Selma (Ava DuVernay, 2014)

[Luke M]

Been seeing this pop up on too many top 10 lists lately to think it's just Oscar-bait. Anyone see it yet?

[movielocke]

I saw a really early screening, felt like it would get better with more time in the edit bay and a real score. Excellent work by oyelowo and some gorgeous cinematography.

[Luke M]

Saw this tonight at the U.S. premiere, I was blown away. Powerful film with some great performances especially David Oyelowo. The cinematography was gorgeous and Ava DuVernay directed the hell out of it.

I would hesitate to call it Oscar-bait, it's the real deal. Worthy of being on any top 10 list for the year.

[hearthesilence]

I saw a really early screening, felt like it would get better with more time in the edit bay and a real score. Excellent work by oyelowo and some gorgeous cinematography.

Saw a preview tonight - I think it may be finished as there was an orchestral score that was used throughout the film, in addition to pop music - vintage (Otis Redding's "Ole Man Trouble"), contemporary (Common and John Legend's "Glory" over the end credits) and even a contemporary cover of Bob Dylan's "Masters of War." I actually wasn't a fan of the score, I almost want to say it would've been better to leave it out altogether. It just seemed to lay it on thick when the action on screen was more than enough. As for editing, it felt like a pretty short movie, even though it was a full two hours and change, so at the very least it moved briskly.

Not bad at all, the performances were strong, and the cinematography was very nice, especially a handful of natural-looking, shadow-heavy daytime interior scenes (usually framing the close-ups of Dr. King with an enormous and effective amount of space). It's not a great film, but it's not Oscar bait, it's definitely a mainstream activist film in a good way and better than what I expected.

[AMalickLensFlare]

From what I hear, it's a "character assassination" (friend's words) of President Johnson, which, if true, leaves me in no hurry to see it.

[movielocke]

It's not. But the Johnson performance is probably the weakest acting in the film. And a lot less fun than the scenery chewing hilarity of Johnson in the butler (those last four words sound terrible together).

The film gives us a very jaded perspective on Johnson that is out of step with the current reverence he's held in.

[hearthesilence]

From what I hear, it's a "character assassination" (friend's words) of President Johnson, which, if true, leaves me in no hurry to see it.

The NYTimes has published a piece about that.

[hearthesilence]

It's pretty damning to read those testimonies from historians. The film made it clear (in its own world) that Johnson wanted the FBI to do something about King to get him off his back, and this was after Hoover told him in blunt terms that they can take him down in his family life. If there's really nothing but speculation to back that up, especially with a president who I believe is the only one to not only tape record everything that went on in the Oval Office but has had every single inch of those tapes made public in the decades after his death, the film really made a serious misstep.

[domino harvey]

Professor May, who said he had communicated informally with Ms. DuVernay over the past year after sending her a copy of his book, said that at a preview screening for invited guests in November, some audience members hissed when Johnson appeared.

Jesus Christ. On the whole no president save Lincoln did more for black Americans, and according to the article it sounds like there are a lot of historians raising questions about the alleged portrayal. I can't judge a film unseen but I do hope the movie doesn't demonize LBJ in favor of new-liberal revisionism that willfully ignores the part white advocates played in the civil rights struggle. The quote in the article re: this is just people wanting a civil rights film to be about white people is insulting and Tumblr-esque-- it's about fair representation of a complex issue, even if it doesn't fit the desired cultural narrative, and pretending the gains of civil rights era happened without advocacy, particularly the heroic actions of LBJ, is just false. This isn't about marginalizing black voices and impact. Black citizens and activists undeniably led the charge and did the brunt of the legwork to make it happen, but the reality of the situation also shows how Dr King's dream manifested itself in blacks and whites working together to make a change

[hearthesilence]

...the reality of the situation also shows how Dr King's dream manifested itself in blacks and whites working together to make a change

They do show that in a good number of scenes away from Washington, but regardless telling Johnson's role more accurately would not have diminished King's efforts in any way.

