Selma (2014) ****/5: This is a good film but it does not address certain issues which would have made it more relevant than its idealistic portrayal.

I will admit that I resisted watching Selma because I am not a big fan of Martin Luther King Jr. (hereafter MLK) although I admire the role he played in the civil rights movement. He did stand for something no matter how idealistic it might seem to me. It is clear that if I am not a fan of MLK I am more on the side of other great  black leaders such as Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X. Selma is a good film however but it’s not great. The march captured here as a historical record is important but it does not elevate much or reveal much behind the context of the civil rights movement. Yes the march from Selma to Montgomery was about claiming the right to vote for the blacks in the south but the backdrop becomes more of a political tussle amongst several individuals without revealing much about the structure of society in those parts. It embraces the march alone and there is not much in the way of understanding what’s beyond the march apart from the political tussle. It also sticks with the portrayal of MLK as some sort of demi god of the integrationist movement.

The film is about the supposedly non-violent, ghandi styled marches in 1965 from Selma to Montgomery in the state of Alabama where blacks, led by MLK (David Oyelowo) sought to claim their right to vote with the support of President Lyndon Johnson (Tom Wilkinson).

Positives

The primary positive for me is that this is the first major film about MLK. I always wondered while growing up why no major studio film was made about him just as there was for Malcolm X (1992). When I got older I realized why. When you watch the footage of MLK he comes across as a holy man or a man that embodies high ideals. How can you make a movie about a man that is portrayed as so pure and heroic? He was the opposite of a Malcolm X that was portrayed as a more radical, militant figure. Malcolm X was no holy man because he was honest about his upbringing and the background that shaped him. Malcolm X underwent several transformations as a man coming from the gutter with a hustling background that made him criminally minded before joining the nation of Islam that gave him some sense of direction before breaking away and forming his own church and Pan African organization. Malcolm X was a more realistic figure and more identifiable with those black individuals in the urban areas because he understood that the power structure that kept the whites in place would not be dissolved simply by civil rights legislation. MLK was no match for Malcolm X or Marcus Garvey, that preceded Malcolm, when it came to grappling with issues of poverty that plagued the black community. Regardless of civil rights legislation, which is an idealistic achievement, it did not alter the power structure in society whereby many blacks still remained permanent members of the underclass. In the film when MLK says Malcolm achieved nothing he was wrong and absurd because Malcolm gave voice and an upright lifestyle to several blacks that he could never reach particularly in the economically depressed urban areas. It is not only about legislation. In any case the portrayal of MLK is therefore difficult because he always came across as this holy figure with his ghandi styled, non-violent approach to the political struggle. When he made speeches such as ‘I have a dream’ I was not impressed although it is a well written and a great oratorical, rhetorical speech. It seemed so devoid of reality and so I could not see how a film could effectively be made about such a man without appearing too preachy and fanciful or glossy in its approach to heroism. This film does adhere to the idealistic portrayal of MLK but it does diffuse some of fantasy around this martyr.

The performance of David Oyelowo is also  good considering that MLK is such a publicized figure. I can see why he was not nominated however because he merely recreates the demi god while not offering much insight into the character apart from his great sadness in certain situations. Denzel Washington’s portrayal of Malcolm X was great because he not only captured the look and feel of brother Malcolm but he also showed how Malcolm grew as an individual which meant that he assumed various characteristics. This is not the case in this film where all the characters are ready made and the focus is primarily on the Selma marches. The supporting cast is pretty good but there is not much to be said apart from statements about the political milieu. There is not much character development because there is not much time for that because the Selma marches are more important.

One other element that was important and really got me interested in the film, beyond the godlike stature of MLK, was the discussion about what it means to be American. From this perspective the Selma marches take on real significance and make the film very relevant apart from the heroic portrayal of MLK. When the marchers are finally granted the military escort to march from Selma to Montgomery I was moved particularly when I saw the historical footage. I finally saw why the marches were significant apart from giving credence to MLK’s stature and his non-violent philosophy. The black people that made the march were basically asserting their rights as citizens whose history tells the story of how their back breaking labour laid the foundation for the growth of America. Whether the white authorities liked it or not these black civil rights activists were American citizens and they should be accorded the rights that were accorded to other citizens. This is made clearer when the media footage that captured the assault of several black people on the march is broadcast throughout America and encourages others, including whites, to join the march. It obviously gets a lot of attention when a white man, a reverend, is killed for joining the march. Regardless of his colour the point is driven home that this is an American problem and not just a black problem. Bringing out the national perspective is a great achievement for the film.

