SELMA
(USA 2014)
Directed by Ava DuVernay
I had the same idea as several hundred other Houstonians on the MLK DAY holiday (not on the actual day of his birth, which is Jan. 15th, as Jessica Chastain informed me during her impassioned acceptance speech at the Critics' Choice Awards that night). That idea was to go see the movie "Selma" and I am glad I did. It is an important work of historical drama that everyone in America should see (I bristle at the term "Black History," for this was a transformative moment in "American History.")
I will defer to the historians to debate the role LBJ played in either stalling or pushing through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- like many important movies about U.S. history ("Lincoln"; "12 Years a Slave"; even "JFK") it sparks a debate, which is edifying. (In contrast, Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar" was a travesty of history, sympathetically depicting that monster Hoover while further sullying the reputation of Dr. King. What's next for you, Clint: "D. Cheney"?)
Back to the movie at hand: David Oyelowo was unjustly denied an Oscar nomination for his riveting portrayal of Dr. King. The movie very much rests on his performance, and rather than attempting an impersonation of King (the actor's voice and stature do not resemble King at all), Oyelowo went for a nuanced portrait of his private, reflective self, to contrast the public persona we have all come to know. It works by giving depth to his character, adding weight to his public persona that takes over later in the movie.
Englishman Tim Roth likewise delivers a believable portrait of Southern segregationist Governor of Alabama George Wallace. Englishman Tom Wilkinson doesn't fare as well as Southern President Lyndon Baines Johnson, however. Here, an all-out impersonation would have better served the iconic figure of LBJ, who was in every sense of the phrase 'larger than life.' Having not seen "Lee Daniel's The Butler", I cannot comment on the balance of acting vs. impersonation of the various Presidents (and its effect on the movie), but perhaps DuVernay asked Wilkinson for 'less, not more' in his role?
The movie seems to drag a bit before getting to the March to Montgomery itself (the movie's centerpiece), and much of the dialogue sounds like rehearsed talking points to explain the issues to the audience, as opposed to how people argue in real life. I do appreciate how the movie shines a light on the little-known 'foot soldiers' who gave their lives for the cause: Jimmie Lee Jackson, Viola Liuzzo, and James Reeb: all murdered in racist attacks.
DuVernay is less assured in orchestrating set pieces -- I will give some examples in the [SPOILER] section at the end of this review. Strictly as a critic, I can see why the director's wing of the Academy passed-over her for the five male directors they did nominate. But it does give the appearance of an out-of-touch Academy. The same can be said of the Actors who voted on the Screen Actor's Guild nominees: "Selma" was shut-out completely!
[SPOILERS (of technique, not plot):
- DuVernay shows herself to be a second-time director with the overuse of slow motion shots to prolong the drama of certain scenes. The scene should be powerful enough without reliance on cheap tricks like that.
- The worst example of this tactic is the scene, early in the movie, of the 16th St. Baptist Church bombing that killed 4 young girls in 1963. A seminal moment in the civil rights movement to be sure, but the director plays it for shock value, then lingers over the resulting explosion with her signature slow motion. The effect is simultaneously too graphic and too artsy to earn the sympathy of the audience.
(Spike Lee did the same thing with his artfully posed corpses in the execrable "Miracle at St. Anna").
- Finally, one quibble with the end credits -- which I loved, by the way, from the John Legend & Common collaboration "Glory", to the original recording of the Selma marchers singing. The movie selectively spotlights the fates of several of the real-life characters in the film -- from the aforementioned Viola Liuzzo to, curiously, George Wallace, only mentioning his run for the presidency in 1972 and the assassination attempt that left him paralyzed, but never pointing out his later apology for his segregationist past and subsequent efforts to heal those wounds. Ignoring that salient fact, while highlighting the act of violence committed against him, is not only a missed opportunity to emphasize the human capacity to change, but also a cheap shot against a man who already had been depicted (accurately, to be sure) as an unabashed racist for the previous two hours. Sic semper tyrannis -- is that the message the filmmakers wanted to leave us with as we exited the theater?