“The real story wasn’t about a president who didn’t want voting rights,” [Professor Julian E. Zelizer, the author of The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress and the Battle for the Great Society] said. “It was about a president who couldn’t get them through. And it was the civil rights movement that made that possible.”

[AtlantaFella]

To address the question of whether the film adequately depicts shared struggle and sacrifice among the diverse (progressive) players in Selma: having seen this today, the answer is unequivocally yes. The film depicts this quite explicitly.

I also found this movie to be more fresh and focused than most historical dramas, with a few standout performances to boot. I highly recommend this one.

[mfunk9786]

If we're entirely ignoring historical facts re: the legacy of president Johnson, the scenes in which white politicians are speaking to one another behind closed doors are the parts that worked best for me in the entire film, because they're presented with a sort of heightened sense of campy villainy at times, roles by veteran character actors like Stephen Root and Dylan Baker have the volume turned up to 11 - and it feels almost more realistic than most depictions of the way white folks talk to one another about race behind closed doors sometimes (at least, these sorts of white folks). That being said, there's unfortunately a little bit too much hyper-dour Oprah-ness going on here from time to time, dragging down some of DuVernay's most stunning setpieces and directorial boldness - there are times that Selma feels like something truly radical, and it really drags those moments down when it takes a break on that rickety old biopic rocking chair. Momentum issues and questions of accuracy with regards to Johnson aside (by the way, the crowd I saw it with yesterday, which was very much mixed, nearly all applauded when Johnson announced that he was putting voter rights through Congress - the only time there was such applause during the film, so perhaps his villainy is overstated in terms of its actual impact on the audience), the film is an important first step in documenting that era in a way that feels authentic in a way that most prestige films don't. If a good 30 minutes of dead-serious biopic excesses were lobbed off, this would feel very much like a masterpiece. As it stands, it's just a masterpiece that's begging to break out of the sins of medicinal, teacher's aide historical cinema's past, leaving the result somewhat muddied.

For the record, DuVernay stands behind the portrayal of LBJ's stalling of the War on Poverty:

More detail here. LBJ’s stall on voting in favour of War on Poverty isn’t fantasy made up for a film... Bottom line is folks should interrogate history. Don’t take my word for it or LBJ rep’s word for it. Let it come alive for yourself.

[aox]

On a minor note: one small thing that irked me about this film is the use of modern music or modern covers. There is a wealth of fantastic music from this period. Even music that hasn't been touched by other films (yes, I am not calling for Rollings Stones or Otis Redding music). I don't get this decision on the behalf of a director, and I personally found it incredibly distracting.

[hearthesilence]

One thing missing is an additional footnote about Roberts' Supreme Court gutting out the VRA.

[hearthesilence]

On a minor note: one small thing that irked me about this film is the use of modern music or modern covers. There is a wealth of fantastic music from this period. Even music that hasn't been touched by other films (yes, I am not calling for Rollings Stones or Otis Redding music). I don't get this decision on the behalf of a director, and I personally found it incredibly distracting.

Since they reportedly did not have enough money to license MLK's speeches, cost may have been an issue. (Re-recording can be surprisingly cheaper than licensing the master of a hit record.) I presumed as such, but they do have some key period recordings, most notably the Impressions. (I distinctly remember Otis Redding when they all meet in the kitchen, I think it was "Ole Man Trouble," the opening track from his best album Otis Blue.)

[aox]

On a minor note: one small thing that irked me about this film is the use of modern music or modern covers. There is a wealth of fantastic music from this period. Even music that hasn't been touched by other films (yes, I am not calling for Rollings Stones or Otis Redding music). I don't get this decision on the behalf of a director, and I personally found it incredibly distracting.

Since they reportedly did not have enough money to license MLK's speeches, cost may have been an issue. (Re-recording can be surprisingly cheaper than licensing the master of a hit record.) I presumed as such, but they do have some key period recordings, most notably the Impressions. (I distinctly remember Otis Redding when they all meet in the kitchen, I think it was "Ole Man Trouble," the opening track from his best album Otis Blue.)