I appreciate that the film made some attempt to address MLK’s infidelities. J. Edgar Hoover had a lot of dirt on him and it seems that this is brought out in some way. It goes some way in demystifying MLK’s god like stature in American media.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film for me is that there is not much character development. The lack of character development makes every character seem less dynamic even MLK. The march might as well have been a documentary. Although they address  MLK’s infidelities and his relationship with his wife they do not portray it or hint that this man was only human after all. They try but to do this there needs to be more exposure of his dark side. MLK did some negative things to women and this is not according to Hoover but to people that were a part of his entourage. This preacher took the  patriarchal biblical narrative seriously. At least they acknowledge why Coretta Scott King wishes she could do more in the movement but couldn’t because MLK was the patriarchal figure and commanded her to remain in the home. It was good to see her join the march but you wonder if it’s because MLK’s numerous infidelities were found out. At least she stood by him. Why this issue of his infidelities are so important is that this was one of the main reasons why Malcolm X fell out with Elijah Muhammad particularly as the latter’s numerous infidelities were found out. Muhammad looked like a hypocrite but unlike MLK and his entourage there was no one who would take him on. In this case only Coretta takes on MLK and manages to preserve his holy image by covering the cracks in his heroic façade. The case with Muhaamad and Malcolm suggests why it’s tricky to continue to portray these individuals as holy when they were not. The speeches and the campaigns become more propaganda campaigns that drive home a political objective while not addressing what was beneath it all. MLK could have run for president and maybe that was his aim.  When I heard the speech near the end it was not so significant as the march but it was one way of mystifying him and make his words seem so empowering. The captions near the end only capture that the blacks that benefitted were the petty bourgeois members that became members of white america. It never benefitted the majority of blacks that remained permanent members of the underclass and remained in a state of oppression because the power structures that kept whites in power remained. The captions highlights the reality that only a few blacks can be embraced within the structure of white society. The separatists like Malcolm x and Marcus Garvey are more realistic where black people seek the means to empower themselves away from the benevolence of white society. Most advances made by petty bourgeois blacks in America must receive white blessings or patronage.  This is why many petty bourgeois blacks feel more comfortable acting white than embracing the culture that is associated with the blacks stuck in the gutter. The rise of reggae,  rap, r&B, Jazz or soul music had nothing to do with white society. It may have popularized it by making it appeal to a white audience but this is an indigenous art form that has made millions for many  black individuals. This is more in line with what the separatists were saying; the entire black race should be uplifted instead of the few that are embraced and pampered by white society although several black artists and politicians, after relying so much on black support to get ahead, switch sides and become absorbed within white society. They forget the struggle or the attempt to keep the money within the community like what so many other ethnic groups do.

This film tries to make the integration movement seem more acceptable than the perceived radicalism of a separatist like Malcolm X. It even goes so far as to suggest that Malcolm achieved nothing because he did not get laws passed. That is typical petty bourgeois reasoning because MLK was very ineffective in the urban areas because of this. You can’t expect laws to change the plight of your people especially when the laws do not correspond to the material forces of production. MLK was good at giving speeches but not at suggesting how blacks could empower themselves without having to reside in dire poverty.  His only form of empowerment was that blacks should be absorbed into white society. This is fine but this is not much better than empowering blacks to make money and stand on their own two feet as a community that has significant economic sway like the jews. The separatist way is more effective than civil rights because if blacks were able to become economically viable away from the dictates of white society they would be respected and issues relating to civil rights would come naturally. It has now been revealed that the civil rights has benefitted the aspiring petty bourgeois blacks instead of the majority that reside in the prisons, alongside other ethnic groups,  because segregation still takes place with the majority of blacks  still not economically empowered. This film shows how a MLK paved the way for an Obama but not how his civil rights movement paved the way for black economic empowerment on a wide scale.  This would explain why Malcolm is still more relevant in the black ghetto neighborhoods. Obama definitely sounds like an MLK heir with his idealistic rhetoric which seems to deny the underlying economic realities of economic oppression that still exist in America. He might acknowledge certain issues but just spewing ideals is insufficient. Words don’t get things done. Trying to unite people with words when the basis for economic exploitation remains the same is just like someone caught up in a dream. Obama will never be able to address the underlying issues because capital does not reside with the government in America but with the private sector dominated by white society. Most blacks must remain content with their petty bourgeois status. For the most part all he will ever have is talk just like MLK. For the film to try and cast Malcolm x in a certain light as if he is some sort of radical that belongs in the dark ages is skewed. Based on my experiences as a black individual and what i have seen Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey are more relevant than MLK.

