It was a good movie but I felt it resonated with me emotionally more because of the subject matter (and how painfully relevant some of it still is today) than because of the movie's efforts. Not to downplay that the movie is indeed well directed and particularly well acted, but not in such an amazing way that I would put the direction too far above the other well directed biopics of this year, The Imitation Game, The Theory Of Everything and Foxcatcher. Theory Of Everything and Foxcatcher in particular, despite their flaws, have confident direction and a clear vision whereas Selma plays a tad too traditional. Selma gets the nod because it's overall still the better movie (beating out the also all-round efficiently made The Imitation Game as well), but I can see how it got a bit lost in the biopic shuffle come awards season.
And I did feel they could've shown JBL at least a bit more agreeable on MLK's goals. They focused too much on him trying to push the issue away without (as I felt it) emphasizing that he was sympathetic to the cause, because every encounter he seemed more annoyed with MLK than conflicted, and that's a small but very important difference in how he's portrayed. I wouldn't say it was worth all the 'controversy', but it was a point of note.
The point of the movie is to show how complicated organizing against oppression is; so many voices and perspectives in one room that conflict is forever...I though Ava did a damn great job at showing how upset Lewis was with King because that's exactly what happened (except it was much worse). Just because you are sympathetic to a cause doesn't mean you agree with the path to said goal, which is a historical and contemporary trend of all social movements. Perfect depiction for a PG-13 movie on Voting Rights Act activism
The scene with Jimmie
First, let me say that I'm tired of all of this talk about "snubs" — I thought for every one of [the snubs] there was a justifiable reason. What no one wants to say out loud is that Selma is a well-crafted movie, but there's no art to it. If the movie had been directed by a 60-year-old white male, I don't think that people would have been carrying on about it to the level that they were. And as far as the accusations about the Academy being racist? Yes, most members are white males, but they are not the cast of Deliverance — they had to get into the Academy to begin with, so they're not cretinous, snaggletoothed hillbillies. When a movie about black people is good, members vote for it. But if the movie isn't that good, am I supposed to vote for it just because it has black people in it? I've got to tell you, having the cast show up in T-shirts saying "I can't breathe" [at their New York premiere] — I thought that stuff was offensive. Did they want to be known for making the best movie of the year or for stirring up shyt?
It was a good movie but I felt it resonated with me emotionally more because of the subject matter (and how painfully relevant some of it still is today) than because of the movie's efforts. Not to downplay that the movie is indeed well directed and particularly well acted, but not in such an amazing way that I would put the direction too far above the other well directed biopics of this year[...]
I disagree with how it's worded but as I've said in this very thread:
However, bringing up the "I can't breathe" t-shirt thing counteracts her point because that has nothing to do with the quality of the movie either. If it really is about the movie being either good or not, that shyt is completely irrelevant and it only shows how they let outside stuff affect their opinion.
I'm not even getting into equating a call for justice against the continued oppression of blacks in modern society to 'stirring up shyt'.
Off topic but, Ava Duvernay, sexiest director of all-time?
I mean she aint got much comp, but
She my type, thick boho and smart
Yeah she undercut her opinion. I disagree with both of you tho lol but still she should've left that out cause it makes it seem like she's fishing for a reason to not like the movie because she was offended
point notwithstanding Selma wasn't a biopicIt was a good movie but I felt it resonated with me emotionally more because of the subject matter (and how painfully relevant some of it still is today) than because of the movie's efforts. Not to downplay that the movie is indeed well directed and particularly well acted, but not in such an amazing way that I would put the direction too far above the other well directed biopics of this year, The Imitation Game, The Theory Of Everything and Foxcatcher. Theory Of Everything and Foxcatcher in particular, despite their flaws, have confident direction and a clear vision whereas Selma plays a tad too traditional. Selma gets the nod because it's overall still the better movie (beating out the also all-round efficiently made The Imitation Game as well), but I can see how it got a bit lost in the biopic shuffle come awards season.
And I did feel they could've shown *edit LBJ at least a bit more agreeable on MLK's goals. They focused too much on him trying to push the issue away without (as I felt it) emphasizing that he was sympathetic to the cause, because every encounter he seemed more annoyed with MLK than conflicted, and that's a small but very important difference in how he's portrayed. I wouldn't say it was worth all the 'controversy', but it was a point of note.