I know, prior to the pandemic, I try to get to the movies at least once a week, but until the last year or two, there seemed to be a thing where I would miss one of the nominees for Best Picture, an award I typically don’t think too much of but there it is. In 2014, for reasons I do not remember but probably it had to do with timing, the film I missed was Selma. In light of the recent protests across the country, I found Selma among the free-to-rent digital movies to spotlight the struggle for Civil Rights, so I opted to finally see it.
By the by, I am fully aware big corporations aren’t making movies like this one free to rent out of some sense of moral righteousness so much as an effort to create a good public impression of themselves for the public, but that doesn’t mean I won’t take advantage of a free rental for what lpromises to be a good movie.
Opening with Dr. Martin Luther King (David Oyelowo)’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, the film follows the three months from that moment to his speech on the steps of the Selma Courthouse after the third, and finally successful, march from Montgomery to Selma in the name of nonviolence resistance. It’s not an easy task. President Lyndon Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) doesn’t want to spend the political capital at this time, preferring to focus on his War on Poverty. Alabama Governor George Wallace (Tim Roth) doesn’t care how history portrays him. And his own movement is full of dissenting opinions on what they need to do to get their voting rights secured.
And therein lies the key to how this film works. It doesn’t sugarcoat the time period, showing the opposition as little more than cartoon villains and King and his allies working together in harmony. Oyelowo’s King is world weary, tired, and sometimes doubts he can get what he needs done, but he’s still a man of thoughtful grace. At the same time, even as much of the film focuses on King and his wife Correta (Carmen Ejogo), it takes time to showcase many of the people that worked on the march and the arguments they had with King and each other in order to advance their cause. There’s even a brief appearance by Malcolm X (King doesn’t seem to care for him much in private but they don’t meet in the movie). If anything, the movie showcases how politically aware King is, as aware of how things look and the power of public opinion as anything.
Furthermore, director Ava DuVernay doesn’t shy away from the violence that surrounded the march, showing cops beating, gassing, whipping, and even killing marchers, even if they aren’t actually marching at the time. Like Fruitvale Station, these scenes are far too familiar to anyone paying attention to the news these days. Unlike that movie, this one seems to end on a more triumphant note. Is it warranted given current events? The song performed over the film’s closing credits seem to acknowledge that, but at the least it was a triumph for Dr. King and an example to other activists on the power of patience and perseverance.
I don’t know that I have any answers myself, but I’m glad I filled this personal movie gap. Besides, it’s somehow even sadder knowing I’ve lived longer than King did. What else could he have done had he lived longer?
Grade: A-
0 Comments