The film may have documented the marches but it never addressed or featured the structure of society that would lead blacks to join up with a Malcolm X instead of MLK. All I got from this film is that whites have all the power and so it’s better to join them than fight them. Not every black person wants to hear such a message.  Some black individuals forget their community when they do join white society and wonder why they are labeled as oreo cookies. The integration perspective makes it seem that blacks can’t thrive without pure white Christian values and patronage. This would have contrasted with the muslim lifestyle of Malcolm X which is the great historical counterpart to Christianity. The film could have brought out this religious divide better. The black Christians were not as pure as they sought to cast the black muslims in a negative light.

I was not sure what the film was hoping to achieve by attempting to cast MLK in this demi god light. He was just another bourgeois politician like Obama. It would have been interesting to see how MLK would do as president. He appears so solemn and burdened by genius in the film that I only got truly involved in the film when I saw the historical footage.

A lot of the dialogue is clearly dramatized so that some characters can appear on the right side. This is apparent in a discussion between Lyndon Johnson and Governor Wallace. ‘I just realized  that I want to be on the right side of history even though I will remain a racist in the closet.’ Shrewd political move.

In the end it’s still a good film but from my point of view it’s not great because the context of black oppression is not fully documented. What did giving blacks the right to vote achieve in the south for the majority of the black community that remained in a chronic oppressed, segregated state? Based on this film only a few seemed to benefit. If you can’t fight them join them. Most of the significant  material success of black people came because they formed elements themselves in a state of separation from white society. This separation contributed to their product being distinctive. It was only after success that they attempted to blend in with white society particularly as white patronage became ever so important, the higher they climbed, if they wished to reach a wider cross section of American society dominated by whites. Look at our athletes as an example. Tommie Smith and John Carlos,  receiving a gold medal and bronze respectively at the 1968 olympics, raise their hands in the form of  the black power salute at the medal ceremony while their anthem is being played and end up being ostracized. Most athletes have learned their lesson: if you can’t fight them, join them. Don’t challenge the structure of society that keeps you oppressed, embrace it and see how far you can go. The history of violence used by white society to consolidate its hold on america is quite evident because of the extent that they control the means of production. They used violence to keep the various ethnic groups in check and still do in several cases. This is the main reason why black militants like Malcolm and Marcus  were seen in a negative light in bourgeois society while MLK was embraced as he appealed to white sympathies.

This film makes it all too clear why MLK is enshrined as a demi god. Rottentomatoes in its consensus report states that the film reminds us of how far we have failed to live up to MLK’s ideals. He must have been god almighty then. The consensus report fails to mention that the film does not address why Americans have not lived up to his ideals. There are several material reasons why most of the things MLK said still remain a dream with the power structure of white society still intact. Isn’t that right Eric Garner? RIP. 

Boyhood (2014) ****½/5: This is a great coming of age film although its subtle moments escaped those that claimed the film had too much ordinary moments. I could relate to the themes of alienation in this film

Boyhood is a great coming of age film and I am going on the record to say that in a few years time it will come to be known, with the right publicity, as one of the great coming of age films. At this particular point the film is not well received by some members of the general public because of its length and the almost ordinary moments that seem so insignificant. These criticisms aside it is well made from a technical point of view with a real world quality that shatters the more fantastical approaches to the subject. American Graffiti could be considered a counter point to this film. It is more fantastic and hilarious because so much is concentrated in such a short time but in the end it still achieved something towards the end and this is because, in its own way, it was also a coming of age story.  Regardless a film like this makes it clear why critics are important to place things in perspective for those who might not be aware of what’s going on.

This film, written and directed by Richard Linklater,  traces the growth of Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from his early childhood days through to young adult years. Throughout the film he encounters several individuals and situations that clearly shape his character and attitude towards life.  The two most influential people are his mother (Patricia Arquette) and his father (Ethan Hawke) but there are other influences and one can see how they shape the youngster. This was filmed over a 12 year period by using the same actors and the growth of the fictional child characters also reflect the growth of the child actors that play the part.

