DuVernay. Arrogant.
6
I thought "Selma" was a brilliant film, and David Oyelowe's performance more brilliant still. I read Joseph Califano's opinion piece regarding whose idea the march on Selma was but didn't buy that it was LBJ's idea. There was already a historical record of Blacks marching for civil rights and freedom long before Selma, and the march was the idea of s coalition of Black leaders. I thought at the time that the film gave an even-handed portrayal of LBJ as supportive of the Voting Rights Act but opposed to its timing.
I am appalled and angered, however, by Ava DuVernay's cavalier attitude towards historical accuracy. It's one thing to focus more on MLK than LBJ, which she did when she rewrote the original script. But it's quite another to base her portrayal of Johnson on the way she "feels" about him. Even though the film isn't a documentary, the period is certainly well-documented, filmed, and recorded, and it would have been easy enough to fact-check LBJ's commitment, but DuVernay is apparently indifferent, lazy, or both.
I have read articles proving the strength of Johnson's commitment, e.g., Bill Moyers's comments, and the transcript of a recorded conversation between MLK and LBJ, printed by the Washington Spectator.
We should not forget that Johnson, who grew up in extreme poverty and became a teacher to young Mexican-Americans, was the one who pushed the Voting Rights Act through Congress and signed it into law.
I am appalled and angered, however, by Ava DuVernay's cavalier attitude towards historical accuracy. It's one thing to focus more on MLK than LBJ, which she did when she rewrote the original script. But it's quite another to base her portrayal of Johnson on the way she "feels" about him. Even though the film isn't a documentary, the period is certainly well-documented, filmed, and recorded, and it would have been easy enough to fact-check LBJ's commitment, but DuVernay is apparently indifferent, lazy, or both.
I have read articles proving the strength of Johnson's commitment, e.g., Bill Moyers's comments, and the transcript of a recorded conversation between MLK and LBJ, printed by the Washington Spectator.
We should not forget that Johnson, who grew up in extreme poverty and became a teacher to young Mexican-Americans, was the one who pushed the Voting Rights Act through Congress and signed it into law.
19
With all due respect to LBJ, but let's face it, the reality is that many of you are hating on Ms. DuVernay not because of alleged historical inaccuracies, but rather because there is no portrayal of a white savior riding in on a white horse.
10
Well, jeeze Louise, if historical facts didn't really matter, why didn't she juice-up the movie with, say, Spiderman and Batman walking alongside MLK?
4
On the bright side judging by the box office results not that many people are getting blindsided with Ms DuVernay version of historical facts.
5
MLK was such a hero, why would you need to diminish LBJ to make Martin's light burn any brighter?
15
We loved Selma and saw the depiction of LBJ as cinematic shorthand for all the white people who thought African-Americans could wait until it was more convenient: one abrasive conversation with one key rep of the white power structure instead of a labyrinth of them. We also thought all the fuss was displaced resentment about other things, or racism, or some sort of dis-ease about this film showing white racism so bluntly, because when people can't criticize what really bothers them they find something safer to snark about. Also, there's this thing people should know about LBJ: Vietnam. The guy's halo has a few other dents.
9
I thoroughly enjoyed 'Selma'. Bravo to Ms. DuVernay for her wonderful approach to this important American story.
3
People are delusional to think that history can't and isn't shaped by those with the pen in hand. George Washington is celebrated as the father of the nation instead of a slave owner of over 300 slaves that he never freed, Lincoln is heralded as the Great Emancipator even though he famously wrote to Horace Greeley that he would not free a single slave if it meant he could save the Union. And lastly, LBJ, was a reluctant hero who routinely called the Civil Rights Act that "N****r" bill. (I would type it out, but I guess NYT wouldn't publish). He also expressed the same white savior complex so many of the article commenters possess that he was owed some level of gratitude for doing his job. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism
The thousands of Blacks who risked their lives should have been front and center in the movie Selma. This movie was for them. Brava Ava!!!
The thousands of Blacks who risked their lives should have been front and center in the movie Selma. This movie was for them. Brava Ava!!!
7
I don't see anyone criticizing American Sniper for inaccurate portrayals of Iraqis or the war there. Argo won Best Picture even though it was little more than CIA propaganda. It had nothing to do with factual accuracy. But then, white folks ade it and a white guy was the hero. And Michelle Obama presented the prize.
5
"...what I portrayed is what I feel about L.B.J."
That's her right as an artist but, I have to say, After reading this, I no longer feel bad about her Oscar snub.
That's her right as an artist but, I have to say, After reading this, I no longer feel bad about her Oscar snub.
9
Lack of historical and factual significance are not the only reasons this movie flopped at the box office. The movie's only merits, in the eyes of the film critics and the NYT, are that it's about the black experience and made by a black woman. Sadly, this obscures the story about King, who deserves a better. more comprehensive movie, one directed at the man, his life and experience. This one seems to be about the white-black violence and milks it for all it's worth.
3
I saw the movie. Nowhere in that movie is LBJ portrayed as not pro civil rights. As usual because the white protagonist is not made into a super hero in the movie we get the screeching and diatribe against Ms DuVernay.
What the movie so aptly portrayed is that LBJ and King disagreed on the TIMING of pushing for civil rights. As MLK said "how long will we wait--------too long.
The timing for LBJ was not right, the timing for blacks was too late. And it has ever been thus with those who have been oppressed fighting for equal rights be it women fighting for the vote or the LGBT community fighting for their equality.
Cleopatra, Jesus, etc. have all been portrayed as white in the movies. Artistic license? Heck NO. The deliberate misleading of history. Jesus was not blue eyed blonde and cleopatra did not have white skin.
I guess you get to portray or not portray history from a white Eurocentric point of view without criticism if you are white.
Puhleeeeeze!!!!!
What the movie so aptly portrayed is that LBJ and King disagreed on the TIMING of pushing for civil rights. As MLK said "how long will we wait--------too long.
The timing for LBJ was not right, the timing for blacks was too late. And it has ever been thus with those who have been oppressed fighting for equal rights be it women fighting for the vote or the LGBT community fighting for their equality.
Cleopatra, Jesus, etc. have all been portrayed as white in the movies. Artistic license? Heck NO. The deliberate misleading of history. Jesus was not blue eyed blonde and cleopatra did not have white skin.
I guess you get to portray or not portray history from a white Eurocentric point of view without criticism if you are white.
Puhleeeeeze!!!!!
5
"And so I didn't think twice about L.B.J., because as far as I'm concerned what I portrayed is what I feel about L.B.J" That's the problem. She didn't think, she just felt.
10
Great discussion!
"Selma" has been disrespected by the Academy for not getting more nominations.
It easily could have received nomination for Best Director and Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor/Actress.
Who in their right mind think that Bradley Cooper's performance is better than Mr. Oyelowo's performance?
"Selma" has been disrespected by the Academy for not getting more nominations.
It easily could have received nomination for Best Director and Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor/Actress.
Who in their right mind think that Bradley Cooper's performance is better than Mr. Oyelowo's performance?
5
>> what I portrayed is what I feel about L.B.J.
Man. How bigoted.
Man. How bigoted.
4
The closest to the truth about LBJ and MLK is held in the LBJ library in Austin. My son listened to many of the tapes between the two of them and other in LBJ's inner circle during that time. All you have you have to do is ask to hear them. Ms Du. Vernal missed the mark with her prejudices overcoming the truth.
