Selma And Lincoln: Movie Analysis
Selma and Lincoln are two historical movies about important events that happened in history. Did the directors include all the important details in their movie? Selma is about the Selma marches, lead by Martin Luther King. Throughout the movie, there is a debate between Martin Luther King and President Lyndon B. Johnson. Specifically, King tries countless times to try to persuade Johnson to help King achieve voting rights for black people, but every time Johnson refuses he becomes more annoyed by Kings motivation. Did Johnson refuse King’s idea or is that just how Ava DuVernay, the director wanted to portray him? Lincoln is about the passing of the 13th Amendment. Throughout most of the movie the representatives from each country meet in a courtroom to argue about whether or not to pass the 13th Amendment should. Steven Spielberg, the director forgot to include Fredrick Douglass in the movie. Nevertheless, Douglass was an important part of Lincoln’s presidency. Why
…show more content…
didn’t Spielberg include Douglass in the movie when he was such an important part of the passing of the 13th Amendment? Due to the fact that Ava Duvernay misrepresents Johnson in Selma makes some viewers upset because then people obtain false impressions about Johnson’s actions. Joseph A. Califano, who was Johnson’s top assistant for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969, stated in his article on page 1 that Johnson was the one that had the idea of Selma. More importantly, Johnson considered the voting rights acted his greatest achievement as president, and that he only viewed King as a partner. By just watching the movie you would think that King was the one doing all the work while Johnson just kept refusing King. You would portray King as the protagonist and Johnson as the antagonist. According to Califano on page 2 Johnson finally agreed to help King, so Johnson talked to Alabama Governor George Wallace, who said that there is no way that he could protect the marchers. Johnson stopped trying after his failure with George Wallace. In the movie, Johnson shows signs of annoyance towards King, and ignores his request to have the Voting Rights Act enacted. Actually, Johnson never stopped trying, and he listened to everything that King had to say and supported him. As specified by Califano on page 2, “Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress to propose his Voting Rights Act.” This shows that Johnson did try hard to enact the Voting Rights Act. The movie does not show a scene where Johnson has a meeting with Congress because DuVernay did not portray him as a supportive character, but rather as an ignorant man. As stated by Califano on page 3, “Johnson was enthusiastic about voting rights and the president urged King to find a place like Selma and lead a major demonstration.” This shows that Johnson was the one who was enthusiastic about passing the Voting Rights Act. In addition, Johnson was the one that was motivating King to find a place where they can lead a major demonstration. Califano feels strongly about DuVernay misrepresenting Johnson. Consequently, DuVernay has viewers that are not happy with the job that she did with the movie. Jonathan Scott Holloway, who is professor of history, African American studies, and American studies at Yale University, stated that Selma did not give Johnson credit for the work he did because during this time Johnson kept peace among the states, and he was the one who made the march possible. Additionally, Holloway said that some critics are students who believe that Johnson did so much to pass the Voting Rights Act that he deserves full attention. Kent Germany, a professor of US history and twenty Century African American Studies at the University of South Carolina, suggests on page 1 that if the Johnson saw the movie Selma he would make him wonder why King and him are arguing through the whole movie because the movie has false information about Johnson. Germany states on page 2 that the reason that DuVernay misrepresents Johnson is because to make the plot work DuVernay felt that it was necessary to have Johnson be against King, and try to stop King from achieving his goal. In conclusion, if DuVernay is going to misrepresent Johnson then their might not even be a point in including him in the movie because if you are not going to portray him accurately then why include him inaccurately and fill the viewer’s head with false information. Fredrick Douglass was an important character during Lincoln’s presidency. Gregory Stephens, an assistant professor of human relations at the University of Oklahoma, writes an article in the Los Angles Times and states on page 1, “Douglass is best-known as an anti-slavery crusader, an abolitionist.” Some people today believe that Douglass was the one who truly represented the Republicans’ most inclusive legacy, not Lincoln. Douglass was born as a slave in Maryland in 1818, and escaped in 1838. He quickly became one of the most popular speakers at that time, even though he did not go to school. Some people believe that Douglass was more of a leader than Lincoln. During that time that Douglass was alive, he had many accomplishments. He was the man who convinced Lincoln that the Civil War was about abolishing slavery; he fought for nonracial democracy; he was a Republican loyalist for almost half a century, and a key proponent of women’s rights. Stephens agrees that since he has studied Douglass’ life many times that he is undoubtedly important during the Civil War. Steven Spielberg failed to mention Fredrick Douglass, even though he was an inspiration to Lincoln and his presidency during the Civil War. Michael Shank, who is a professor at George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and senior fellow at the French American Global Forum, asked the question in his article on page 2, “Where was Fredrick Douglass?” This is an interesting question to ask. Douglass was an important man in the civil war. Shank wonders on page 2, why Douglass’s life and his importance on Lincoln was not included in the film. Douglass was the man who recruited black soldiers in the Union army. He also made sure that these black soldiers had equal pay and treated as well as the white soldiers. The way that people treated black soldiers was absurd to Douglass. Shanks states on page 3 that the leaders of the District did not care about what happened to their black soldiers, which genuinely disappointed him. Both Spielberg and DuVernay missed important information in their movies.
