DCPS, Selma and the distortion of history

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

Telephone Discussion of Voting Rights Act Jan 15, 1965 between LBJ and MLK

****
President Johnson: That's exactly right. I think it's very important that we not say that we're doing this, and we not do it just because it's negroes or whites. But we take the position that every person born in this country and when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight. And that we just extend it whether it's a Negro or whether it's a Mexican or who it is.
King: That's right.

Can you describe out how that was misrepresented in the movie (I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know)?

Johnson makes very clear that, even as he's strategizing to move various legislation forward, the Voting Rights bill is his most important priority and , he says, in its potential impact it may even exceed the Civil Rights Act of 64. As has been reported, he advises King to find the most outrageous examples of denial of the franchise, in the worst places, and highlight them and publicize them to turn public opinion, particularly among otherwise indifferent white voters. This shows how LBJ and King were working, if not always in coordinated fashion, in a very complementary way to build political momentum to get voting rights legislation through Congress.

[Anonymous]

The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

Telephone Discussion of Voting Rights Act Jan 15, 1965 between LBJ and MLK

****
President Johnson: That's exactly right. I think it's very important that we not say that we're doing this, and we not do it just because it's negroes or whites. But we take the position that every person born in this country and when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight. And that we just extend it whether it's a Negro or whether it's a Mexican or who it is.
King: That's right.

Can you describe out how that was misrepresented in the movie (I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know)?

Johnson makes very clear that, even as he's strategizing to move various legislation forward, the Voting Rights bill is his most important priority and , he says, in its potential impact it may even exceed the Civil Rights Act of 64. As has been reported, he advises King to find the most outrageous examples of denial of the franchise, in the worst places, and highlight them and publicize them to turn public opinion, particularly among otherwise indifferent white voters. This shows how LBJ and King were working, if not always in coordinated fashion, in a very complementary way to build political momentum to get voting rights legislation through Congress.

Right, but how did the movie misrepresent this conversation?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

Telephone Discussion of Voting Rights Act Jan 15, 1965 between LBJ and MLK

****
President Johnson: That's exactly right. I think it's very important that we not say that we're doing this, and we not do it just because it's negroes or whites. But we take the position that every person born in this country and when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight. And that we just extend it whether it's a Negro or whether it's a Mexican or who it is.
King: That's right.

Can you describe out how that was misrepresented in the movie (I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know)?

Johnson makes very clear that, even as he's strategizing to move various legislation forward, the Voting Rights bill is his most important priority and , he says, in its potential impact it may even exceed the Civil Rights Act of 64. As has been reported, he advises King to find the most outrageous examples of denial of the franchise, in the worst places, and highlight them and publicize them to turn public opinion, particularly among otherwise indifferent white voters. This shows how LBJ and King were working, if not always in coordinated fashion, in a very complementary way to build political momentum to get voting rights legislation through Congress.

Right, but how did the movie misrepresent this conversation?

See prior posting.

[Anonymous]

Movie has King and Johnson meeting face to face a few times and talking on the phone. In those interactions Johnson basically tells King he has other priorities than voting rights and that he needs King to back off. King says that they have to keep pushing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

Telephone Discussion of Voting Rights Act Jan 15, 1965 between LBJ and MLK

****
President Johnson: That's exactly right. I think it's very important that we not say that we're doing this, and we not do it just because it's negroes or whites. But we take the position that every person born in this country and when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight. And that we just extend it whether it's a Negro or whether it's a Mexican or who it is.
King: That's right.

Can you describe out how that was misrepresented in the movie (I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know)?

Johnson makes very clear that, even as he's strategizing to move various legislation forward, the Voting Rights bill is his most important priority and , he says, in its potential impact it may even exceed the Civil Rights Act of 64. As has been reported, he advises King to find the most outrageous examples of denial of the franchise, in the worst places, and highlight them and publicize them to turn public opinion, particularly among otherwise indifferent white voters. This shows how LBJ and King were working, if not always in coordinated fashion, in a very complementary way to build political momentum to get voting rights legislation through Congress.

Right, but how did the movie misrepresent this conversation?