11
"Images fly by breathlessly and without identification. Composite characters are intermingled with actual ones. Real material and simulated scenes are intercut in a deliberately bewildering fashion. The camera races bewilderingly across supposedly "top secret" documents and the various charts and models being used to explain forensic evidence. Major matters and petty ones are given equal weight. Accusations are made by visual implication rather than rational deduction, as when the camera fastens on an image of Lyndon Johnson while a speaker uses the phrase 'coup d'etat.'" -- NYT, January 5, 1992, Janet Maslin on Oliver Stone's "JFK"
This is what movies DO. (News too, on Fox.) Doesn't make it right. Whether director is Griffiths, Spielberg, Stone or DuVernay false facts are not creative license. They are lies. Same as for non-artists.
This is what movies DO. (News too, on Fox.) Doesn't make it right. Whether director is Griffiths, Spielberg, Stone or DuVernay false facts are not creative license. They are lies. Same as for non-artists.
3
Look, this movie has received more media attention than all the other movies last year combined. Why? Because it was a black movie. But it was REJECTED by the vast majority of us, also because it was a black movie. Maybe the NY Times can try to figure out why most white people have no interest in paying to see a white guilt trip.
We did not see a nuanced portrayal of LBJ in Selma. I wish she would admit he was a stand-in for all of Washington at the time and not a fully-formed LBJ. I think how LBJ is portrayed in the movie discredits the film somewhat as it takes away from some of the layers of life and people who made history.
Incidentally, my favorite Spike Lee film is Inside Man.
Incidentally, my favorite Spike Lee film is Inside Man.
4
This director is a self publicist. I saw her interviewed on Tavis Smiley and the whole time I don't think she said 1 factual, informative, meaningful sentence. She sure can talk and talk. I'm still not sure where she's coming from
We are in the midst of a sort of 3rd Civil Rights mvmt. It's about biased policing and criminal justice policies that are destructive and tragic. And about voting rights, amazingly. And about downward living standards for most people that LBJ's Great Society and MLK both tried to improve, and did improve.
Now we are on a backward slide in economic and racial matters. So it's a pity this movie's distortions have to form the views of a whole new generation. OTOH, if we keep the controversy and discussion going in classrooms and on the media, it's a chance to set the record straight and bring things out in the open people were not aware of.
As for this director's future and her reputation---that's very insignificant. Let her publicity machine roll on, who cares?
We are in the midst of a sort of 3rd Civil Rights mvmt. It's about biased policing and criminal justice policies that are destructive and tragic. And about voting rights, amazingly. And about downward living standards for most people that LBJ's Great Society and MLK both tried to improve, and did improve.
Now we are on a backward slide in economic and racial matters. So it's a pity this movie's distortions have to form the views of a whole new generation. OTOH, if we keep the controversy and discussion going in classrooms and on the media, it's a chance to set the record straight and bring things out in the open people were not aware of.
As for this director's future and her reputation---that's very insignificant. Let her publicity machine roll on, who cares?
3
The fact that the director started her career as a Hollywood publicist speaks volumes about the roots of her integrity and intellectual, historical qualifications.
5
The problem with Ms DuVerney's defense of her dubious history is "They [her critics] were talking about accuracy. That's a gray area -- accurate to whom?" Historical accuracy is complex and requires facts and interpretations. At some point a decision has to been made as to how documents, accounts, and other primary sources are represented. But the important point here is that "accuracy" is not a subjective, interested or ideological decision. Ms DuVerney does not make this point; her movie has no evidence to support her views of LBJ. The evidence indicaes just the opposite of her unwarranted judgment, thereby, turning her movie into an expertly done work of propaganda. Now the question is: for whom is Ms DuVerney making her movie and for what interest does it serve?
2
Hollywood is sometimes presenting the only history many people believe. Oliver Stone, a white man, also distorted the facts to make a good movie but many people believe his movies. Now a movie fudging the true facts of an important time in America is out and the director feels defensive in a hostile manner, it seems to me. Sorry but history is truth. And the facts are the facts. Sometimes not gray at all but black and white. LBJ deserves better.
6
I've suddenly lost a lot of respect for A.O. Scott in seeming to condone revisionist history. And I find it somewhat ironic that she compares her film to "The Interview," which was not only revisionist but of course also satirical in promoting its worldview.
1
This film is a natural culmination of the polarizing intellectually lazy compare contrast view of the world in which we live. Dr. King--great, therefore, LBJ--bad. Ultimately, life is more nuanced, history is more nuanced. The reality of history is it is a rich tapestry. Pull the thread of "Selma" and that tapestry has a gapping hole. Ms. DuVernay's disregard of history--that LBJ attacked poverty as a means of quieting white poverty's objections to the Civil Rights Movement was a brilliant effort to compromise, build coalitions, and ultimately pass impossibly difficult legislation--is another lesson in the tragedy of Lyndon Johnson. Read Robert Caro and skip the revisionist history that plays into the hands of polarizing the history of our experience.
4
In Texas, the state board of education revamped their curriculum to minimize that roles that people of color and Hispanic ethnicity had in shaping Texas history.
Of course, the reaction to this was swift from liberal circles, condemning the actions of board's commissioners.
However, when the film "Selma" came out - a film that will be likely used in many classrooms around the country - the reaction to the distortion of historical events, especially the role LBJ had in ensuring the shaping and passage civil rights legislation, has been tepid at best.
This, once again, proves there is no shortage of hypocrisy and bigotry on either end of the political spectrum, especially the left who would like to believe they are fervent supporters of equality, when in fact they are no better than the political right when they practice the notion, as in the case of Ava DuVernay, that it is perfectly acceptable belittle a person's accomplishments because they happen to inconveniently be white and male.
Of course, the reaction to this was swift from liberal circles, condemning the actions of board's commissioners.
However, when the film "Selma" came out - a film that will be likely used in many classrooms around the country - the reaction to the distortion of historical events, especially the role LBJ had in ensuring the shaping and passage civil rights legislation, has been tepid at best.
This, once again, proves there is no shortage of hypocrisy and bigotry on either end of the political spectrum, especially the left who would like to believe they are fervent supporters of equality, when in fact they are no better than the political right when they practice the notion, as in the case of Ava DuVernay, that it is perfectly acceptable belittle a person's accomplishments because they happen to inconveniently be white and male.
4
Sadly flip about the value of presenting the truth--a movie does not need to adhere to every true detail but a movie whose intent is to present a true sense of history should not stoop to smear tactics. Dr. King would have been appalled.
4
Really she portrayed LBJ by how "I feel about LBJ" How about using actual facts or at least some fact based interpretation. What if someone made a movie about Dr. King and portrayed him as a coward, a womanizer who only wanted personal power? And then dubbed it as well that is how "I feel about King." This is what happens when a person ignorant of history makes a history inspired film. And please don't give us that line of "this isn't a historical movie." Dr. King was great enough on his own. His legacy doesn't need any artificial boost. She has a obligation to get the basic facts correct. And she failed to do that. As a result the Oscars should remove the nomination as this movie tarnishes rather than explains Dr. Kings greatness
6
I was really looking forward to seeing this film but,at this point, I will not watch it.I couldn't stand to watch LBJ,architect of Voting Rights Legislation and Medicaire(seemingly unrelated but it save millions of lives for everyone) be so brazenly misrepresented.
I was really shocked at the dismissiveness of the filmaker when inteviewed by Charlie Rose.She showed contempt for LBJ and his biographers as well as their comments and,actually,our comments.
I was really shocked at the dismissiveness of the filmaker when inteviewed by Charlie Rose.She showed contempt for LBJ and his biographers as well as their comments and,actually,our comments.
