Rho Kappa Journal Volume 1 Issue 1 | Page 8

Nonetheless, DuVernay notably illustrates the atrocities that occurred during this tenuous time in history.

One of the most controversial topics of this film is the depiction of the relationship between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr. as a relationship that included many testy exchanges. Shown as more of an adverse relationship in the film, in reality, the relationship between the two leaders was rather supportive and encouraging with President Johnson willing to burn a lot of political capital for the cause. In fact, substantiated by multiple recorded phone conversations between the two, President Johnson was the one that proposed the issue of the vote to King as he believed it would solve other problems and encouraged King to find the worst place for racial tensions and to make that place the center of a march that would propel the Voting Rights Act of 1965 forward. The debate between the two was not about if it should happen, as shown in the film, but a matter of when. King wanted it to occur right away, but Johnson was scared of the potential retaliations. Johnson was always a key ally to King, and thus critics of the film highlight the deviations from such a fact. And on the FBI monitoring of King and some of the other members Southern Christian Leadership Conference, it is important to note that US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy was the one who signed the order which allowed the FBI to monitor them and that this happened before Johnson took office. The film focuses on the FBI monitoring and increases the adverse relationship between King and Johnson by using this to further pit the two against each other, which is not completely accurate. DuVernay addressed this concern by claiming that the intent was not to antagonize President Johnson, but to put more emphasis that the circumstances surrounding the Voting Rights Act were not a skip through the park, "that these were two great minds in a chess match at times."

Tensions were high between multiple characters in the film as is true in the actual events, but in truth, conflict is what makes an invigorating film.

Director Ava DuVernay does something that brings a certain “human” aspect to the triumphs of Dr. King. She not only depicts his greatest moments, his most inspirational speeches, but also depicts his self-doubt, struggles, and sheds light on the rumors of his multiple infidelities that brought tension into his marriage. He is not an omniscient or omnipotent person and the film does a good job of avoiding putting him on a pedestal. Of course, his contributions were substantial and can never be appreciated enough, but he was, in fact, human and humans make mistakes. In sharing this more intimate side of Dr. King, DuVernay provides another way in which the audience can truly connect, a way in which the audience can feel pain and other human sentiments. And this portrayal aids in the brilliance of the film.

Selma serves many purposes: to anger, to sympathize, to provide reflection on the abilities of the human race, to find fault in humanity, to bring happiness, to entertain. It successfully educates the masses in an enjoyable way and provides insight into a tension-filled time in our nation’s history. Isn’t a point of learning about history to prevent it from happening again and/or to learn from past mistakes? However, there are inaccuracies that may affect the viewer’s view on especially President Johnson’s part in the marches, but in a comprehensive approach, the film is quite brilliant and has few such deviations. I finish the film and am inspired to learn more about the pivotal point in history that is the Civil Rights Movement and hope to visit Selma one day to fully embrace all that a small city represents.

08