Red-125,
Thank you for understanding my point of view.
I first noticed this thread as it's at the bottom of the Selma's page here on IMDb, just as I noticed that you'd replied to almost every comment, which is the reason I came back to see if you were still maintaining an interest.
For the record, I am not an American, nor was I alive in the '60s. However, I feel that a film could be about Hitler, MLK, the independence of Finland or handsome men driving fast cars with beautiful, skantily-clad women in the passenger seats... what should matter above all else is how much the film entertains.
Let me convey now that any emotions stirred by the film (adrenaline - usually with action flicks; humour, as in comedies, etc.) is under the umbrella of "entertainment" when I judge a film. I can understand that this issue is very close to your heart, but I feel that, were you more objective, you'd see it as a very flawed film... in the sense that it just wasn't particularly engaging, which you may have found somewhat offensive by my using the more common phrase: "boring".
When I mention "flaws", please note that I don't mean from a technical aspect, per se - the editing was fine, the wardrobes and sets atmospheric, the acting believable and the directing most likely as good as it could have been, given the script... and therein lies the problem:
The screenplay (or its edits between the initial sale and what ended up on screen) simply failed to pull an open-minded - passive, if you will - viewer into the story.
As I wrote above: MLK seemed like the only character who was fleshed out, but even he was somewhat bland.
If you were to look at the films I rate, you'll more than likely be stunned by the amount of films that I rate as a 1. The reason for this is because there are a collosal amount of turds out there, and I don't tend to sit through them - anything I turn off is automatically a 1 (films I turn off because I wasn't in the mood, I don't register a rating for until I give another go).
In this case, I really felt like turning Selma off but - solely because of the history it was trying to convey - I endured. And yes, "endured" is the correct word, given the dullness of the film's first hour.
So, when Americans who remember the events of the film feel compelled to rate Selma as a 7 or higher, I honestly feel that they're not truly representing the entertainment factor of the film, but I can understand their rating; when users of IMDb hated the film for being so tedious or turned it off, I can fully understand the 1.
For what it's worth, though, the film did get exponentially better as the march approached, even if some events did seem forced to show the whites in power as deeming blacks as "sub-human scum", the same way that other forces have judged other tribes/nations/religions/races throughout history, whilst carrying out a "justifiable" genocide.
reply
share
Red-125
9 years ago
Dear Grandmastersik,
Thanks for writing again in such a thoughtful way. "Boring" isn't an offensive word. You found the film boring, and I didn't. It's a subjective matter of taste. Also, about your "1" ratings, that's a matter of taste also. I've very rarely walked out of a film, or stopped viewing a film at home. I would rate a film at "1" if that happened, but almost all the movies I see have something to recommend them, so I watch them to the end. Then I rate them.
In a factual sense, the whites in power did deem blacks as sub-human scum. That's a historical fact, and a fact that I can remember. It's hard to believe now, but it's true.
Sincerely,
Red-125
reply
share
grandmastersik
9 years ago
Wow. Well, what can I say to that...?
I suppose Martin Sheen's judge and Richard Nixon (though not accurately portrayed, since I've done some reading) did show that not all white men in power hated the blacks (Bobby Kennedy being another champion of civil rights)... but the police all came across as nazis.
So, was this a "Southern" thing?
All I can say is that you're right: by today's standards, that does seem very hard to believe.
reply
share
Red-125
9 years ago
Dear grandmastersik,
Thanks for writing. I think you mean Lyndon Johnson rather than Richard Nixon. I don't remember Nixon in the movie, but Lyndon Johnson appeared frequently. In 1965, racism was everywhere in the U.S. However, in places like Selma, it was more overt and potentially violent. Some politicians truly fought for equality for all, but many politicians thrived on segregation. Check out the Wikipedia coverage for Selma March, and you'll see what I mean. Red-125
reply
share
grandmastersik
9 years ago
Yes, my apologies, I meant Johnson.
Kennedy was killed, then came Johnson, followed by Nixon. I guess I read too much too quickly and mixed up some names above.
I'll check out the Wikipedia page, though, the real reason I came back was because there was one little thing that did irk me quite a bit in the film and I forgot to mention it:
During a talk between Hoover and Johnson, Hoover let slip that they'd target MLK's wife. I assumed that they were to stir up some kind of marital friction, by either letting her on to MLK's *supposed* (i.e. who knows what to believe?) many affairs with white women, or by threatening Corrie, but then... nothing happened.
So, Malcolm X showed up and I was thinking, "Uh,huh, what's going to happen here then...?" because MLK was in prison and his wife was alone with this power figure - easy to test her marital resolve, no? But X said his piece - which didn't contain any sexual invitation whatsoever - and left. Then she told MLK that X had been killed.
This was all during the "dull" part of the film and I was hoping that Hoover's statement was where it was finally going to pick up. So yeah, when nothing came of it all, I was pretty annoyed because it was a big red herring!
My point is that this could have been a breaking point for many - I know that had I been reading the script, I'd have put it down by then. Luckily though, the film improved not too long afterwards, but the whole comment made by Hoover should have been cut from the film.
reply
share
littlegeorgie
9 years ago
grandmaster,
America's history with race is an incredibly ugly and incredibly convoluted mess. To say the least! So much so, that 95% of Americans themselves have little to no understanding of the incredibly subtle complexities that keep it going so strong after 400 years. So, likewise, being non-American and trying to understand it's sordid racial history is sort of like watching half of one episode of a 12 part miniseries and then trying to guess what the message of the entire miniseries was.
I say this to illustrate (hopefully) a relatively simple point. The scene that you mentioned above about the seeming incongruity of J Edgar Hoover's role in all this is a pretty spot on observation. But here's the catch. In terms of the thousands of huge but incredibly subtle complexities that make up America's sordid history of race relations, that snippet of the film you mention is literally about one of the single most important moments in America's entire history. Because it is attempting to portray one of the singular moments when J Edgar Hoover showed that America was willing to completely subvert it's entire Constitution, in the name of maintaining it's racial status quo. Though, yes, it does do so quite badly. So, where you feel the scene could just as well have been edited out because of that incongruity, in actuality, for those people who have actually suffered the painful (and/or fatal) effects of that subtle and insidious institutional racism in America, it is literally the most important scene in the film. And to me, that chasm of perception between you and them, regarding this particular scene, is a microcosm of the enormous, enormous contrast between how Americans and non-Americans perceive issues of race, period (and black versus white, for that matter). No disrespect, but you know almost nothing. BUT...race in America is such a deep-seated, incredibly twisted, psychology distorting, soul crushing (in both directions), pathologically sick mess, that affects almost everyone, that you're actually much, much better off that way.
So, on multiple levels, this film was generally not intended for non-Americans like you, in the first place. (In fact, it's primary target audience was black Americans. And their hunger is for the truth to be exposed. Not so much to be "entertained".) And as strange as it may sound, that's actually a good thing. The history of race in America is an absolute mess! That leaves something of a smell or stain on everyone it touches. (You'll note I didn't say almost everyone.) So, the less you immerse yourself in that smelly mess, the better off you'll be. And, strictly maintaining a cursory knowledge of this garbage is actually very much to your benefit.
Best wishes.
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.
reply
share