7
Given the terrible story of race in the US--not to mention the way blacks have been portrayed in the media--it is understandable that Ava DuVernay chose to diminish LBJ's role in the film Selma. She didn't want to take the focus away from Martin Luther King. Depicting LBJ as a good guy didn't fit her narrative. That said, I wish she had lessened her antipathy toward a white president to include a more accurate depiction of him. She diminishes Selma by not telling the truth about LBJ (as do the creators of The Imitation Game in not crediting the Poles for their major role in decrypting the codes). To paraphrase Emily Dickinson, DuVernay told the truth (sort of), but told it slant. That doesn't work here. It just dilutes her message.
3
Ms. DuVernay made a movie about Selma, LBJ, MLK and specific events in the history of civil rights legislation. If she wanted to make up her own story in which the President is trying to derail civil rights legislation, she should have created a fictitious town, fictitious characters, etc. Of course, no one would be talking about that movie, because the main reason this one is interesting is its explicit claim to accurately depicting real people, places and important events. Meanwhile LBJ gets booed in theaters, and audiences - and kids - walk away with a distorted view of one of the central drivers of federal legislation. And the response from the director? It made for a better movie. In other words, "Too bad, not my problem." Welcome to the Oliver Stone Club...
19
Here's a tip for the filmmaker: Without LBJ, there is no Voting Rights Act. Period. That does not mean that he did it single-handed, without MLK, without the public pressure, but to pretend that LBJ was "reluctant" is a grotesque misreading of history, and makes for an ignorant portrayal of a supposedly "historical" film. LBJ was a civil rights advocate long before he got the Presidency, and he used every trick in the book to bring along the South, without whose votes the legislation would never have passed.
That's the single reason I didn't bother showing up at the box-office, and this is from someone who was not a fan of LBJ thanks to that other little imbroglio at the time: Vietnam. If I'm going to go watch unpleasant history (that I lived through) then it darn well better be *accurate* history.
That's the single reason I didn't bother showing up at the box-office, and this is from someone who was not a fan of LBJ thanks to that other little imbroglio at the time: Vietnam. If I'm going to go watch unpleasant history (that I lived through) then it darn well better be *accurate* history.
16
If you didn't watch the film, how can you judge it?
"...as far as I'm concerned what I portrayed is what I feel about L.B.J. Yes, he was a hero, but he was a reluctant hero."
And you "feel about L.B.J" this way based on memos, tapes, other documents never seen or heard by anyone else which contradict everything that is documented? Curious. Perhaps film-making is too narrow a field. You should, perhaps, start a religion.
And you "feel about L.B.J" this way based on memos, tapes, other documents never seen or heard by anyone else which contradict everything that is documented? Curious. Perhaps film-making is too narrow a field. You should, perhaps, start a religion.
7
"25th Hour" was my favorite Spike Lee film too, from the dayi saw it in theaters, opening weekend in a packed NYC theater, up to when I saw it again, on my laptop, a few years ago when visiting London. It might have been disappointing on a small screen, or because I watched it with the British boyfriend who was not particularly wowed--and for whom many 9/11 & NYC details didn't resonate very loudly. I don't know why, exactly, but a movie I'd raved about for years was also one I felt did not hold up over time. But maybe it's time to watch it again. Thanks for sharing this brief but interesting interview.
Yeah, the problem - film is forever. So the poor Mexican-American kids that LBJ helped in south Texas in the 1930s, not reluctantly by the way, die off and are forgotten. The crack in the tradition of restrictive covenants that LBJ and Ladybird caused when they bought the VPs house in Washington will be forgotten. The millions of people helped by Johnson's commitment to civil rights, "reluctantly" she says but deeply according to many who were there at the time, before she was even born, combined with his legislative skill, they will all die off and be forgotten. But her film, one that besmirches the honor of a good man, will live on.
LBJ was all too human, and like all of us (MLK included) he had feet of clay. He made huge mistakes listening to his military advisers, but on civil rights he dragged this nation forward. "Accurate to whom," she asks. I reply, "Ignorant of the facts. Facts that are beyond interpretation." It is sad that she thought it necessary to tear down the reputation of one hero to build up another, when both were genuine heroes in spite of both of their feet of clay. It's sad that "accuracy" in her mind is so malleable, when just a little research could have presented her with real accuracy. She should be truly ashamed of the hatchet job she did on this good man, but "film is forever".
LBJ was all too human, and like all of us (MLK included) he had feet of clay. He made huge mistakes listening to his military advisers, but on civil rights he dragged this nation forward. "Accurate to whom," she asks. I reply, "Ignorant of the facts. Facts that are beyond interpretation." It is sad that she thought it necessary to tear down the reputation of one hero to build up another, when both were genuine heroes in spite of both of their feet of clay. It's sad that "accuracy" in her mind is so malleable, when just a little research could have presented her with real accuracy. She should be truly ashamed of the hatchet job she did on this good man, but "film is forever".
11
It should be noted that, in the end, "Selma" gave LBJ his due by depicting him positively. But "I was there," and LBJ's alleged early reluctance is pure myth. He was a magnificent civil rights warrior and we would have seen civil rights laws retarded for another decade or more without his courage and strength.
In 1965, I was a Justice Department lawyer, traveling with a team of FBI agents from county to county all over Alabama, photographing thousands of voter registration records, preparing for the first "statewide" lawsuit seeking to afford full rights to the Black citizens of Alabama. Happily, that effort came to an end when the Voting Rights Act was adopted, because it afforded a far more effective way to accomplish that goal. But our efforts were important at the time, and it was LBJ's vigorous Justice Department that was pursuing those efforts.
In 1965, I was a Justice Department lawyer, traveling with a team of FBI agents from county to county all over Alabama, photographing thousands of voter registration records, preparing for the first "statewide" lawsuit seeking to afford full rights to the Black citizens of Alabama. Happily, that effort came to an end when the Voting Rights Act was adopted, because it afforded a far more effective way to accomplish that goal. But our efforts were important at the time, and it was LBJ's vigorous Justice Department that was pursuing those efforts.
18
I'm stunned that so many responders cannot let the LBJ question go. Listen, people, this movie was primarily about Martin Luther King! Pull your big (probably) white toes out of the tub faucet, dry yourselves off, and permit another kind of response to an absorbing and powerful piece of film-making. I am a white, sixty-year-old man who grew up in Nashville, Tennessee during the very time of the Selma march, just one state over. This film made me remember what went on in my childhood and it made me think. I was moved to tears, wishing that my parents had stood up to the racist status quo, instead of following it. It made me swear in a rage to myself that I would never allow myself or another family member be a part of a society that marginalizes and oppresses other human beings like what I saw and heard as a child. Then, driving home from the theater, I saw myself from a farther perspective, as a U.S. citizen in the world, and realized how impossible that task is, given the political actions of my country and the continuing majority in it who have so little empathy for people other than their own.
8
Two of my childhood heros were Dr. King and LBJ and ive tried to ignore the controversy. My wife and I hope to train into the city this weekend to see Selma. No matter awards, or controversy, this will be my movie of the year. Good luck at the Oscars.
3
The movie seeks to fan the flames of hatred by portraying LBJ as an evil racist. No thank you. Our country needs less of that rather than more. And now, busing school kids in to see this travesty? Great. Just great.
8
Ava DuVernay's position of not wanting to have a 'white savior' in her film was absolutely right on. Making LBJ a villain was absolutely wrong. How far does one have to look to find a white villain in the civil rights era, anyway? Hoover fit the bill quite nicely, with no need to distort the facts. The tradition DuVernay follows here is the vintage, white Hollywood treatment of history, Oliver Stone being perhaps the most prominent contemporary example.
6
Just ordered The 25th Hour as part of the Spike Lee collection, so thanks for the recommendation. I did not remember that movie.