Was it that they couldn't afford those speeches? or that the company didn't want to license those speeches b/c they plan to use them for their own project?

Regardless, that may be fair for the music, and maybe I am willing to overlook the respectful cover of "Masters of War" if that is the case. However, the hip-hop song featured at the end of the film was disorienting IMO. It came out of nowhere, and at such a pivotal moment,

[PfR73]

I assume you're referring to the song "Glory," which was almost assuredly a calculated move. It's an original song written for the film, performed by Common (who played James Bevel in the film), won the Golden Globe for Best Original Song, and might win the Oscar. That song would probably still be there even if they had used period music for the rest of the film.

[aox]

I assume you're referring to the song "Glory," which was almost assuredly a calculated move. It's an original song written for the film, performed by Common (who played James Bevel in the film), won the Golden Globe for Best Original Song, and might win the Oscar. That song would probably still be there even if they had used period music for the rest of the film.

The song itself isn't bad. I just found it an odd choice as my experience with its placement was somewhat jarring.

[hearthesilence]

It's jarring, but they definitely wanted a contemporary link - hell, there's a reference to Ferguson in the lyrics.

An earlier interview suggested money was the issue. The MLK estate has been a complete mess in recent years - Harry Belafonte was even sued because they wanted him to return some private papers MLK personally gave to him. Crazy stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if they wouldn't give Selma a break.

[Daneurism]

I seem to remember the Common song being the first credit track? Or maybe i'm mistaken. I remember it didn't seem out of place-being at the end of the movie.

Really disliked the contemporary music played during the final march. Sounded really corny to me, along with being jarringly out of step with the rest of the movie.

[Gregory]

An earlier interview suggested money was the issue. The MLK estate has been a complete mess in recent years - Harry Belafonte was even sued because they wanted him to return some private papers MLK personally gave to him. Crazy stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if they wouldn't give Selma a break.

They've been greedy and ruthless for a long time, keeping Eyes on the Prize unavailable for many years, preventing periodicals and textbook publishers from printing King's words if they don't have the budget to pay high licensing fees, and so on. And other King-related films before now have been prevented because the estate controls the words (and has signed them over to DreamWorks). Selma could get around that problem because it's not a film that's concerned with dead-on accurate impersonations of King, so they never even had to try to get permission to quote the copyrighted speeches and just paraphrased.

EDIT: re Eyes on the Prize, I should clarify that while King's estate demanded sizable compensation for use of King footage in the film, they weren't the only ones standing in the way of the series becoming available; also other rights holders stood in the way, including for the music, and it cost in the neighborhood of a million dollars to clear it all again about a decade ago. And still, only the first series is available, not the longer second series.

[Highway 61]

Exactly. For years they have blocked the publication of a Library of America collection of King's speeches and writings, and they are notoriously difficult with scholars, publishers, filmmakers who address King's philandering. I believe the latter is the reason why so many King biopics have never gotten off the ground. I haven't seen Selma yet; does it mention King's infidelities at all?

[knives]

I've heard there's a seen with Hoover talking about sending King's wife a tape of the infidelities to LBJ. This is a good article about the whole King mess.

[aox]

I haven't seen Selma yet; does it mention King's infidelities at all?

Yes. Several times throughout the film they are alluded to and there is one scene where they are dealt with directly between the King's.

[jsteffe]

EDIT: re Eyes on the Prize, I should clarify that while King's estate demanded sizable compensation for use of King footage in the film, they weren't the only ones standing in the way of the series becoming available; also other rights holders stood in the way, including for the music, and it cost in the neighborhood of a million dollars to clear it all again about a decade ago. And still, only the first series is available, not the longer second series.

In fact the educational DVD version contains the second series as well. There are many public and university libraries that have the series, in case anyone is interested to check it out.