Given the amount of documented fabrications, and the fact that the movie director explicitly has said that she wasn't trying to create a documentary, the question is the opposite...how did the movie exactly and meaningfully represent reality?

It seems, clearly not enough.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

Telephone Discussion of Voting Rights Act Jan 15, 1965 between LBJ and MLK

****
President Johnson: That's exactly right. I think it's very important that we not say that we're doing this, and we not do it just because it's negroes or whites. But we take the position that every person born in this country and when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight. And that we just extend it whether it's a Negro or whether it's a Mexican or who it is.
King: That's right.

Can you describe out how that was misrepresented in the movie (I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know)?

Johnson makes very clear that, even as he's strategizing to move various legislation forward, the Voting Rights bill is his most important priority and , he says, in its potential impact it may even exceed the Civil Rights Act of 64. As has been reported, he advises King to find the most outrageous examples of denial of the franchise, in the worst places, and highlight them and publicize them to turn public opinion, particularly among otherwise indifferent white voters. This shows how LBJ and King were working, if not always in coordinated fashion, in a very complementary way to build political momentum to get voting rights legislation through Congress.

Right, but how did the movie misrepresent this conversation?

Given the amount of documented fabrications, and the fact that the movie director explicitly has said that she wasn't trying to create a documentary, the question is the opposite...how did the movie exactly and meaningfully represent reality?

It seems, clearly not enough.

Bill Moyers, someone who was in a position to know and who has some criticisms of the film feels differently:

"There are some beautiful and poignant moments in the film that take us closer to the truth than anything I’ve seen in other movies to date:..."

snip

"So it’s a powerful but flawed film. Go see it, though – it’s good to be reminded of a time when courage on the street is met by a moral response from power."

snip

"As for how the film portrays Lyndon B. Johnson: There’s one egregious and outrageous portrayal that is the worst kind of creative license because it suggests the very opposite of the truth, in this case, that the president was behind J. Edgar Hoover’s sending the “sex tape” to Coretta King."

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/15/bill-moyers-selma-lbj/

So, contrary to your suggestion, Moyers thinks the film only has a single "egregious" portrayal of LBJ and none of the film's critics in this thread have even mentioned it.

In my opinion, this is simply a classic case of people of color being held to a much higher standard. But, to answer your question as to how did this "movie exactly and meaningfully represent reality?" At least Moyers thinks it does it better than any other film. Is that good enough for you?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just saw the movie and I don't see a lie here. Can you elaborate?

Telephone Discussion of Voting Rights Act Jan 15, 1965 between LBJ and MLK

****
President Johnson: That's exactly right. I think it's very important that we not say that we're doing this, and we not do it just because it's negroes or whites. But we take the position that every person born in this country and when they reach a certain age, that he have a right to vote, just like he has a right to fight. And that we just extend it whether it's a Negro or whether it's a Mexican or who it is.
King: That's right.

Can you describe out how that was misrepresented in the movie (I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know)?

Johnson makes very clear that, even as he's strategizing to move various legislation forward, the Voting Rights bill is his most important priority and , he says, in its potential impact it may even exceed the Civil Rights Act of 64. As has been reported, he advises King to find the most outrageous examples of denial of the franchise, in the worst places, and highlight them and publicize them to turn public opinion, particularly among otherwise indifferent white voters. This shows how LBJ and King were working, if not always in coordinated fashion, in a very complementary way to build political momentum to get voting rights legislation through Congress.

Right, but how did the movie misrepresent this conversation?

Given the amount of documented fabrications, and the fact that the movie director explicitly has said that she wasn't trying to create a documentary, the question is the opposite...how did the movie exactly and meaningfully represent reality?

It seems, clearly not enough.

Bill Moyers, someone who was in a position to know and who has some criticisms of the film feels differently:

"There are some beautiful and poignant moments in the film that take us closer to the truth than anything I’ve seen in other movies to date:..."

snip

"So it’s a powerful but flawed film. Go see it, though – it’s good to be reminded of a time when courage on the street is met by a moral response from power."

snip

"As for how the film portrays Lyndon B. Johnson: There’s one egregious and outrageous portrayal that is the worst kind of creative license because it suggests the very opposite of the truth, in this case, that the president was behind J. Edgar Hoover’s sending the “sex tape” to Coretta King."