Positives

The primary positive is that this film is one of the great coming of age stories. This film ranks as highly as it’s more glossier counterpoint American Graffiti. Boyhood is less flashy and more subtle in its approach whereas American Graffiti is a glossy affair with references to several cultural references in the form of familiar music, events and moments that were representative of that time period and would have been easily identifiable to many. The primary difference being that Boyhood is more comprehensive in its approach by highlighting growth in the individuals from childhood and how character develops. American Graffiti was a coming of age story but there was not much character development just recognition from the lead character about certain things.  In that one night many  fantasies were shattered by reality. Boyhood improves on this by showing how a young adult has come into his own or becomes his own person.

The use of the same child actors over a 12 year period was crucial for the structure of the film particularly as the child actors, Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater as Samantha, are able to stay in character. The amount of depth here is astonishing. Yes the parents remain the same and we see how Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette change but watching those child actors stay in character for such a long period is quite impressive. I was drawn in to the story rather than put off by what many would consider the mundane. The growth of the two children, particularly Mason, makes sense within the context of the film. It does not seem botched or scripted, although it is. Other films don’t always account for growth in such detail. There are normally some cuts from childhood to boyhood in most films. I used to grow up watching The Sandlot and in that film you are asked to accept that this is the direction the several characters took when they left the sandlot. We were supposed to gleam that from how they acted as teenagers. Boyhood is the quintessential coming of age film because the structure it uses clearly transmits the idea of growth in an individual and the use of the same actors from their early childhood days was very important. It clearly had some bearing on how Mason grows into the role and makes it his own. One wonders how much actor’s intuition there was on Coltrane’s part particularly as he literally grew up in the role. I also wonder how much of him we are seeing in the role as well. The same would go for Linklater and her character. There has not been other coming of age films with this sort of approach and the world of film will be the better for it because there are not many filmmakers that will be willing to wait 12 years to watch child actors grow into a role. This film should be commended for its approach.

One of the main criticisms of this film is the ordinariness of the context. According to this kind of criticism it would seem that the film has nothing to say apart from watching a boy growing up. This is false and superficial criticism. There are many themes in this film that relate to a coming of age story. It is clear that a film like this really needs the critics to elaborate on the many themes involved so that people will not continue to assume, needlessly, that the film does not have much to say. There are many themes that are addressed in this film related to growing. Firstly, there is the alienation felt by Mason that leads to his particular personality traits. His sense of alienation comes about because he and his sister, Samantha, are never allowed to concentrate in one area because their mother is always on the move. Whereas Samantha consistently challenges the constant upheaval that comes with moving Mason retreats and takes everything as it comes. He becomes used to the situation by isolating himself and not getting too caught up with emotional attachments. One of his more meaningful attachments, his first main squeeze, betrays him although she gave him an opportunity to reach out. His sense of alienation is reflected externally when he is criticized for being lazy or disinterested and negative or cynical in his outlook.  His alienated being also makes him into a drifter that can be adaptable because he remains so isolated or things don’t seem to make much of an impression. We do see that there are times when he does act sentimental but he comes to acknowledge the moments or living in the here and now because his life was comprised primarily of such moments where nothing really hardened or became too fixed. Mason’s sense of alienation is something I can relate to hence why it was immediately identifiable. Samantha, on the other hand, keeps in step with the times and always tries to maintain some sense of identity through her peers.

Another important theme is the sense of transition from the old to the new. The theme itself might be corny but this would explain how the lives of the parents contrast with the bloom of life in the more youthful individuals. One can see how the youth eventually embody something quite different to the dictates of their parents. The parents  and other supporting characters also reveal the limits that come to define us in the long run. It seems that most adults reach this limit where they cannot push beyond in any significant measure. If they do push beyond it they end up looking like caricatures of themselves in some cases. They become caricatures of themselves because they cannot grapple with the possibility that they have reached a peak which can only be followed by decline. You end up doing one thing or acting a particular way that comes to define you. Even though you may attempt to be diverse your approach to certain things does not change and you become static or your core becomes so hardened that change can only take place in superficial ways such as lashing out angrily or getting drunk. The mother, for instance, always makes bad choices when it comes to husbands. The father, likewise, is a glorified deadbeat whose impact always remains peripheral despite his attempts to dazzle his children. In contrast to the adults Mason’s growth seems more fluid but we also tend to see the elements that will eventually characterize him as an adult. His sense of being alienated has made him very observant, hence his love for photography, but he can be antisocial and soft at the core which can make him very susceptible to external influences or dismissive of them in order to preserve his individuality. The perception that he can be susceptible is the question that comes up, from time to time, regarding his sexuality especially as he is so soft at the core shielded by his individuality. This also reflects the mood in America at the time regarding the gay marriage debate and the amount of celebrities that came out of the closet.