"Selma" is a beautiful and passionate portrayal of the importance of voting rights and the ways in which our society has used the issue of voting to deny equal dignity to all of its citizens. I find it painfully ironic that the defenders of LBJ's legacy have worked so hard to undermine a movie that is so supportive of an ongoing issue that LBJ fought for. How can a person know the first thing about LBJ and think that the man himself would've ignored the bigger picture here? I seriously doubt LBJ would've considered preserving his historical reputation the most important thing.
3
As that famous lawyer Johnnie Cochran put it in his defense of O.J Simpson, you must throw out the whole plate of spaghetti if there is a cockroach on it. Unfortunately, many may dismiss this movie because of its misrepresentation of LBJ.
15
Unlike what you may believe, the role that LBJ and many from the Jewish community had in the fight for civil rights was, in fact, not an insignificant, but mighty big historical "cockroach."
6
The very best way to comprehend LBJ is to read the thoroughly researched and beautifully written biography about this flawed, but strongly pro civil rights man. I am speaking of the four volumes of LBJ's life and times written by Robert Caro. I find Ava's dismissive attitude a disgrace and so very wrong in historical reference.
98
On November 25th, 1963, the day of John Kennedy's funeral and the first workday of his presidency, LBJ placed a call to Martin Luther King in which he said, "I want you to know how worthy I intend to be of all your hopes."
That's not a screenplay. It's an audio tape which you can search and download.
That's not a screenplay. It's an audio tape which you can search and download.
110
Either this woman is totally self-absorbed (maybe she's caught Oprahitis) or she is too ignorant to understand the profound importance of historical accuracy in depicting actual events. There are millions still alive who recall Selma and its times.
Her movie died at the box office, but probably because it had a limited audience, there was a wealth of genuinely worthwhile movies it competed with, and people had their fill of black angst with the Ferguson episode, and so on and so on. Maybe I'll catch it on Netflix, but probably not.
Her movie died at the box office, but probably because it had a limited audience, there was a wealth of genuinely worthwhile movies it competed with, and people had their fill of black angst with the Ferguson episode, and so on and so on. Maybe I'll catch it on Netflix, but probably not.
33
"people had their fill of black angst with the Ferguson episode".
Where did you get your statistics, my friend?
The movie did not flatter white people gratuitously, nor did it deliberately belittle them. That in itself made it a controversial, and avoidable film. Better to flock to "American Sniper". Everyone's interest in gratuitous murder is much more of a box office draw.
Where did you get your statistics, my friend?
The movie did not flatter white people gratuitously, nor did it deliberately belittle them. That in itself made it a controversial, and avoidable film. Better to flock to "American Sniper". Everyone's interest in gratuitous murder is much more of a box office draw.
I think you should see it and form your own opinion -- I found it to be a powerful film about a wrenching time in our history.
3
What was striking to me were her comments about her feelings for LBJ. What about historic accuracy? I guess she just doesn't care. I bet she would care if someone made a film about King which was inaccurate, but based on that person's feelings.
70
The focus of the movie is Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Not LBJ.
1
A number of writers asked, why the firestorm about this film, and not others, citing Lincoln, The Imitation Game, and others, with errors as well.
One reason is this film is of the very recent past, within the memory of still living participants. There are actual witnesses and participants who can speak to the events depicted. The film also presents itself as the truth; not one version of the truth; not one viewpoint of the truth, but of history.
If Ms. DuVernay finds her take on the events a harmless endeavor, she should ask herself what would her reaction be if someone made a film about LBJ that downplayed and slanted Dr. King's role to the same degree this film downplayed and slanted LBJ's?
One reason is this film is of the very recent past, within the memory of still living participants. There are actual witnesses and participants who can speak to the events depicted. The film also presents itself as the truth; not one version of the truth; not one viewpoint of the truth, but of history.
If Ms. DuVernay finds her take on the events a harmless endeavor, she should ask herself what would her reaction be if someone made a film about LBJ that downplayed and slanted Dr. King's role to the same degree this film downplayed and slanted LBJ's?
75
The Imitation Game was inaccurate in that it did not give enough credit to Polish intelligence for cracking Enigma. It did not portray Polish intelligence as deliberately withholding information or acting as obstructionists, which would be comparable to what Ms DuVernay did with LBJ. Therefore, the factual inaccuracies of the two films are not comparable.
3
Where were the historians critiquing the lack of portrayal of the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass in Lincoln? Where were the historians critiquing Ridley Scott's portrayal of Egyptians in Exodus? Just a few examples of how Hollywood accepts distorted history to suit it's purposes. Historical accuracy only matters when White people are portrayed negatively.
21
Did you see 12 Years a Slave?
You are entitled to your opinion but I think you miss an important distinction. I, and many other critics of the movie, I suspect, lived in the times of Lyndon Johnson and know him from personal experience. I have personal reasons for not liking the man, but the record is clear that he was a steadfast supporter of civil rights. That might be one of the few good things Lyndon Johnson ever did. To take that away from Mr. Johnson is unconscionable.
5
You have an issue with Lincoln and so it is fine with you to be inaccurate with LBJ?? So how many more slights do you need to even the score? 2 wrongs don't make a right. It was so easy to depict this accurately. She was ignorant of the facts. And your argument only drives people apart not together as King was about.
1
If people believe what they see in the movies, then they also must believe in Mickey Mouse.
12
It wasn't "some guy" who wrote the op-ed piece signalling the mis-portrayal of LBJ and the civil rights moment - shouldn't someone making a movie about history at least get the "guy"'s name and credentials? What a smack in the face to both Joseph Califano and his long service to government and/or to Mark Updegrove, scholar of the LBJ Library. How discourteous.
Based on every historical record, what Miss duVernay "feels" is wrong. LBJ was not a reluctant hero. He was a political pragmatist who recognized the great risks present in the country and in government in crossing the civil rights divide, and he said many times that more could be accomplished in partial steps than in a big leap that was bound to be rejected and resisted. And he prevailed. Not reluctant at all.
Based on every historical record, what Miss duVernay "feels" is wrong. LBJ was not a reluctant hero. He was a political pragmatist who recognized the great risks present in the country and in government in crossing the civil rights divide, and he said many times that more could be accomplished in partial steps than in a big leap that was bound to be rejected and resisted. And he prevailed. Not reluctant at all.
87
This director asks, "accurate to whom?" Sorry, but accuracy / historical truth is not opinion-based.
59
This comment by DuVernay says it all: "They were talking about accuracy. That’s a gray area — accurate to whom?" Accuracy a gray area?? Sounds like like something you would expect to hear from the likes of Fox News.
63
I agree with the comments about LBJ's portrayal and how it seems contradictory of her to want to present a "living and breathing" Dr. King.
It does take away from the movie's impact, as no one, certainly not JFK, would have been able to get those bills passed but let's remember that this isn't a documentary and Mr. DuVernay is an artist, not a historian, so let's cut some slack.
Please read Mr. Caro's work or "Eyes on the Prize" if you want historical records based on primary research, don't expect it from Hollywood.
Where's the outrage over the fact that Mr. Turing and Alastair Denniston didn't clash the way it's portrayed in the "The Imitation Game"? Is "American Sniper" completely accurate?
It does take away from the movie's impact, as no one, certainly not JFK, would have been able to get those bills passed but let's remember that this isn't a documentary and Mr. DuVernay is an artist, not a historian, so let's cut some slack.
Please read Mr. Caro's work or "Eyes on the Prize" if you want historical records based on primary research, don't expect it from Hollywood.
Where's the outrage over the fact that Mr. Turing and Alastair Denniston didn't clash the way it's portrayed in the "The Imitation Game"? Is "American Sniper" completely accurate?
