|
Jack's Flow posted:There's a good piece up on Grantland about Selma: That's all fine, but your docudrama doesn't get to be diametrically opposed to what actually happened because it's about black people.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Yeah I mean, pointing out historical inaccuracies about a very sensitive and important historical topic isn't some kind of "assassination of culture" or whatever the gently caress that article is screeching about.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:That's all fine, but your docudrama doesn't get to be diametrically opposed to what actually happened because it's about black people. And yet Lincoln's sins were much more easily forgiven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:That's all fine, but your docudrama doesn't get to be diametrically opposed to what actually happened because it's about black people. "Diametrically opposed to what happened" seems to be a bit of a strong take on both what the article is asserting and what the movie itself does. Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
The author of that article actually does cite books and speeches and such to address the claims of historical inaccuracy and point out that they're overblown and how the film itself is more true than most of the complaints against it. It's a well written and researched piece and makes some good points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:That's all fine, but your docudrama doesn't get to be diametrically opposed to what actually happened because it's about black people. Oh, for gently caress's sake, people- it's a movie. Guess what: Movies aren't supposed to reflect history accurately, they're supposed to tell a story. That's true even for movies ostensibly about history, like biopics; they present you with a portrayal of historical people and events and dramatise them to make the points they want to make. Hell, even documentaries, which are by design supposed to be as factual as film allows, are inextricably bound to the point the film-maker wants to make. They're not supposed to be straight copies of what happened, or what the people there did, said, or believed- they're all usually dead or have signed a contract giving permission to use their image to tell a story. I mean, what do you think the little bit in the credits about film portrayals is even for? As well complain about []Lincoln,[/i] and the fact that Franklin Douglass wasn't in the movie. As well complain about Rush, and the portrayal of the rivalry between the tWo leads as being more antagonistic than it strictly was. Or how about Amadeus, with the "too many notes!" story it tells about Emperor Joseph II, and its ahistorical portrayal of Mozart's death (and they all spoke in English, yeesh!)? Or Spartacus? Or Erin Brockovitch? Or The Social Network? Or any movie about Jesus Christ? Or any of the seven such films nominated for these here Oscars? Look, I'm sure we'd all love to see a movie discussing Lyndon Baines Johnson and how awesome he was, but that wasn't the story Ava DuVernay wanted to tell. So to tell that story, she directed Tom Wilkinson to portray LBJ in some ways and not in others, ways that almost certainly were not real, but so what? That's the movies, and it's quite telling that Ava DuVernay is called upon to present historical accuracy when most other (white male) film makers were not. I'm not saying make your own drat movie, but... wait a minute, I guess I am: Make your own drat movie!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
I think that if you're making an historical piece, that you have a responsibility to its history and facts. At the same time though I think it's a case by case basis. In the case of Selma, historical accuracy is very important. Historical accuracy about a rivalry in sports? Not so much. That said, I don't think Selma's portrayal of Lyndon Johnson is incorrect just because it made white people uncomfortable. How history is written isn't black and white, and despite popular opinion, is almost never written by one side, but often times it's only one side that dominates the narrative. Are we seriously suppose to believe Lyndon Johnson wanted to help Martin Luther King? This is the same government that was found guilty in 1999 of conspiracy to assassinate the man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:That's all fine, but your docudrama doesn't get to be diametrically opposed to what actually happened because it's about black people. In what way is it diametrically opposed? That's a bad choice of words.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:That's all fine, but your docudrama doesn't get to be diametrically opposed to what actually happened because it's about black people. So you didn't actually read the article before you commented on it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
I can understand wanting docudramas to be as close to accurate as possible, but Selma isn't a docudrama  it's just a historical drama, where poetic license or whatever you want to call it is perfectly acceptable, imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I think it's pretty funny that Selma is catching more heat for "historical inaccuracy" than both The Imitation Game and American Sniper. Most of the attacks against the film are also bullshit. Cries of historical revisionism from someone who thinks "Selma was LBJ's idea" are pretty laughable. There's exactly one scene in the film that takes any real license with LBJ's character, and while I agree that it was a misstep, it really isn't even particularly out of line with what we know about the situation. Just because there aren't records of LBJ explicitly giving the go-ahead to Hoover doesn't diminish the fact that he was tacitly allowing Hoover to do what he was doing - and he was on the record with his concerns over King's growing political / social clout.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
On top of that, in the end LBJ is portrayed as a hero, so I don't even get what the problem is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:On top of that, in the end LBJ is portrayed as a hero, so I don't even get what the problem is. I have to be honest: when I posted that link I did not expect someone to say, "Selma is diametrically opposed to what actually happened". Because talking about that claim is the whole point of the article. And it didn't sound "screeching" to me either. Jack's Flow fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