There are other important themes but the last one I will mention here is the element of control. The growth of Mason and his sense of alienation corresponds with what could be considered the attempts to control him and his fluid or malleable state of being. In such instances the adults seem to be individuals clinging to a system that is no longer workable and this becomes more apparent as the children grow older. It seems like an old system in such superficial moments such as a church ceremony but the core of growing up still remains the same. You will reach your limits and you will eventually become hardened or boxed in. In your youth you’re softer and more flexible. The adults come across as desperate to preserve their little worlds or the dignity of those worlds. The mother might make bad choices when it comes to her various husbands but one can discern her need to prosper and be settled. She also drifts but eventually comes to the conclusion that things you represent get smaller the older you get or are perceived to be smaller because you have to let go of all that you accumulated. The children eventually outgrow you as they begin their own quest for expansion on the back of your accumulated labour. One must learn to let go and make do with the fact that time has changed. This applies to most of the adults in the film although the father is conscious of how time has passed by and revels in his own decline whereas the mother tries to come to terms with her limitations or the limits of her expansion. Coming to terms with your limits means that you will have to relinquish control to those about to move beyond them. When Mason opens up for the first time as teenager for the first time in the film it is important to note that he refers to the element of control.

I like the many historical elements that people will find relatable. It’s not just a recollection because it shows how these external forces give some sense of perspective to our upbringing. At one point we were so much into Harry potter before we moved on to smoking wed and getting liquored up or even partaking in political campaign.

Great supporting cast and great writing

Negatives

The primary negative has been repeated a lot: the ordinariness of the film. The primary issue with the ordinariness of the film is that most of the themes will be lost on some individuals whereas they are normally made clear in other movies by some dramatic spectacle. The film relies primarily on the passage of time to achieve its result. The ordinariness of the film does make you a bit distracted while you’re watching and you don’t feel as if you will miss much if you step away from the screen. You can relate to it but you’re trying to understand what makes it so different from other films. The flipside is that most coming of age films rely on the familiar but they must achieve some breakthrough for it to be a coming of age film. You know that you come of age when things that used to appear so big, initially, start to appear small or even insignificant. All of these things are brought out in the film but not with real impact apart from some moments of reflection. This is why I felt a bit shortchanged by the end because I thought the film could have, at least, continue until he graduated from college, assuming that he would graduate from college. It makes you wonder how different all this is because despite Mason’s growth as a character as an alienated individual he does follow a pretty linear path and for all of his cynicism he does embrace the road laid out for him by the  requirements to join society as a petty bourgeois. This is why, apart from a few reflections, we could see if he eventually became a conformist trying to fit in as a adult or if he assumed certain characteristics that made him truly stand out as an individual. I understood his character and how it grows but most people won’t get it and only see a rebellious teen or another teen fed up with the system but eventually embraces it and becomes a grudging member.

This is why the influence of the external world could have pointed to more reflections on his part. Did he ever get frustrated and smash something? Was he always so cool and collected as a teenager? His character seems to just roll along as we take in the decline of the adults that surround him. He makes a few comments or just mopes around. Few teens are so calm and collected and I am sure they are prone to moments of rage against adults. Samantha does lash out and this is to the films credit but even if Mason did not lash out at least we could get a sense that he was conscious of his limitations as a person which is the mark of an adult that understands his place in the world. The longer it takes individuals to acknowledge their limits and failings the lengthier the coming of age process. I was not too sure then if there was some sort of acknowledgement on Mason’s part. The adults mention it but does Mason? If he does not acknowledge his limitations then the conversation he has towards the end comes across as a means to preserve his youth or living in the moment and disregarding your history on the basis of aggressive expansion. The film may want to be stuck in that moment but I would have loved to see how he did after college because his own character would begin to make more of an impact in a social context especially as it concerned his interest in photography because, if he finished college he would be considered a professional instead of just merely talented.

In the end it is still a great coming of age film but it needed more of an impact in some areas to truly drive home some of its points.