I wonder at all the focus on the WHITE man rather than the black man Martin Luther KIng and HIS life, the SUBJECT of the film. Reminds me of a panel discussion of the film "The Color Purple" where everyone was upset about the way black men were portrayed, unable to focus on the amazing WOMEN who were the subject of that film. Racism, Sexism anyone?
18
A.O. Scott: "The standard of literal historical verisimilitude that is often wielded in these situations really makes no allowances for what movies are and how stories are told. I get very impatient with it as a film critic."
Really, Mr. Scott? REALLY? Is it such a high standard to expect an historical film involving the relationship of MLK and LBJ not to lie flagrantly by showing LBJ instigate the FBI smear campaign?
And Ms. Vernay, when you say, "That’s a gray area — accurate to whom?", was it truly accurate to YOU that LBJ instigated it? Do you really believe that? And if so, all one can ask is, "why - are you entitled to your own facts?".
Really, Mr. Scott? REALLY? Is it such a high standard to expect an historical film involving the relationship of MLK and LBJ not to lie flagrantly by showing LBJ instigate the FBI smear campaign?
And Ms. Vernay, when you say, "That’s a gray area — accurate to whom?", was it truly accurate to YOU that LBJ instigated it? Do you really believe that? And if so, all one can ask is, "why - are you entitled to your own facts?".
59
Robert Kennedy approved the wiretaps on Dr. King and according to many historians, President Kennedy and his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy used rather unkind, to be gentle, terms to describe King. It was not LBJ. The history is there. The White House tapes are there.
2
"The standard of literal historical verisimilitude that is often wielded in these situations really makes no allowances for what movies are and how stories are told."
From the films I see, including ones on the former so-called "History Channel," the margin for embellishment is exceeding, discomfitingly broad. I hate it when after seeing a movie I look up the historical events depicted and find they are grossly distorted or invented and most people probably do not seek further enlightenment. They walk around around with an entirely inaccurate version of history in their heads.
The criticisms of Selma's accuracy sound valid. I'm not saying that the film shouldn't be seen, but that viewers should watch understanding that the version of (very recent and important) history presented is disputed.
From the films I see, including ones on the former so-called "History Channel," the margin for embellishment is exceeding, discomfitingly broad. I hate it when after seeing a movie I look up the historical events depicted and find they are grossly distorted or invented and most people probably do not seek further enlightenment. They walk around around with an entirely inaccurate version of history in their heads.
The criticisms of Selma's accuracy sound valid. I'm not saying that the film shouldn't be seen, but that viewers should watch understanding that the version of (very recent and important) history presented is disputed.
32
Poor old LBJ. For all his warts, he was a brilliant politician who, though responsible for jamming most of JFK's legislation through the Congress, will no doubt be rememberer mostly for the debacle that was Vietnam. Now, in this bit of revisionist history, he is once again casually tossed on the slag heap by someone who "didn't think twice" about the truth of his involvement in one of the most important movements in American history. The guy can't seem to catch a break.....
94
There would have been no Civil Rights Act without LBJ and the white congress.
35
There would have been no need of of the Civil RIghts Act if the congress, along with the White House, hadn't been virtually entirely white.
1
The Bryan Cranston/LBJ play All the Way was a much better portrayal of him.
It's too bad that DuVernay chose to place her feelings about LBJ above historical accuracy because there is a whole generation of viewers who have no contact with real history and will believe her version. Johnson risked everything for his decision and consequently lost everything for his morality. Whatever she may think, King couldn't have accomplished his goal without LBJ; it would have been setback for years.
116
Yes, and LBJ knew, and I'm paraphrasing him here, that by supporting
and aiding the Civil Rights Movement, he was "losing the South for the
Democrats for generations". And that's what happened. He absolutely did
the right thing and he should get his proper due for those decisions.
and aiding the Civil Rights Movement, he was "losing the South for the
Democrats for generations". And that's what happened. He absolutely did
the right thing and he should get his proper due for those decisions.
63
Wonderful and thoughtful interview...ok...I'll make the superficial comment...concerning Ms DuVernay's choice of top five Spike Lee films....what about Crooklyn? My son and I have watched that film together at least five times...so sublime...
4
"A gray area ... accurate to whom?" Such bushwa makes more sense now, knowing that she's a former publicist.
51
i haven't seen the film, but certainly know the kerfuffle about Johnson's portrayal. I didn't care for lbj, but, unfortunately, many people take what they see in historical films as gospel. duvernay's comment about it's how she felt about lbj so tough luck about historical accuracy is classic. perhaps next we can see a film by an admirer of Nixon--and there are some-- about martin luther king being responsible for watergate.
39
She didn't see it coming? Sure, she was completely unaware that she was creating revisionist history.
It wasn't just LBJ she denigrated; she air-brushed out the Jews that worked and walked arm in arm with Dr. King. To remove A.J.Heschel and the other rabbis from the march is a shondeh.
She didn't have to do that. The pictures exist. She saw who was there. She chose to remove the "others" who were active supporters and participants.
Telling the truth would have been ever so much more powerful and effective. Instead she made significant parts of the story a fiction.....and unfortunately. one that will slowly become the history of the fable...instead of the truth.
We are all losers in that regard.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
It wasn't just LBJ she denigrated; she air-brushed out the Jews that worked and walked arm in arm with Dr. King. To remove A.J.Heschel and the other rabbis from the march is a shondeh.
She didn't have to do that. The pictures exist. She saw who was there. She chose to remove the "others" who were active supporters and participants.
Telling the truth would have been ever so much more powerful and effective. Instead she made significant parts of the story a fiction.....and unfortunately. one that will slowly become the history of the fable...instead of the truth.
We are all losers in that regard.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
111
I have a possible solution for wifelyperson: Make your own movie and include AJH and leave out all the others that this brilliant film maker included.
Sign me as "a Jew who admires Heschel and is pretty sure he wouldn't mind!"
Sign me as "a Jew who admires Heschel and is pretty sure he wouldn't mind!"
After reading these comments, I can see we are not nearly as far in our path to an inclusive society as I'd hoped. LBJ did a great thing, but he fought a political battle, not one where his life was at risk, or was beaten, or was murdered. LBJ was in a place to do the right thing, and he did, but he was not the person who made it a moral imperative to do so. History shows that the nature of the catalyst has a lot to do with the outcome and we were fortunate to have Dr. King. Don't miss the complexity of King's challenge trying to defend LBJ's positive reaction to sacrifice and constitutional rights.
21
No one is minimizing MLK's unique role, leadership qualities, and charisma. But he didn't, couldn't, do it alone. He had the direct support of thousands of people of all colors and in the White House, LBJ. LBJ's political clout was required. Although he didn't face a physical threat, most politicians are not so altruistic that they're willing to spend political capital on issues that can damage their chances of re-election.
31
Although not LBJ, there were indeed non-blacks who gave up their lives in the civil rights movement. One way to get further down the path to an inclusive society could be to stop insulting those who are trying to help.
40
sleepyhead, you are completely missing the point. No one denies MLK's role or the "complexity of King's challenge." Is it really necessary that she falsify LBJ's role in order to make MLK look better? NO.
2
I consider "historical" films that purport to convey some truth about the past, all the while misrepresenting it or some part of it, and that are then defended, either by their makers, or by deluded critics like Mr. Scott, as, after all, "just movies," to be the height of dishonesty and bad faith. Unfortunately fake history is the rule, not the exception in Hollywood, and beyond. This year we've been especially plagued by these films; not only Selma, but The Imitation Game and The Meaning of Life deserve to show in empty cinemas. On the sheer nonsense presented as history in The Imitation Game, see:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/12/03/the_imitation_game_fact_v...
