Mediaboss Marketing

One of the years greatest and most important films is Selma, the story of Rev. Martin Luther Kings historic role in leading the march in Selma, Alabama, which helped lead to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The film enjoys universal acclaim from movie critics, and high ratings from audiences who have so far had the pleasure of viewing the production. But this is Oscar season, and so it goes that films come under attack to undermine their chances of securing nominations or winning awards, and this year Selma has seen a particularly harsh degree of award season backlash.

The backlash might have also impacted its box office performance a bit, as the film presently stands at $14 million domestically after its limited release expanded this past weekend and took in just over $11 million. How it performs internationally will make a big difference, but so far the numbers are below what one might expect for such a high-profile production about so significant a figure and event.

This backlash is coming primarily from a segment of white liberals loyal to the legacy of President Lyndon Johnson. And to be perfectly clear, let me say upfront that when I speak about white liberals in this article, I am specifically talking about this precise segment of white liberals, and Im not saying all of this particular criticism is originating only from white liberals. This is not an indictment of white liberalism overall, nor of white people or liberalism in general. But its also true that I will make a few general observations about white liberals and the ways media plays to their perceptions and preferences, and how that has largely driven much of the negative media reporting about Selma. So, keep these things in mind as you read

The films director Ava DuVernay said of the controversy, For the film to be, I think, reduced reduced is really what all this is to one talking point of a small contingent of people who dont like one thing, I think is unfortunate. DuVernay has crafted a masterful, amazing film, and she is absolutely right that the arguments against the film are reductive in the extreme.

Selma is targeted by a campaign to tarnish its reputation because it supposedly doesnt treat the white liberal president nicely enough based on those peoples interpretation of history, a notion that nobody should take seriously if theyve ever seen any historical-figures movies ever. Most viewers are perfectly willing to excuse shorthand history or presenting events in a more dynamic, dramatic fashion, if and when they like the film or like the changes its made to history.

Films are not documentaries, and no amount of false pretense that they claim to be is going to change that if some people cannot understand that feature films are not documentaries and that they cannot assume everything they see and hear is literally exactly what happened, then its probably dangerous to let that person watch any movies in the first place. Audiences arent so dumb as such presumptions suggest, and even young people who see this film and take it as a mostly-true account of the events of Selma are plenty smart enough to know that movies are not real life and that film takes liberties in telling stories.

Films about historical events have been made since the beginning of cinema. If after nearly 100 years of movies some folks still want to have this absurd debate over whether films even the best historical films should make changes in order to fit an entire historical event into two hours of screen time, then lets at least admit at the outset that its a dumb debate and that nobody is going to be consistent about their expectations of accuracy. Some things will matter more to some people sometimes, and its just a question of being honest enough to acknowledge that any historical film is going to change some things and how we react to those changes often/usually says as much about us as it does about the film.

See the original post here:
White Liberals Are Wrong About 'Selma' And LBJ