Review: “Selma”

Selma deserves a Best Picture win, because even with all of its imperfections, it is a story that engages with history honestly and insightfully. It highlights an important part of the civil rights movement, enlightens a common narrative of a historical figure, yet respectfully keeps the integrity of Dr. King’s legacy intact.

It is good history as far as narrative filmmaking goes. Somehow I’ve managed to keep up with most of the Oscar nominees this year, and a disproportionate number of them are biopics. Cries of historical inaccuracy greeted all of them, perhaps none more so than Selma. My friend JJ Feinauer wrote a pretty good piece on it for Deseret News. Basically, this selection of films scatters the spectrum of historical inaccuracies. Foxcatcher’s main character feels the film perverts his relationship with murderer John Du Pont (though he has since backtracked), while The Imitation Game turns Alan Turing into an unlikeable savant and sanitizes his homosexuality.

Selma’s historical critics focus mainly on the relationship between King and Lyndon B. Johnson, and the involvement of other peripheral characters in the events depicted in Selma. But the amazing thing about the film is that these historical nuances are actually debatable, and Selma offers a historical perspective that is in no way definitive, but at least defendable. This is still Hollywood, so I don’t want to appear too naïve to the realities of filmmaking and drama, but despite these complaints, Selma does a good job telling a dramatic narrative in a historical context. It’s not a biopic in the traditional life-long journey sense, but rather a specific event pinpointed to explore the larger issue of a major social movement. As a result, the film shines light on details unfamiliar to most audiences. It shows the gritty politics of activism, and emphasizes the hard work and dedication of civil rights activists. It also hints at some of Dr. King’s major character flaws, and his movement’s use of media exposure to maintain control of the story. It sounds so icky when I say it like that, but that’s part of how the movement succeeded. We might criticize that aspect of politics currently, but Selma reminds us how important it is.

However,Selma is not an academic history. It is, first and foremost, a work of art, and a loving tribute to its inspiration. Dramatic licenses are allowed and sometimes necessary. From this perspective, the portrayal of LBJ needs to be weakened to emphasize the work of Dr. King. Real life people who sacrificed for the cause alongside Dr. King can get sidelined too, and while working their stories comfortably into the narrative of Selma would be admirable, it is just not time to tell their stories. The story of Selma, Alabama’s role in the civil rights movement is best told through the work of the pacifist leader, and telling that story effectively required creative choices. Considering the real life factors and human economics involved in producing a story like this, we should applaud Selma for sticking close to its intended message. The fact that there were other movements working in parallel to Dr. King’s pacifism is likely news to those who neither studied history closely nor benefit from the work they did in the first place. America learns a lot from the movies, and since this is the first really good movie about a specific part of the civil rights movement, it is no wonder Americans are clueless to how social movements are actually supposed to work.

In a perfect world, everyone who gave a significant part of their lives and livelihood to civil rights gets an Oscar nominated performance. In this world, it took fifty years to even make a mainstream movie about Dr. King, and despite a Best Picture nomination, the Academy shamefully overlooked director Ava DuVernay as well as David Oyelowo’s performance of Dr. King.

Meanwhile, American Sniper not only received six nominations, but broke box office records. It is, essentially, a horror show of American military propaganda. As history, it is just as worthy of a film treatment as Selma, but its narrative promotes an ideology that lacks criticism or nuance in favor of militant patriotism. The difference in favorability at the Oscars, hopefully unintentional, perfectly mirrors the reality of American politics. We’re fine with recognizing Dr. King as an icon, but neglect to recognize the talent of those who are willing to perpetuate the icon in the first place. Similarly, the continued efforts of people trying to realize Dr. King’s dream are met with ridicule from people who think his work ended with The Civil Rights Act.

Dr. King is still the hero. Flawed, human, political, but triumphant. The lesson? Engaging in history is rewarding, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us. Portrayals of Dr. King’s political struggles with other activists groups, or the dirt exposed by FBI, does not harm the vitality of his message of peace and equality. As Mormons concerned with honest but respectful portrayals of our own history, we should recognize that forgiveness of historical leaders is possible when their continued legacy proves worthy of our admiration. As moviegoers, we learn to appreciate the story of a real life person with some scrutiny, while accepting that human icons come with human quirks. Selma is an earnest portrayal of a human icon, which is a worthwhile achievement in cinema.