Mississippi Burning: Revisionist History?

(This is a slightly-edited version of what I originally posted as a reply on another thread. But in light of what some noted film critics are now saying about Mississippi Burning, I believe the subject is entitled to a full and fresh airing on its own.)


At least some critics assume Alan Ward (Willem Dafoe) represents "the F.B.I."; as if he were tantamount to an official spokesman for J. Edgar Hoover and not simply one man, a field agent-in-charge on the front line in a murder case. Hence they erroneously conclude the film revises history and implies that "the F.B.I."; was a strong ally in the civil rights movement. Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott of the New York Times more crazily allege that the film credits "the F.B.I." for having won victories that had actually been won by African Americans. Oh brother.

I saw this movie in the theater when it came out, and I've seen it several times at home since then. Not once did I infer that Ward was a mouthpiece for official Washington or that he was anything more than a high-minded fictional character who spoke for himself. Yes, he was a true believer. Are you telling me there wasn't one true believer down there working on the front line for the F.B.I.? Not one? He's also shown to be full of himself, believing he's more important to the civil rights movement than he really is. Yes, he takes his orders from higher-ups in Washington. But whatever he thinks of himself and his role in the whole scheme of things——however high-profile this case has become, however nasty the political situation is for Washington officials——Ward is simply an agent working a triple-homicide case. Only a fool would see and hear Ward and think he was channeling J. Edgar Hoover.

In 1988, when this movie came out, every adult who read a newspaper or watched the evening news knew "the F.B.I.," i.e. Hoover, had been hostile to the civil rights movement. (I don't mean to imply that I believe every F.B.I. agent had been hostile. Quite the contrary: I assume that, like civilians, many believed in the cause of civil rights, but in any case they had consciences which J. Edgar Hoover neither owned nor controlled. Nevertheless, in his time——in terms of policy, politics, and public perception——Hoover was "the F.B.I.")

Screenwriter Chris Gerolmo would've known of Hoover's hostility. Director Alan Parker would've known it. And they would've known that we knew it——because we all did. All of this was made very public during Senate hearings into the intelligence community in the 1970s (the so-called "Church committee") which, in the wake of Watergate, got daily front-page coverage in the newspapers and was one of the lead items each night on the evening news. Only someone who never read a newspaper or watched the evening news would've seen Mississippi Burning and come away with the impression that "the F.B.I." was a friend of the civil rights movement.

Every key event in this film is consistent with the known facts. The F.B.I. sent at least 150 agents down there, they found the car, they found the bodies, and they identified and arrested the killers. Even today, agents who weren't even born at the time consider the F.B.I.'s stellar work on this case to be a feather in their own caps. Where-oh-where is the evidence that Mississippi Burning credits "the F.B.I." for victories won by African Americans?

The filmmaker did take some creative license with the characters. After all, this isn't a docu-drama. It never was. I can understand that younger people today, many of whom believe they don't need to "use" history and so they don't study it, wouldn't know that in 1988 Hoover's hostility to the civil rights movement was common knowledge, and that everything the audience saw and heard in this movie would've been filtered through that knowledge——and further, that the screenwriter and filmmaker would've assumed this in advance. I suggest that if history-challenged viewers come away today with the false impressions I've referred to, the fault lies not with the film nor the filmmaker but with themselves.