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/15/bill-moyers-selma-lbj/

So, contrary to your suggestion, Moyers thinks the film only has a single "egregious" portrayal of LBJ and none of the film's critics in this thread have even mentioned it.

In my opinion, this is simply a classic case of people of color being held to a much higher standard. But, to answer your question as to how did this "movie exactly and meaningfully represent reality?" At least Moyers thinks it does it better than any other film. Is that good enough for you?

Trust is one quite fragile quality. Having more than one egregious fabrication (Moyers highlights one; others have focused on others) is more than enough to destroy that trust. I prefer not to be fooled by a work of fiction even if inspired by real events, especially when it masquerades as History.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh ffs. Give it a rest. If Bill Moyers got his feelings hurt too bad.

It's basically every historian of the period who's complained about the distortion. It's one thing to fill in details with fictional material but to make LBJ the villain when he was the driving force for civil rights legislation is pretty bad. That's why the director was blackballed for the Oscars. For DCPS then to present this to its students as history not only shows Kaya's ignorance and possibly prejudice, it can have the effect of hardening racial resentments among those sent to see it.

I'm sure that American Sniper is 100% historically accurate. There wouldn't be a double standard of any sort.

Are dc school kids seeing american sniper for free? Cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But don't you understand that is the very reason OP and the likes are upset about the movie. The horror of Johnson not being seen as the "white savior" is just too much. Can't you imagine the OP whispering "Duvernay is just uppity, the nerve of her to make the movie about the people on the line and not LBJ".

NP. The problem is that Duvernay distorts Johnson's role, in essence reversing the truth. That is irresponsible and in the end does a disservice to King, in my opinion. His story stands on its own and there's no need to smear Johnson to burnish King. She could have just left LBJ out of the movie and that would've been fine. But no, she needed to lie about his actions.

What did she lie about? That LBJ didn't want a voting rights act? The movie didn't say that. It was always about the timing. That's accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh ffs. Give it a rest. If Bill Moyers got his feelings hurt too bad.

It's basically every historian of the period who's complained about the distortion. It's one thing to fill in details with fictional material but to make LBJ the villain when he was the driving force for civil rights legislation is pretty bad. That's why the director was blackballed for the Oscars. For DCPS then to present this to its students as history not only shows Kaya's ignorance and possibly prejudice, it can have the effect of hardening racial resentments among those sent to see it.

I'm sure that American Sniper is 100% historically accurate. There wouldn't be a double standard of any sort.

Are dc school kids seeing american sniper for free? Cool.

Sorry, between endless standarized testing and Black History Months, they couldn't fit it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh ffs. Give it a rest. If Bill Moyers got his feelings hurt too bad.

It's basically every historian of the period who's complained about the distortion. It's one thing to fill in details with fictional material but to make LBJ the villain when he was the driving force for civil rights legislation is pretty bad. That's why the director was blackballed for the Oscars. For DCPS then to present this to its students as history not only shows Kaya's ignorance and possibly prejudice, it can have the effect of hardening racial resentments among those sent to see it.

I'm sure that American Sniper is 100% historically accurate. There wouldn't be a double standard of any sort.

Are dc school kids seeing american sniper for free? Cool.

Sorry, between endless standarized testing and Black History Months, they couldn't fit it in.

Interesting clue about your mindset. Maybe you should go see Selma?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film, while making the legitimate point that the civil rights movement was very much a bottom-up struggle, goes out of its way to portray Johnson as being indifferent and even hostile to moving voting rights legislation. Instead it's clear that Johnson and King had a good working relationship on civil and voting rights. (Their relationship would turn more distant when King later criticized the Vietnam war.)

It absolutely did not do this. Johnson does not appear to be hostile in the movie. What movie did you see? It's clear in the movie that they had a good working relationship.

I agree with this. I didn't think the movie painted LBJ in an unfavorable light or as an obstacle to the movement.

+2

Agree. In the movie I saw LBJ was very favorable towards civil rights.