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.

The director should not have been nominated for an Oscar because she did a mediocre job of directing. I'm sure lots of directors who distorted the truth have been nominated for Oscars -- OLIVER STONE, anyone? I'm sorry, I'm glad to see the Selma struggle being portrayed on the silver screen (I used to teach the Civil Rights movement and I think it's important that more people learn about the key struggles in the movement) but I think DuVernay is overrated.

Anonymous wrote:I am white, but I am so over people crying about Johnson and Selma. Yes, Johnson was important, yes the movement needed him, but a lot people put their bodies on the line in a way he did not, that is what Selma is about. No movie is 100 % accurate, as much as anything because their are different perspectives.

John Lewis tells his truth about 'Selma'
But now this movie is being weighed down with a responsibility it cannot possibly bear. It's portrayal of President Lyndon B. Johnson's role in the Selma marches has been called into question. And yet one two-hour movie cannot tell all the stories encompassed in three years of history — the true scope of the Selma campaign. It does not portray every element of my story, Bloody Sunday, or even the life of Martin Luther King Jr. We do not demand completeness of other historical dramas, so why is it required of this film? http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lewis-selma-movie-20150119-story.html#

Agree. I actually disliked Selma and not because of the portrayal of Johnson but because it was pretty wooden and somewhat condescending to some of the activists (Lewis, for one, but he doesn't seem to feel that way). But if you want a movie to reflect things only exactly the way they happened before you send school kids to learn something, you will never send a kid to the movies. Even though I'm not crazy about Selma, it's a perfectly good activity for school kids because it does talk about a part of history that most kids don't get in school.

The good news is that the director will probably not eat lunch in Hollywood again. Her portrayal of Johnson was mendacious and then her response to criticism was arrogant and defensive.

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.

I don't think that DCPS will be sending school children to see American Sniper, as their history lesson or otherwise.

I have no idea about what OP saw (my DCPS kids did not see the movie). But, typically in any history class a very big part of reviewing materials, including textbooks, is to address the issue of who the author is and whether the point of view they portray is fair, fact-based, total fiction, propaganda, etc. It is also typical to review materials on a subject that show many points of view and many methods of communicating a message (e.g. a poem, a work of historic fiction, a newspaper article, a text book, and yes, a movie, all on the same subject). This is valuable, and my children's teachers, even in early elementary school, do this over and over, even with the midnight ride of Paul Revere. I would be shocked if this movie was the only resource these students explored on the subject and find it highly unlikely that there will not be vigorous discussion in class on the film's POV and accuracy.

Anonymous wrote:I find it striking that some people are obsessing about whether the portrayal of a few days' worth of MLK's and LBJ's relationship was 100% accurate vs. the entire story of massive disenfranchisement, the organization to protest, the violence that met them, and the political aftermath.

+1000

It's not just DCPS, 7th-9th grade kids from all over America were encouraged to see this movie for free this weekend.

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.

I find it striking that some people are obsessing about whether the portrayal of a few days' worth of MLK's and LBJ's relationship was 100% accurate vs. the entire story of massive disenfranchisement, the organization to protest, the violence that met them, and the political aftermath.

I am white, but I am so over people crying about Johnson and Selma. Yes, Johnson was important, yes the movement needed him, but a lot people put their bodies on the line in a way he did not, that is what Selma is about. No movie is 100 % accurate, as much as anything because their are different perspectives.

John Lewis tells his truth about 'Selma'
But now this movie is being weighed down with a responsibility it cannot possibly bear. It's portrayal of President Lyndon B. Johnson's role in the Selma marches has been called into question. And yet one two-hour movie cannot tell all the stories encompassed in three years of history — the true scope of the Selma campaign. It does not portray every element of my story, Bloody Sunday, or even the life of Martin Luther King Jr. We do not demand completeness of other historical dramas, so why is it required of this film? http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lewis-selma-movie-20150119-story.html#

Ok, you need to calm down. It wasn't snubbed because of the historical inaccuracies. It actually wasn't sent to the many voters in time and they chose not to send it to the guilds at all.

Second, Kaya (whom I can't stand) has nothing to do with a few DCPS students seeing the movie. How do you know the teacher didn't already address this issue? Or better yet had the children do an essay on the accuracy/inaccuracy if the movie? Do you really think that the only thing these kids know about the Civil Rights movement came from Selma?

Jack Valenti's ghost at the Motion Picture Association must have made sure that the Selma director got payback for her distortions of Johnson's historic role.

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.

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

Maureen Dowd had an interesting column in yesterday's NY Times. She went to see Selma in Washington and the theater was filled with DCPS children. Apparently DCPS has obtained funds to send school kids to see the film. She described the kids' reaction to the Lyndon Johnson scenes and character as quite negative. Why should DCPS be sending school kids to see a film -- under the guise of history, no less -- that significantly departs from the true historical record and slanders the president who did more for civil rights and African-Americans than any other president besides Lincoln??