Another faux history scene was J Edgar pushing LBJ to send the sex tapes to his wife when it was really RFK.
I still have my Certificate of Absolution issued by talk show host Ken Hamblin, aka The Black Avenger.
It absolves me in perpetuity from “White Guilt”.
Therefore I am under no obligation to see “Selma”. Ever.
What’s with all these movies in recent years which stir up racial animosities? The Butler, 12 Years A Slave, Selma. What is the purpose of making such movies?? Who in Hollywood decides what the subjects if movies will be, and why do they make the choices they do???
I predict Selma will win many Oscars. Haven’t seen it. But regardless of the quality or questions about historic accuracy, the politically correct subject matter makes it an instant Oscar favorite.
Name one movie presentation of an historical occurrence that hasn't been modified? The details of historical events are often mundane and pretty boring. Boring details make for boring movies and low box office receipts. That's why most movies have "Based on a True Story" somewhere in their credits, and that really should read "Loosely Based on a True Story."
LBJ is the villain in this movie but only LBJ could have pushed the Civil Rights Act through against the racist southern democrats. JFK didn’t bother and RFK was getting dirt on MLK.
Great another movie that won’t tell us anything we didn’t already know, and will only exploit White Guilt.
History will always have a liberal bias because their view is what is being promoted.
Glen Beck is a loser but let’s be clear why PJ Media and others are criticizing this film:
PJ is doing so because the film basically deletes Ralph Abernathy; a close confidant and associate of King’s. He was allegedly (according to PJ) removed from history because in 1989 he wrote now famously how Dr. King, the night before his assassination, had a tryst with a mistress. The family never forgave him for that so asked that he be removed from the film.
My question is, so what? Is it really crucial to the telling of the story of Selma that Abernathy be depicted as part of the demonstration plans as well? Do we miss some critical historical insight?
Secondly, the other critic PJ links to is a piece by Joseph Califano, who was “ President Lyndon Johnson’s top assistant for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969.”
Mr Califano complains that LBJ was portrayed as “being at odds with Martin Luther King Jr. and even using the FBI to discredit him, as only reluctantly behind the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and as opposed to the Selma march itself.”
Question: don’t we here on FR believe that LBJ was in fact a racist, who only reluctantly helped King, as well as the entire civil rights movement, onky when it became clear to him how black people could be used by the Democrat party, counted on for their vote?
If so, why should we disagree with a portrayal of LBJ as Califano describes? Because Califano was LBJ’s confidant? We don’t think he (Califano) may have a “truth” to protect here?
If what we believe is the truth, that LBJ was a racist only reluctantly helping the movement later on, it seems that probably LBJ was not very helpful to King early on. So the movie, if what Califano says is correct, is probably correct.
So like I said, let’s be clear what is being said about the film and by whom.
Many people think that these movies that are sort of historical docudramas rewrites and flop, whether religious or political, come and go and disappear, but they don’t/
Those movies that you think disappear, are actually being made for the classrooms and the shelves at the library, 10 years from now school kids will still be checking out the movies to learn about Reagan, JFK, MLK, Noah, or whatever the subject that they need to learn about, that is if the teacher isn’t showing it in class.
“The Last Temptation of Christ” was released in 1988, and no one saw it, grossing 8.4 millions dollars to date, yet it is a staple in public libraries.