The film’s director doesn’t want to talk “history”, but wants to focus in the “voices” and themes the film represents. Some historians are less reticent and say the film’s portrayal of President Johnson is at odds with history on the topic of LBJ’s attitudes and actions with respect to claiming he was antagonistic and against the Selma march and used the FBI to go after MLK.
Is there any support at all for the claims about Johnson in the film? We’re not talking about ancient Greece here, this is fairly recent history, and so far as I know the period has been pretty exhaustively documented by historians. Is there some historian or history that the film might have used that says it happened the way the film portrayed or is this portrayal made up fiction for the sale of drama?
It’s a movie, and the people who produce movies know that conflict sells. There is no indication that Johnson was anti civil rights, nor that he had a problem with MLK. He may have been initially slow to act, but that’s a reflection of a political full plate (JFK death, Vietnam, etc), not of his beliefs. Hoover may have been investigating MLK, but not because of any directive by LBJ. Hoover was a loose cannon, who kept secret files on a whole lot of people. I think it’s shameful that the producers have smeared Johnson’s good work with this sort of innuendo.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
The fact is that as Senate Majority Leader in 1957 Johnson managed to get a watered-down Civil Rights through a Southern-dominated Senate. Critics complained he could have done better, but his action didn’t win him any friends among his constituents in Texas.
The fact is also that five days after he became President in November 1963, in his first address to Congress, Johnson urged passage of what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And on February 4, a month before the main violence in Selma, Johnson spoke out in support of the demonstrators.
It’s abundantly clear that Johnson had a pro-Civil Rights record long before Selma.
It’s also true, however, that there was a lot of “theater” involved by both sides. George Wallace, for example, famously took a “stand in the schoolhouse door” to prevent desegregation at the University of Alabama. Of course, as soon as soon as a federal marshal told Wallace to get out the way, he did.
Both King and Johnson understood the power of theater.
It’s a shame that the movie producers chose to portray LBJ this way. They like to hide behind the skirt of “it’s a movie, not a documentary”, but it really sucks that millions of moviegoers will have such a warped understanding of LBJ.
What a fecking she-weasel. “If you concentrate on the fact we’re lying about what happened in order to replace history with melodrama then you’re denigrating the people who marchers!”
Though the same article features Gay Talese saying that the film depicted the march exactly as he remembered it, so to her credit that’s a powerful endorsement. It also features a ringing endorsement from Henry Louis Gates for whatever that’s worth, but he’s far more celebrity than historian now (don’t even get me started on his genealogy show’s pandering).
RFK is one of the few historical figures that I don’t believe I have ever heard a single positive personal anecdote about. He was apparently a bastard’s bastard. Even people who thoroughly believed in his politics seem to have loathed him as an individual.
JFK was far less enthused about civil rights than LBJ. He may have eventually gotten there, but he had little interest in it during his tenure. RFK was a zealot; zealots are seldom pleasant to be around.
The point though, is that specific actions being attributed to LBJ in the film were actually done by RFK, Not JFK. One could call that artistic license, but I’m more on board with that when you combine such things in a fictional character rather than an historical one.
I understand MLK’s extramarital affairs are also a plot point. I’m surprised that was included since, while factual, I wouldn’t think it was really that important to the march unless the movie is more of a biopic than I thought.
I’ve never heard of RFK as anything other than an ardent supporter and advocate for civil rights. A quick google search didn’t yield anything to the contrary. Can you hook a brother up with a cite or two to clarify?