This is why fiction was invented: when we see a good fiction film, or read a good novel, it recounts a general truth without confusing or deluding us about what may have happened in a particular circumstance. Note to film makers: Give us a fiction, let us see it critically, and (mis) understand it productively. Assume we have some intelligence and are capable of this task.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/12/03/the_imitation_game_fact_v...
This is why fiction was invented: when we see a good fiction film, or read a good novel, it recounts a general truth without confusing or deluding us about what may have happened in a particular circumstance. Note to film makers: Give us a fiction, let us see it critically, and (mis) understand it productively. Assume we have some intelligence and are capable of this task.
13
So if someone made a film about LBJ and made MLK a shadow figure in the passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would be okay with this?
12
Frankly, I thought this movie was too slowly paced and somehow FORMAL to capture the spirit of that moment. And David Oyelowo's acting was somehow just a little too stiff - British, perhaps - to convey the right feeling. If the subject weren't so important, this movie standing on its own purely as a movie would never have been nominated.
21
Why facts and sources for those facts matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/why-movie-facts-prevail...
9
I leave it to others to argue about the historical accuracy, or lack thereof, in Selma (and I was/am as troubled as anyone). To me, there are larger issues involved with this movie. First, why has there been such a firestorm over the inaccuracies in Selma when no one seems to care about the equally egregious inaccuracies in The Imitation Game? And why is it that, every year, the hopes for a racially diverse set of Oscar nominations are always pinned on one (two, at best) movie? This year it was Selma, last year it was mainly 12 Years a Slave (maybe The Butler, too), and The Help before that. That troubles me just as much as the issue of historical accuracy.
9
People have discussed the inaccuracies in The Imitation Game or you probably would not know of them.
But although Turing's role in developing The Bombe were perhaps exaggerated, no one else had their role actually reversed, as Selma mis-portrays LBJ.
But although Turing's role in developing The Bombe were perhaps exaggerated, no one else had their role actually reversed, as Selma mis-portrays LBJ.
2
School districts are taking thousands of students to see Selma at the districts expense, in other words, Selma is being presented as historical fact. Imitation Game and The Theory of Knowledge are dramas, not history.
When JFK and Nixon were released by Oliver Stone they were torn to pieces for historical inaccuracies and were never presented as historical fact.
When JFK and Nixon were released by Oliver Stone they were torn to pieces for historical inaccuracies and were never presented as historical fact.
2
When I first heard the LBJ hubbub I thought it wasn't going to be anything. Then I saw the movie, and I started questioning how right it is to flat out lie about somebody's involvement just because you like them less. Then I heard the director's response and realized that not only was she brazenly irresponsible, she is PROUD to have been irresponsible.
It is debatable which is worse, flat out lying about LBJ's involvement in proposing and writing the legislation (it sure went from 0 to finished pretty quick in the movie), flat out lying about LBJ participating in Hoover's smear campaign, or leaving out any context about how this is the very VRA that was just effectively destroyed by the courts. She does belong in "director jail." This isn't the second guy from the left in some biopic (who still should get an apology if he's misrepresented), this is lying about what the president of the united states did in what is supposed to be a historically credible film, and she has done nothing to excuse it. If you made a movie where LBJ shot JFK from the grassy knoll I'd have no problem with it. "Accurate to whom?" she says, how about just not intentionally inaccurate? That seems like a good standard. She has LBJ tell Hoover to send audiotapes of MLK's affairs to his family...the FBI did that to try to get MLK to kill himself...LBJ championed and passed the CRA and the VRA...she bridges this irreconcilable divide in her film by lying about the latter.
It is debatable which is worse, flat out lying about LBJ's involvement in proposing and writing the legislation (it sure went from 0 to finished pretty quick in the movie), flat out lying about LBJ participating in Hoover's smear campaign, or leaving out any context about how this is the very VRA that was just effectively destroyed by the courts. She does belong in "director jail." This isn't the second guy from the left in some biopic (who still should get an apology if he's misrepresented), this is lying about what the president of the united states did in what is supposed to be a historically credible film, and she has done nothing to excuse it. If you made a movie where LBJ shot JFK from the grassy knoll I'd have no problem with it. "Accurate to whom?" she says, how about just not intentionally inaccurate? That seems like a good standard. She has LBJ tell Hoover to send audiotapes of MLK's affairs to his family...the FBI did that to try to get MLK to kill himself...LBJ championed and passed the CRA and the VRA...she bridges this irreconcilable divide in her film by lying about the latter.
52
Films -- novels, paintings, operas, and other works of art -- based on historical events have a long, proud tradition of shaping "facts" to suit the demands of their narratives. Though the "facts" of LBJ's conduct during this episode might not match their depiction in this film, his scenes reflect the complexity and moral ambiguity of any president's decision-making. These scenes also feel true to the profane, canny, arm-twister LBJ persona I've encountered elsewhere, in works of history and of art (try David Foster Wallace's "Lyndon"). I actually thought his depiction in "Selma" was sympathetic and moving. But that's not the point, is it? The movie's called "Selma," not "LBJ Saves the Day." And it's a great movie that will, as DuVernay hopes, be talked about for years.
8
Ava Du Vernay has said many times that her portrayal of LBJ was "my vision", "my interpretation" and that she wasn't an historian, etc. She is not concerned that many find her "interpretation" offensive because the script called for a foil, an antagonist, in order for the plot to move forward. Hmmmmm. If I decided to do a film about LBJ and "portrayed" Dr. King as a pedophile in order to create conflict and "move the plot along" would that be o.k. with Ms. Du Vernay. After all, I'm not an "historian" and have no obligation to historical accuracy. It's just my "vision".
49
"....I didn't think twice about L.B.J., because as far as I'm concerned what I portrayed is what I feel about L.B.J.'
DuVernay's 'choice' to place LBJ's context in the Civil Rights Movement where she 'felt' it belonged, rather than where it actually lay, is the reason her film will win zero Oscars this year. Had she done otherwise, 'Selma' would truly have been a watershed
DuVernay's 'choice' to place LBJ's context in the Civil Rights Movement where she 'felt' it belonged, rather than where it actually lay, is the reason her film will win zero Oscars this year. Had she done otherwise, 'Selma' would truly have been a watershed
99
Having lived through this, MLK Jr. and LBJ were partners. MLK Jr. risked his life and limb, LBJ risked his political life. We all know what happened to each of them. In my recollection, this was not an accurate representation, but then again none of us were in those back rooms during discussions.
18
I guess you missed her point of "accurate to whom?" That's like when certain people tell me how much they miss the good old days of the 50's and 60's. I always say, "good for whom?"; certainly not for me or anyone in my family. That LBJ came to a point where he supported the Civil Rights Bill is laudable, but it took his entire career to get there and he partly got there the same way President Kennedy did, by witnessing third-world violence against voting rights. Civil rights was intended to be a second term goal by Kennedy, which it turned out to be in a way. LBJ knew however he sliced it, the South would turn (again) and this made him justifiably cautious.
The fact that LBJ got the Civil Rights Bill passed has more to do with the violence and egregiousness of Jim Crow as his desire for social justice. The post-Selma comments I've seen are just shy of claiming the non-violent marches were LBJ's idea.
The idea that if Selma had given more credit to LBJ, it would have had an Oscar jackpot is just unsupportable and that is the most polite thing I can say. The monotone nominations have much more to do with the overwhelmingly skewed membership of the Academy. The best that can be hoped for is that as the Academy becomes more diverse, the choice of nominees will draw from a broader selection than the nominees the Academy feels most comfortable with; not to take anything away from the nominees selected.