It's meaningless to say a film wasn't meant to be a history film. Whenever you talk about the past, you're writing history. Even "historical fiction" books implicitly convey an understanding of the past. It is fairer to ask, "Should filmmaker be obliged to tell 'accurate' history?", whatever that term means. Lots of people are going to walk away from Selma, Theory of Everything, Imitation Game and American Sniper with their impression of the past changed. They may not swallow the stories wholesale, but they're gonna be influenced nonetheless. Perhaps more so than usual because these films are based on real people (and marketed explicitly on that). Compare them to say, Atomement or Platoon, where the characters are invented. Even then people are gonna walk away with a different sense of what WWII and the Vietnam War were like. Even the non-dumbest of us can't dissociate our visual experiences from our thoughts so easily. FWIW I think filmmakers have no obligation to historical accuracy. But that isn't going to sour me to a film any less when I find out post-viewing that they took serious creative licenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
The problem is that the article repeatedly cites Selma for its accuracy and then retreats to "Well it has no responsibility to be accurate anyway" when the movie resorts to casting LBJ as a conspirator against King, as if this is just a mild oversight when Real LBJ is all along waiting for the political momentum to introduce legislation. No one, not the article nor the filmmakers, can defend the sequence, which runs contrary to the movie itself, let alone history. It's troublesome to blatantly dismiss the historical record in favor of convenient movie plotting, because then we have carte blanche to consider the other nominees, each with their own series of problems, along the same lines. Painting historians' problems with the movie as a campaign to keep King marginalized is also a difficult sell, when he is already the most celebrated figure of the era--especially compared to the likes of LBJ. That, and this sort of fierce scrutiny occurs every year with historical drama nominees. That being said, when Selma is being considered alongside two films increasingly dismissed as pablum by serious critics and another dismissed as rank dishonesty (American Sniper), the lot of which garnered nominations in virtually every category, that's the real problem. I think we need to see an expanded list of nominees for other categories, and that as ever the Academy's overall judgment is suspect to begin with. Name Change fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
The film isn't setting out to make LBJ into a bad guy, though. There's only one scene that's all that contentious, and even that isn't particularly damning in context. Hoover is the real shitheel, and the historical LBJ did let him continue his smear campaign against King for a good while before pulling the plug. Maybe LBJ didn't sit down and explicitly give the go-ahead for releasing evidence of King's affair, but he almost assuredly knew what Hoover was up to and decided to let it continue, whatever the reason. That article pretty much hits the nail on the head when it says that the only people coming out of the theater feeling as if LBJ is a villain are the ones who went in thinking he was the hero. LBJ's legacy isn't sterling, but his efforts in support of the civil rights movement are. The one shot in the film that paints him in a particularly negative light kind of pales in comparison to the way LBJ and his crew co-opted all of King's efforts, in the grand scheme of things. There is more history being righted in this film than wronged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Thinking on it some more it's actually incredibly important that a character like LBJ in the film was in Selma. In the Civil Rights Era, there were three main groups of white people (and I apologize if the terms are slightly different from convention) - the liberal, the conservative, and the moderate. The White Liberal was devoted to the Civil Rights cause to a degree rivaling the actual minorities - they would risk their life and limb to go down and aid minorities, even if they weren't part of the movement from the beginning. The White Conservative is the segregationist, determined to keep minorities in their place even if it means violating any and all laws. As for the White Moderate, King himself sums them up fairly well: MLK posted:Over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Note the bolded phrase. In Selma, or any depiction of the Civil Rights movement, you should logically expect to see all three of these groups, unless it's solely devoted to a specific region with no outside influence (and this film wasn't an example of that). The examples of White Conservatives in the film are so numerous I don't think I have to elaborate. The White Liberals are characterized by the people who come down to participate in the march, specifically the Reverend James Reeb who is depicted as being attacked and killed on screen by the Conservatives. What then of the moderates? How do you accurately depict people who are characterized as not wanting to rock the boat? At this point, it's important to put a bit of historical context in. The film is set in 1965, and LBJ has just won re-election, one of if not the most lopsided victory in US history. The US at the time was extremely white, around 88% of people falling in that category. The question then becomes "who are these white people that voted for LBJ?" The most important thing about this election is that LBJ won without his traditional powerbase - the South. Texas and Florida went his way, but the traditional "Deep South" did not, the first time they hadn't voted for a Democrat in 100 years. It's safe to say from this that White Conservatives (as I defined them) were not a significant part of his electorate. It's also safe to say that White Liberals were not a majority, though probably larger than the Conservatives, because otherwise there would have been much more extreme legislation passed earlier. That leaves the White Moderate. LBJ in the film is a living representation of the Moderate. He uses the same phrase MLK alludes to earlier - that blacks made some progress and "just need to wait" for a better time to focus on the next battle. It is extremely important that that perspective is shown in the film, because that was the prevailing white opinion outside of the South. Most people didn't care one way or the other how blacks were treated because "We treated them okay" but what was being asked was getting dangerously close to upsetting the Northern/non-Southern order as well. Remember that the following pic took place in Boston, not Birmingham:  It makes perfect sense that LBJ would be characterized as this white moderate, who only concedes at the end due to legacy/reputation because the President is the avatar of the US Government and the US Government was primarily elected by moderate Whites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Thinking on it some more it's actually incredibly important that a character like LBJ in the film was in Selma. Great post. Holy poo poo, that Boston pic!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
