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.