The fact that LBJ got the Civil Rights Bill passed has more to do with the violence and egregiousness of Jim Crow as his desire for social justice. The post-Selma comments I've seen are just shy of claiming the non-violent marches were LBJ's idea.
The idea that if Selma had given more credit to LBJ, it would have had an Oscar jackpot is just unsupportable and that is the most polite thing I can say. The monotone nominations have much more to do with the overwhelmingly skewed membership of the Academy. The best that can be hoped for is that as the Academy becomes more diverse, the choice of nominees will draw from a broader selection than the nominees the Academy feels most comfortable with; not to take anything away from the nominees selected.
14
You're expressing a viewpoint that's already been refuted. In fact, DuVernay was too kind in naming him a hero. LBJ was no hero, he merely, and reluctantly, signed a bill that would begin to barely scratch the surface of what was owed American citizens. As far as the Oscars, funny that you place tremendous value there while most see it for what it is ... another non inclusive organization in which I personally don't find much value in, nor seek any validation from.
9
In typical Hollywood style, Ava should have portrayed the subservient black guy being helped by the great white guy and in the end they all lived happily ever after, just like in Disneyland. That would have been a real box-office hit, I bet. It would also meet all the strict "truth" requirements required when a black producer has to make a movie, which all the white producers are given a pass or "artistic balance" on.
32
Portraying LBJ accurately would not have "portrayed the subservient black guy being helped by the great white guy". Johnson wasn't the enemy and showing that, of course, makes things more complicated but it wouldn't have changed the focus. It just would have made the film more honest.
55
As a teacher, I love it when a well made film brings history alive. However, it troubles me that, given the opportunity to be historically accurate and still have many compelling stories, heroes and adversaries, that Ms. DuVernay defends her inaccurate portrayal of LBJ by saying its what she felt about him, despite the factual record. You can't both say that you are trying to be accurate and portray a fuller picture about the movement, and then choose to rewrite history according to your feelings. It just makes teaching history that much more important, but also more difficult. It takes nothing from the achievements of so many civil rights leaders and workers to acknowledge LBJ's role.
132
This was not a documentary, folks. The film, Lincoln suffered from inaccuracies also. No great outcry with that film. Why the double standard? This year I'm boycotting the Academy Awards partly because of this issue.
12
The difference is 50 years is not very long ago. Many people who were apart of the movement are very much alive.
They have memories.
Julian Bond summed it up best 'all Hollywood movies need a villain. LBJ was the villain in this one".
They have memories.
Julian Bond summed it up best 'all Hollywood movies need a villain. LBJ was the villain in this one".
1
I love your reviews, Mr. Scott, but your impatience with the criticism about the lack of "historical verisimilitude" in "Selma" is not appropriate. Very few Americans know the important history of the civil rights movement in this country. The last thing we need is a movie, and a powerful movie at that, distorting LBJ's role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And Ms. DuVernay is simply wrong to characterize LBJ as a "reluctant hero." In his first speech to Congress as President -- 5 days after JFK's death -- LBJ called on Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act. And in late 1964 - before Selma - he ordered the Attorney General to write "the goddamnedest, toughest voting rights act that you can". LBJ was no saint but his support of those acts was anything but reluctant. and without him it might have taken another decade. The movie distorts LBJ's legacy to bolster Dr. King's -- and takes too much license with the facts to do so.
148
OK, let's see... if Leni Riefenstahl's self-perception of Hitler is as valid
as anyone else's, then how she portrayed the Fuhrer in 'Triumph of the Will' is just an expression of artistic license, and, for gosh sakes, doesn't it just get your goat when people are so unfair to those artistic filmmakers?
Put differently, phoney is phoney, and a deliberate false note undermines both the verisimilitude and the true punch of a work of art based on real events.
LBJ was a collaborator who accelerated King's remarkable success by at
least a decade, in my opinion. If one was there at the time, there was no "reluctance" on his part. He had many, many flaws as a human being, but
reluctance to advance civil rights in the US was not one of them, as he had proved long before he became president.
'Triumph of the Will' is still regarded by many people as a beautifully-made film, but it usually carries an asterisk. The person who made that film was just as certain of her moral rectitude and her judgment of history as the director of 'Selma' feels about her work. I can see Riefenstahl calmly explaining to her interviewer, "Oh, the Jews -- I really didn't focus on them at all. My movie was about something more important." Lies come in all shapes and sizes, and remain lies even so.
as anyone else's, then how she portrayed the Fuhrer in 'Triumph of the Will' is just an expression of artistic license, and, for gosh sakes, doesn't it just get your goat when people are so unfair to those artistic filmmakers?
Put differently, phoney is phoney, and a deliberate false note undermines both the verisimilitude and the true punch of a work of art based on real events.
LBJ was a collaborator who accelerated King's remarkable success by at
least a decade, in my opinion. If one was there at the time, there was no "reluctance" on his part. He had many, many flaws as a human being, but
reluctance to advance civil rights in the US was not one of them, as he had proved long before he became president.
'Triumph of the Will' is still regarded by many people as a beautifully-made film, but it usually carries an asterisk. The person who made that film was just as certain of her moral rectitude and her judgment of history as the director of 'Selma' feels about her work. I can see Riefenstahl calmly explaining to her interviewer, "Oh, the Jews -- I really didn't focus on them at all. My movie was about something more important." Lies come in all shapes and sizes, and remain lies even so.
71
"He had many, many flaws as a human being, but
reluctance to advance civil rights in the US was not one of them, as he had proved long before he became president."
Do you know who was the head of the Senate in the fifties when Eisenhower tried to get a Civil Rights bill passed. Do you know who killed the bill by only allowing a weakened watered down version of the law to get out of committee because he knew his southern dixiecrats would lynch him if he actually passed a law with some teeth in it?? That was good old LBJ.
reluctance to advance civil rights in the US was not one of them, as he had proved long before he became president."
Do you know who was the head of the Senate in the fifties when Eisenhower tried to get a Civil Rights bill passed. Do you know who killed the bill by only allowing a weakened watered down version of the law to get out of committee because he knew his southern dixiecrats would lynch him if he actually passed a law with some teeth in it?? That was good old LBJ.
7
Dear Ledoc,
I recognize and respect your point of view. I was there working on the Senate floor for many of those debates. It wasn't so much that the Dixiecrats would have harmed LBJ personally, as that the rules of the Senate in 1957-60 would have allowed them to forestall any legislation whatsoever if they had held out as completely as they could. It was part of LBJ's skill set that he allowed them all to look like they were 'fighting the good fight' (as they saw it) but was able to persuade enough of them not to completely stall any civil rights action, but to stand back and let the bills pass. Even at the time, some senators such as Jacob Javits thought the bills could be forced through, but I think they
were a minority of Republicans at the time. And I feel certain no one other than LBJ -- certainly not Hubert Humphrey, a lifelong champion of civil rights -- could have convinced enough southern senators to stand aside to ley the bills even reach a vote under the rules at the time.
I recognize and respect your point of view. I was there working on the Senate floor for many of those debates. It wasn't so much that the Dixiecrats would have harmed LBJ personally, as that the rules of the Senate in 1957-60 would have allowed them to forestall any legislation whatsoever if they had held out as completely as they could. It was part of LBJ's skill set that he allowed them all to look like they were 'fighting the good fight' (as they saw it) but was able to persuade enough of them not to completely stall any civil rights action, but to stand back and let the bills pass. Even at the time, some senators such as Jacob Javits thought the bills could be forced through, but I think they
were a minority of Republicans at the time. And I feel certain no one other than LBJ -- certainly not Hubert Humphrey, a lifelong champion of civil rights -- could have convinced enough southern senators to stand aside to ley the bills even reach a vote under the rules at the time.
