Discussion: <i>Selma</i> Did Distort History—And Was Right To Do So

TPM Article Topics
#21

That point isn’t awfully clear in the original piece, and even so I’m going to take issue with it. I’ve worked as an editor with academics for many years and I’ve always tried to make them understand that you can’t airily declare that words mean what you want them to mean, even if prevailing academic fashions say you can. It’s like Alice told Humpty Dumpty, “‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument.’” To most educated readers, “distort” means to alter something in order, almost always, to deceive. You can’t redefine the connotation of a widely known word just because you feel like it. And a portrayal of a historical figure in something presented as nonfiction that is distorted—i.e., inaccurate—in any sense is never “welcome.” I’m sorry, but I’ve always been intensely annoyed by the notion that nobody can see beyond his or her situation, that it’s not even possible to understand another’s point of view or portray a thing fairly and accurately. That’s nonsense.

ETA I haven’t seen the film either, I’m just responding to the opinion piece.

5 Likes
#22

“What I find interesting is when white folks get all butt hurt over one small aspect of movie and trash the whole thing.”
Well to begin with I didn’t trash the whole thing, I trashed this one aspect of the movie. And I don’t know how to break this to you but it isn’t just ‘white folks’ who have criticized this aspect of the film. In fact, in my personal experience, blacks are much more sympathetic to LBJ than whites. And as far as your last couple of sentences, we know what is on the record. To simply respond with, ‘well who knows the real truth is’ is total BS. And to say that getting historical facts )that can significantly prejudice the perceptions of historical figures) correct doesn’t matter is moronic.

#23

There’s a difference between making MLK and others the protagonists, and emphasizing their contributions, and vilifying LBJ. That’s what Duvernay did with her treatment of LBJ, especially with the J.Edgar Hoover phone call scene. Although i’m no LBJ fan, it was not right. Hopefully we get some clarity when Caro releases his new book 5 or 6 years from now.

5 Likes
#24

Interesting.

Coretta says she did receive a tape recording at her home in January 1965, a package she later learned was sent by the FBI. As portrayed in the movie, it is widely reported that the tape contained sexual sounds that were meant to incriminate Martin. But Coretta disputes that history. “When I listened to the tape, it had nothing to do with my husband having sex. It was a loud social function with people telling dirty jokes, nothing like what I have seen reported in the press,” she told me.

1 Like
#25

“”"""“Having seen Selma, I have to agree that it does distort history, making Johnson into more of a villain than seems justified by the historical record as it exists. And I believe doing so was a correct and necessary choice.”""""

How is distorting history a “correct choice”?

And why is TPM ( and all the media ) using the word snubbed when talking about nominations. No one snubbed ( deliberately gave a cold shoulder or callus treatment ) to this film. A lot of films didn’t get nominations yet no one is using the word snubbed for them. The movies was not entitled to nominations. It’s subject doesn’t make it mandatory it gets one.

3 Likes
#26

It’s not as if she lacked for white villains. Turning Johnson into something other that he was is lazy and irresponsible, no matter ho9w nobly you rtalk about your pure motives.

2 Likes
#27

Distorting history is never a correct and necessary choice. Railton’s argument — which boils down to “setting the record straight requires lying about it” — is both stupid and dangerous Facts, no matter how inconvenient, matter.

1 Like
#28

Interesting. Thanks.

#29

Another aspect of the movie for you to criticize. And for record I never simply responded with “well who know the real truth”.

You’re welcome

#30

I totally agree with your last sentence but have to disagree about the use of the word ‘snub’. It has been used widely when talking about people or films who were expected to get nominations but didn’t, particularly regarding the Lego Movie not getting a nomination for best animated film (which is by far the most inexplicable thing of all the Oscar nominations).

1 Like
#31

The more you learn, the more you know that, when it comes to history, “ya pick yer poison.”

#32

Its not history is its been distorted. It fiction. Frankly if there an attempt to alter history in this thing it should get no nominations at all.

#33

I agree with the comments not supporting distortions. On the small point author makes about a reinterpretation of the Puritan period in which historical fiction was more accurate (I may not be reflecting author’s view quite right), I think it’s a false analogy. The history of the the Johnson administration is full and clear. There are still participants alive who can testify to what was and wasn’t said or done. In short, facts is facts. In the case of the earlier period, much more must be left to interpretation.

2 Likes
#34

History does not always tell the truth. Sad but true.

#35

We should take a look at Bill Moyers rather strongly worded comments on the treatment of LBJ in the film. And he was there.

2 Likes
#36

I am personally offended by critics or commenters who take a non-academic, non-documentary rendering of an important historical event, like Selma or JFK, pick apart details that “really did not happen” and write it up in a tone that suggests that no one tells the truth about any of it.

#37

I should back up a bit here. The definitive history of LBJ is being written and that period hasn’t been discussed yet.

#38

Three words, Associate Professor Railton: Not. Buying. It.

1 Like
#39

I took my 12 and 15 y.o. suburban white kids to see it and they thought it was the most transformative movie they’ve ever seen. Racism isn’t just semantics to them anymore. I thought LBJ got the typical Hollywood treatment–no room for nuance. I’m okay with that. It’s a theatrical movie not a documentary.

#40

I agree that most movies and other recordings of the struggle of Blacks are viewed through the eyes of Whites, and that both distorts and trivializes both Black leaders and more importantly those on the ground who bore the most risk, beatings, jail and even death.

But i disagree that it was necessary to distort LBJ to tell the story through the eyes of Blacks. But what is interesting, and needs to be addressed, is why this is such a big deal. The reason this is such a big deal is because LBJ in history is a tragic figure. His mistake in Vietnam destroyed not only his presidency but LBJ himself. But his belief in civil rights and his ability to get it through while eclipsing his Vietnam mistake, has in fact been more costly to LBJs reputation than Vietnam because, as LBJ predicted, it resulted in the GOP gaining power as the South switched party affiliation.

Initially both JFK and his brother, Robert, opposed King. Yet JFK and Bobby are given the credit for civil rights and LBJ the blame. Therefore it would have been nice to see a movie focusing on the true heroes of the civil rights movement, those getting beaten and jailed, to show the fact that LBJ was in fact helpful to their cause not because it was good politics, in fact it was terrible politics, but because LBJ really believed in civil rights.

2 Likes
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available