LBJ would be hard pressed to be influenced by this picture because it took place 4 years after he died, 8 years after MLK died, and 11 years after Selma. This is a complaint about historical accuracy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Corek posted:LBJ would be hard pressed to be influenced by this picture because it took place 4 years after he died, 8 years after MLK died, and 11 years after Selma. This is a complaint about historical accuracy? Good job not reading my post, but tl;dr - this is the sentiment that was common in most of America from the end of the Civil War until Selma (and really through today).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Doc Sportello, no!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Boston's a real funny place because nobody can agree whether it's the most racist city outside of the South, or Leftyville, U.S.A.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
As an aside, this talk is more about the surveillance state and the cultural perception of terrorism, but Chomsky does talk about Selma and at 55:00 http://www.thebaffler.com/videos/crockford-chomsky-full/ The whole thing is worth watching though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
The answer isn't to characterize the guy who knowingly set the catalyst for the dissolution of his own political coalition as the white moderate (read: a problem and obstacle to the movement). There's little more juvenile and pretentious than to view any political pragmatism whatsoever as an evil that must be overcome. Casting LBJ as an enabler is outrageous. History is more complicated than White vs. Black. The central issue is, at its core, one historically indefensible scene, which is also indefensible within the context of the movie itself. Now of course this issue shouldn't really disqualify Selma, given its particular competition. Movies get smeared during awards season pretty frequently, and the Academy rewards financial success and brand more than it does quality. That, and the process can lead to some bizarre nominee lists. American Sniper is nominated in almost every category but Best Director.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
The Selma controversy makes no sense to me with regards to the Oscars. It has a Best Picture nomination, so its not like the misportrayal of LBJ persuaded a bunch of people. Seems like people just wanting to be pissed off about something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The Selma controversy makes no sense to me with regards to the Oscars. It has a Best Picture nomination, so its not like the misportrayal of LBJ persuaded a bunch of people. Seems like people just wanting to be pissed off about something. It basically looks weird in comparison to what else got nominated up and down the board.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Personally I'm more offended that American Sniper is getting nominated.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Also, trying to discredit Selma on the grounds that it slightly mischaracterizes LBJ feels like a pathetic attempt at demolishing a film that actively speaks to the uncomfortable truth about race relations we're still dealing with. The end credits song specifically name drops Ferguson for a reason. So if you can dismiss the movie on the grounds that it's "not historically accurate" you don't even have to get into the bulk of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Also, trying to discredit Selma on the grounds that it slightly mischaracterizes LBJ feels like a pathetic attempt at demolishing a film that actively speaks to the uncomfortable truth about race relations we're still dealing with. The end credits song specifically name drops Ferguson for a reason. So if you can dismiss the movie on the grounds that it's "not historically accurate" you don't even have to get into the bulk of the issue. For my part I merely dismiss that the LBJ wiretap link is insignificant or alternatively fair. I'm not going to make my bed with people trying to discredit the entire movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:For my part I merely dismiss that the LBJ wiretap link is insignificant or alternatively fair. I'm not going to make my bed with people trying to discredit the entire movie. Sure. But all those thinkpieces. It feels like they're trying to hijack discussion of the movie away from the march on Selma or MLK and turn it into "This movie vilifies LBJ! How dare it!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Boston's a real funny place because nobody can agree whether it's the most racist city outside of the South, or Leftyville, U.S.A. It's possible to be both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Color me surprised....Birdman has swept the guild awards and looks to be an unbeatable Best Picture frontrunner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
I don't really think it's going to receive any attention but for what it's worth Whiplash was a great movie, full of surprising and horrifying twists. And it had a great performance from JK Simmons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
messagemode1 posted:JK Simmons. Its almost a lock that he is getting an Oscar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Where the gently caress are Jake Gyllenhaal and Ralph Fiennes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
swampland posted:Where the gently caress are Jake Gyllenhaal and Ralph Fiennes? edit; swampland posted:Where the gently caress are Jake Gyllenhaal and Ralph Fiennes and the Lego Movie? BeanpolePeckerwood fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 06:30
|
|
swampland posted:Where the gently caress are Jake Gyllenhaal and Ralph Fiennes and the Lego Movie?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
^^Agreed I'm not sure which is more stupefyingly ridiculous, that American Sniper is nominated for Best Picture or that The Lego Movie isn't nominated for Best Animated Film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
A graphic showing how Oscar winners generally diverge in critics ratings and audience ratings: http://qz.com/342053/critics-and-audiences-often-see-oscar-best-picture-nominees-very-differently/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Vegetable posted:A graphic showing how Oscar winners generally diverge in critics ratings and audience ratings: Did you have to remind me that Chicago won best picture?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 23:50
|
|