5
I wouild have loved to know her top 10 movie list of ALL the movies ever made. Limiting it to Spike's films in my opinion keeps the perception of her as being just a Black director. Her artistry transends race.
7
The question was "What's your favorite Spike Lee joint?", not "what is your list of the best movies ever made?" Honestly, when white (moral) superiority is at risk, people stop reading and lose their minds. People, read the interview with a critical mind and stop jumping to conclusions.
6
Sleepyhead,
You ask me to read with a critical mind but seem upset that I asked Mr. Scott to ask more broad based questions in his interview so we can have more insight into the creative influences of the director? You seem to suggest my question comes from some fear of White moral superiority -(whatever that is)- being threatened so you must be assuming that I am White and then you ask ME not to jump to conclusion?????
You ask me to read with a critical mind but seem upset that I asked Mr. Scott to ask more broad based questions in his interview so we can have more insight into the creative influences of the director? You seem to suggest my question comes from some fear of White moral superiority -(whatever that is)- being threatened so you must be assuming that I am White and then you ask ME not to jump to conclusion?????
I'm a white, Southern, liberal. And we just don't have that many heroes.
Dr. King was a remarkable human being; a man who transcended his time to lead his people to another moment in history.
LBJ doesn't deserve a national holiday for doing the right thing.
But he doesn't deserve to be shown in a film doing the wrong thing when it's a damn lie.
Dr. King was a remarkable human being; a man who transcended his time to lead his people to another moment in history.
LBJ doesn't deserve a national holiday for doing the right thing.
But he doesn't deserve to be shown in a film doing the wrong thing when it's a damn lie.
165
As an Black Northerner, I agree with you.
24
Accuracy is a grey area? This woman lacks artistic integrity. She is a close second to the woman who misrepresented the role of torture in Zero Dark Thirty. Truth matters in historical films. DuVernay lost sight of that and was rightly snubbed by the Academy.
79
The last word on how Ava DuVernay treated L.B.J. in "Selma" belongs to Amy Davidson of The New Yorker magazine. Read "Why 'Selma' Is More Than Fair to L.B.J.," published 22 January, 2015.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/selma-fair-l-b-j
That "issue" put to bed, let's get back to the real issue "Selma" raises so many don't want talked about: Voting rights.
What people had to do, and endure, in 1965, to exercise rights they'd been granted by law. Still relevant today, as the Supreme Court strikes down voting rights protections, aided by one so-called "Justice" who could only vote in his native Georgia because people risked their lives in Selma, and those voting rights laws were enacted.
Getting even more relevant in 2016, as Jeb "His Own Man" Bush, who had no trouble remembering who his brother was in 2000, when Jeb was Florida's Governor, and legitimate voters who were nonetheless guilty of being poor and Black were kicked off the state's voter registration roles, kicking Jeb's brother into the White House, where the nation got a big kick out of W., as another Bush who claims legitimacy to presume the nation's highest office.
Let's forget about how movies treat dead ex-Presidents, and start thinking about how living recent ex-Presidents and possible future Presidents, whose actions we still live with the consequences of, treat voters.
"Selma" shows us exactly how voters are treated. All voters. Because when some votes are stolen, all votes are stolen.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/selma-fair-l-b-j
That "issue" put to bed, let's get back to the real issue "Selma" raises so many don't want talked about: Voting rights.
What people had to do, and endure, in 1965, to exercise rights they'd been granted by law. Still relevant today, as the Supreme Court strikes down voting rights protections, aided by one so-called "Justice" who could only vote in his native Georgia because people risked their lives in Selma, and those voting rights laws were enacted.
Getting even more relevant in 2016, as Jeb "His Own Man" Bush, who had no trouble remembering who his brother was in 2000, when Jeb was Florida's Governor, and legitimate voters who were nonetheless guilty of being poor and Black were kicked off the state's voter registration roles, kicking Jeb's brother into the White House, where the nation got a big kick out of W., as another Bush who claims legitimacy to presume the nation's highest office.
Let's forget about how movies treat dead ex-Presidents, and start thinking about how living recent ex-Presidents and possible future Presidents, whose actions we still live with the consequences of, treat voters.
"Selma" shows us exactly how voters are treated. All voters. Because when some votes are stolen, all votes are stolen.
39
Perhaps in your reading of the New Yorker article the issue is put to bed but it is not in mine. The objection I have to DuVernay is her apparent belief that what matters is not the historical facts but rather her feelings, "as far as I'm concerned what I portrayed is what I feel about L.B.J."
28
thank you robert for this well thought out observation. i am planning to take my 13 yr. old italian grandchild to see Selma to show him what we were working towards in the 60's. also too much criticism directed towards a black women director . I wonder why??
5
"also too much criticism directed towards a black women director . I wonder why??"
Easy answer to that: because it is deserved !
Easy answer to that: because it is deserved !
3
It's very regrettable that decades-old squabbles and controversies surrounding Lyndon Johnson came to overshadow nearly everything else in this beautiful film, a worthy descendant of the 1970 King documentary that remains without peer. Clearly the Academy was influenced by these strong, personal attacks on Ms. DuVernay and her filmmaking, somehow even denying David Oyelowo his well deserved Oscar nomination. At the beginning of this fierce debate, Ms. DuVernay (understandably) lashed out at her critics, but this interview and other recent comments show her at peace with her movie and what she tried to do. Not all of us could display such grace.
14
How can you call a film concerning a vital act of history "beautiful" when it makes one of the two primary movers in finally bringing civil rights to this country into more of an obstacle than a most important facilitator? It was not necessary to try to elevate the great Dr. King by diminishing and demeaning a president who played a vital role in codifying by law what so many African Americans AND whites struggled for in the Civil Rights Movement.
If a film turned "Selma" on its head and transformed President Johnson into its sole hero while marginalizing Dr. King, the film would have surely been denigrated as "racist." And by turning "Selma" literally into black (MLK) good and white (LBJ) bad, this is unfortunately what this absurdly ballyhooed film sadly is: racism stood on its head.
Reflective of the NY Times has become, its critics like Mr. Scott represent the pathetic pattern of PC running rampant in our country. The Times critics are now channeling the idiotic legacy of Roger Ebert, who literally saw all matters of controversy as portraits in white and black.
If a film turned "Selma" on its head and transformed President Johnson into its sole hero while marginalizing Dr. King, the film would have surely been denigrated as "racist." And by turning "Selma" literally into black (MLK) good and white (LBJ) bad, this is unfortunately what this absurdly ballyhooed film sadly is: racism stood on its head.
Reflective of the NY Times has become, its critics like Mr. Scott represent the pathetic pattern of PC running rampant in our country. The Times critics are now channeling the idiotic legacy of Roger Ebert, who literally saw all matters of controversy as portraits in white and black.
19
Lying because the truth is commercially inconvenient is "grace"? Telling the truth, even when it's not convenient, is "grace."
2
That Ms DuVernay, in 2015, should be so attacked for her work of her understanding of the decisions that surround that march across that bridge,
to me, clearly put in perspective what MLK and LBJ must have gone through.
Because the movie showed AA in a positive light, actually demanding, organizing and being active in the struggle for a right that was already on the books, does that mean that LBJ was demeaned ?
These actions did happen during that time, would it have been easier to show
LBJ doing this on his own?. Blockbuster movie then. Right.
to me, clearly put in perspective what MLK and LBJ must have gone through.
Because the movie showed AA in a positive light, actually demanding, organizing and being active in the struggle for a right that was already on the books, does that mean that LBJ was demeaned ?
These actions did happen during that time, would it have been easier to show
LBJ doing this on his own?. Blockbuster movie then. Right.
2