And so here we have another one of those movies which
I have no intention of spending any of my hard-earned money on. For me, the sole purpose for going to the
movies, on those rare occasions when I can be convinced to do such a thing, is
to be entertained. It’s not to be lectured to, or to be taught some sort of
lesson that the maker of the movie thinks I should be taught. And it’s not to be subjected to some twisted Hollywood
version of past events such as this one.
The movie to which I refer is “Selma”. This supposed widely acclaimed example cinematography
which, or so we are told, is about the 1965 Civil Rights movement. But it seems that there are those who are not
fans of movie is, those who were present at the time these events actually took
place. It seems that Hollywood’s version
of this time in our history disappointed at least one moviegoer, none other
than a leading historian of president Lyndon Johnson.
And just who it that was less than impressed with this
latest attempt of revisionist history? Well,
none other than the director of the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, which
hosted a major civil rights summit earlier this year and that was headlined by
four U.S. presidents, who apparently thinks that the film which opened on
Christmas Day incorrectly portrays Johnson as being somewhat of an
obstructionist to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
As I mentioned earlier, "Selma" is
supposedly based on the 1965 marches from the Alabama cities of Selma to
Montgomery that were led by Dr. King. It
was during a time that marchers were calling for voting rights. As is usually the case, it’s always a good
idea to take movies such as this with a grain of salt, realizing that there is
little historical fact contained. Sadly though,
there those who take such movies as being an accurate portrayal of events as
they occurred.
It is in this particular instance that we have LBJ
Library Director Mark Updegrove who has now made the claim that the film
unfairly casts Johnson as a sort of composite character who represents many of the
obstacles blacks faced in getting civil rights laws passed. What history shows,
at least according to Mr. Updegrove, is that Johnson and King had a
partnership. He said Johnson and King
did have disagreements, but not like the film suggests.
Updegrove called the portrayal unfortunate given the
current racial climate following the deaths of two unarmed black men at the
hands of police. He said, "When
racial tension is so high, it does no good to suggest that the president of the
U.S. himself stood in the way of progress a half-century ago. It flies in the
face of history." Actually, what actually
flies in the face of history may just be the claims made by Mr. Updegrove that
Johnson was anything but a racist.
A spokes’moron’ for Paramount Pictures, the studio that
released the film, did not immediately return messages for comment Wednesday. "Selma" has apparently been
nominated for four Golden Globe awards, including best picture for a drama and
best director. But with the
entertainment industry being what it is, and pretty deeply rooted in political
correctness, that most likely has much more to do with it subject matter than it
does with anything else.
Back in April, it was Updegrove and the LBJ Library that
commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act with a summit that
included appearances by four of the five living U.S. presidents. And it was Barry
“Almighty” that closed out the event with a speech that lauded Johnson's
congressional deal-making and push for greater racial equality. But for a commemoration to take place in such
a venue has since seemed a bit ironic to me.
While there are those who may take exception to the
way the movie portrays Johnson, what history does show us is that, like the
majority of those in his party, the Democrat Party, then as now, he was a
pretty devout racist. And what seems to
have been long forgotten is the fact that had it not been for a sizable
majority of congressional Republicans, the Civil Rights Act, that today’s
Democrats very loudly take credit for, would never have been passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment