MovieChat Forums > Selma (2015) Discussion > Outright, Un-needed Lies can't ruin good...

Outright, Un-needed Lies can't ruin good film, but do degrade it

posted 10 years ago by kag2
17 replies | jump to latest

I heard the producer (or writer) on radio admit that he flat out lied in their portrayal of President Lyndon Johnson, who had already introduced a voting rights bill (or was about to) before meeting Dr. King in the Oval Office. Turns out they didn't want to produce a film that showed the great white father, so to speak, rescue the poor black activists. As if the marchers didn't matter.

They also portrayed murdered Unitarian minister James Reeb as a Catholic Priest. Very un-necessary.

Yes, it's a free country and somebody else is free to make another movie about this, but I do wish those that make historical movies would strive to tell the truth.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EirinngoBrach 10 years ago

Thank you! Atleast I'm not the only one who sees her "the big O" for what she is.

[–] Black_Lies_Matter 10 years ago

If they really wanted to be honest, they'd have quoted the reason LBJ was doing it:

"I'll have those n/ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years."

Absolutely, his most famous quote.

[–] kag2 10 years ago

Not sure if LBJ said that. But he also realized that his support for Civil Rights and Voting Rights would turn the South Republican for at least a generation.

In the 1964 election, his opponent Barry Goldwater (R) barely carried his home state of Arizona, but took the most hardcore Southern states of (S. Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana) by easy or landslide margins over that "Southern traitor" from Texas that dared support civil rights.

[–] canuckteach 9 years ago

Just watched it on Netflix.. I have no problem with how Johnson was portrayed.. in fact, I don't think he appeared to be weak or duplicitious.. Movie scripts are not docu-dramas. The scriptwriter has to interpret the motives of some historical characters and the conflict between them. I also thought Tom Wilikinson and Tim Roth were terrific as Johnson and Governor Wallace. It is ironic that Brit actors are needed to pull off meaningful interpretations of these great American historical characters.

Sadly, the racial problems in the USA continue, despite all the efforts of many determined men to achieve voting equality 5 decades ago. (As evidenced by numerous shootings of unarmed black folks by bewildered white police, who seldom face reasonable consequences for their actions.. am I wrong?)

:-) canuckteach (--:

[–] wendt-dave 9 years ago

Today's Black Americans who are shot by WHITE, BLACK, AND HISPANIC police are sooooooo different than the blacks in the south 50 years ago. I would swap the blacks from the different eras in a flash. The 1964 Blacks in Alabama would be extremely ashamed of the Hip Hop culture today.

[–] cjevansaicp 8 years ago

Sieg Heil!

[–] jerrythephd 9 years ago

What is the source of that quote?

[–] walkerus 9 years ago

A quote without a reference source is useless. Most so called "Quotes" are made up to score points or to add credence for an agenda. NO SOURCE GIVEN = PROBABLY MADE UP.

[–] Franny25 9 years ago

If they really wanted to be honest, they'd have quoted the reason LBJ was doing it:
"I'll have those n/ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years."
Absolutely, his most famous quote.

If you really want to be honest you wouldn't take this out of its all telling context.

First, is it even a real quote? There is only one source for this quote: one book purporting to cite 2 southern politicians. There is simply no reliable record of this quote. The author (Kessler) was a right winger and not without his anti-civil rights agenda.

Second, though LBJ's nomenclature reflected his southern roots, his empathy and dedication to empowering the poor and minorities does not reflect his southern roots at all. There is no question that LBJ was a huge champion of civil rights as well as lifting the poor and disenfranchised.

LBJ was a master of knowing exactly how to talk to people and if this is a true quote it wouldn't surprise me since he was talking to Dixiecrats (the Southern conservatives bitterly opposed to civil rights) to get them to vote for the Civil Rights Act. LBJ knew exactly how to win them over.

So while even if that quote is accurate, the sentiment is not. It does a huge disservice to history and LBJ in particular to suggest he was duplicitous and uncaring about Black America. LBJ's empathy and humanity is not in doubt after any fair review of his history.

So as his frank style may have seemed cynical, his endgame was not. His endgame was civil rights not the future of his party.

[–] littlegeorgie 9 years ago

...And where exactly does his consistent voting record against civil rights during his more than 20 years as a Congressman fit in with your belief in his being "a huge champion of civil rights"?

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] walkerus 9 years ago

What was his voting record (with source for your facts)

[–] littlegeorgie 9 years ago

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/

Literal first google response on the search page! Hmmmmm!?

No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

[–] Danny-Sichmeller 9 years ago

Yes and we could do the racist things Lincoln did too.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

Director Ava DuVernay also had the nerve to proclaim that ...

the movie is "not a documentary. I'm not a historian. I'm a storyteller"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/06/film-selma-duvernay-idUSL1N0UK2C920150106#qPegDucV4moPJmIK.97🐭

[–] wendt-dave 9 years ago

The History Channel needs to bring back that show... actually 2 shows but I forgot the names... History in Reels and History In Movies... one where they show the whole movie and the other just snippets but they have historians point out what is accurate and what is not. History has gone downhill in the past 15 years.

[–] kag2 8 years ago

Regardless of LBJ's record on civil rights in the Senate - he often voted no, but successfully got the Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed over southern fillibuster - the movie should have stuck to the facts rather than falsified.