DuVernay misrepresented Johnson and Spielberg did not mention Douglass. What is worse, a misrepresentation or no representation at all? I believe that both of the directors made extensive mistakes when creating these films. DuVernay made a mistake when misrepresenting Johnson. When viewers see the movie, they will have false interpretations of Johnson, which will mislead people into portraying Johnson like he supported black people not being able to vote. Spielberg made a mistake when he did not include Douglass in his film because when viewers see this movie they will not even know that Douglass even exists. I believe that DuVernay’s situation is worse of false representation because it is better that you do not include them because then people would have to look up who the character is which will give them the real information rather that misrepresenting an exceedingly important person that helped pass the Voting Rights
Act. Both DuVernay and Spielberg made mistakes in their movie, but viewers should not be so critical about it. Directors make films off of their perspective, not other people’s perspectives. Duvernay and Spielberg probably have their reasons for making the films with significant mistakes.
didn’t Spielberg include Douglass in the movie when he was such an important part of the passing of the 13th Amendment? Due to the fact that Ava Duvernay misrepresents Johnson in Selma makes some viewers upset because then people obtain false impressions about Johnson’s actions. Joseph A. Califano, who was Johnson’s top assistant for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969, stated in his article on page 1 that Johnson was the one that had the idea of Selma. More importantly, Johnson considered the voting rights acted his greatest achievement as president, and that he only viewed King as a partner. By just watching the movie you would think that King was the one doing all the work while Johnson just kept refusing King. You would portray King as the protagonist and Johnson as the antagonist. According to Califano on page 2 Johnson finally agreed to help King, so Johnson talked to Alabama Governor George Wallace, who said that there is no way that he could protect the marchers. Johnson stopped trying after his failure with George Wallace. In the movie, Johnson shows signs of annoyance towards King, and ignores his request to have the Voting Rights Act enacted. Actually, Johnson never stopped trying, and he listened to everything that King had to say and supported him. As specified by Califano on page 2, “Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress to propose his Voting Rights Act.” This shows that Johnson did try hard to enact the Voting Rights Act. The movie does not show a scene where Johnson has a meeting with Congress because DuVernay did not portray him as a supportive character, but rather as an ignorant man. As stated by Califano on page 3, “Johnson was enthusiastic about voting rights and the president urged King to find a place like Selma and lead a major demonstration.” This shows that Johnson was the one who was enthusiastic about passing the Voting Rights Act. In addition, Johnson was the one that was motivating King to find a place where they can lead a major demonstration. Califano feels strongly about DuVernay misrepresenting Johnson. Consequently, DuVernay has viewers that are not happy with the job that she did with the movie. Jonathan Scott Holloway, who is professor of history, African American studies, and American studies at Yale University, stated that Selma did not give Johnson credit for the work he did because during this time Johnson kept peace among the states, and he was the one who made the march possible. Additionally, Holloway said that some critics are students who believe that Johnson did so much to pass the Voting Rights Act that he deserves full attention. Kent Germany, a professor of US history and twenty Century African American Studies at the University of South Carolina, suggests on page 1 that if the Johnson saw the movie Selma he would make him wonder why King and him are arguing through the whole movie because the movie has false information about Johnson. Germany states on page 2 that the reason that DuVernay misrepresents Johnson is because to make the plot work DuVernay felt that it was necessary to have Johnson be against King, and try to stop King from achieving his goal. In conclusion, if DuVernay is going to misrepresent Johnson then their might not even be a point in including him in the movie because if you are not going to portray him accurately then why include him inaccurately and fill the viewer’s head with false information. Fredrick Douglass was an important character during Lincoln’s presidency. Gregory Stephens, an assistant professor of human relations at the University of Oklahoma, writes an article in the Los Angles Times and states on page 1, “Douglass is best-known as an anti-slavery crusader, an abolitionist.” Some people today believe that Douglass was the one who truly represented the Republicans’ most inclusive legacy, not Lincoln. Douglass was born as a slave in Maryland in 1818, and escaped in 1838. He quickly became one of the most popular speakers at that time, even though he did not go to school. Some people believe that Douglass was more of a leader than Lincoln. During that time that Douglass was alive, he had many accomplishments. He was the man who convinced Lincoln that the Civil War was about abolishing slavery; he fought for nonracial democracy; he was a Republican loyalist for almost half a century, and a key proponent of women’s rights. Stephens agrees that since he has studied Douglass’ life many times that he is undoubtedly important during the Civil War. Steven Spielberg failed to mention Fredrick Douglass, even though he was an inspiration to Lincoln and his presidency during the Civil War. Michael Shank, who is a professor at George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and senior fellow at the French American Global Forum, asked the question in his article on page 2, “Where was Fredrick Douglass?” This is an interesting question to ask. Douglass was an important man in the civil war. Shank wonders on page 2, why Douglass’s life and his importance on Lincoln was not included in the film. Douglass was the man who recruited black soldiers in the Union army. He also made sure that these black soldiers had equal pay and treated as well as the white soldiers. The way that people treated black soldiers was absurd to Douglass. Shanks states on page 3 that the leaders of the District did not care about what happened to their black soldiers, which genuinely disappointed him. Both Spielberg and DuVernay missed important information in their movies.
DuVernay misrepresented Johnson and Spielberg did not mention Douglass. What is worse, a misrepresentation or no representation at all? I believe that both of the directors made extensive mistakes when creating these films. DuVernay made a mistake when misrepresenting Johnson. When viewers see the movie, they will have false interpretations of Johnson, which will mislead people into portraying Johnson like he supported black people not being able to vote. Spielberg made a mistake when he did not include Douglass in his film because when viewers see this movie they will not even know that Douglass even exists. I believe that DuVernay’s situation is worse of false representation because it is better that you do not include them because then people would have to look up who the character is which will give them the real information rather that misrepresenting an exceedingly important person that helped pass the Voting Rights
Act. Both DuVernay and Spielberg made mistakes in their movie, but viewers should not be so critical about it. Directors make films off of their perspective, not other people’s perspectives. Duvernay and Spielberg probably have their reasons for making the films with significant mistakes.