Civil (Rights) Discourse

There's been a fair amount of press written about how Selma is the most "wronged" film among Oscar's Best Picture nominees, how its lack of other Oscar nominations is a sign of the undercurrent of casual racism that still flows through Hollywood. That such racism (and sexism) still exists in the movie industry is beyond dispute; it's a shame that one film alone must bear the burden of being Oscar's litmus test. But Selma is, at least, a fairly good film.

Ostensibly the biopic of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Selma mostly avoids falling into the trap of the dry, sweeping biopic by instead focusing on a single event in the man's life. On most levels, Selma is more the "biopic" of the famed civil rights march and the events surrounding it than it is a biopic of its leader. By tightening the scope and timeline that the film portrays, it becomes more real and relatable than most biopic fare. We're spared the long time jumps, the ham-fisted cues in the dialogue noting the passage of time.

The film does a great job of portraying the depth of racist sentiment in 1965 Alabama, of showing how any moment of any day could potentially be a moment for equality to be denied. The level of hatred is so strong, there was probably a risk that it could come off cartoonish on film, but the movie never feels less than real, or the need for change less than urgent.

But the movie does occasionally stray off its prescribed path, dipping its toes in the water of a traditional biopic. These are the moments it lags, scenes that probably should have been cut from the movie. Talk of Malcolm X, and how his militant tactics contrasted with King's, seem appropriate to mention... but the film actually brings Malcolm X on screen for one scene, and not to show that contrast; it's an extraneous bit. A small subplot depicts some strain in the relationship between King and his wife, scenes likely included to flesh out King rather than lionize him. But in a story about Selma, why not lionize King? His possible character flaws have little bearing on the matter, and the film does nothing to round out any of the other people it presents. (Including, in a much-talked-about departure from real history, President Lyndon Johnson.)

That relative lack of focus on character does suit a movie that's ultimately about an event. But fortunately, there are some good performances in the film to help flesh out those characters. Oprah Winfrey, Common, Cuba Gooding Jr, Giovanni Ribisi, Wendell Pierce, Stephen Root, Martin Sheen -- the bench is deep enough that all of those people play quite minor roles in the film. Standing out from that pack are Tim Roth (as the thoroughly odious George Wallace), Tom Wilkinson (as President Johnson), and Carmen Ejogo (as King's wife, Coretta).

Then, of course, there's David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King himself. He does give an exceptional performance, channeling Dr. King with all the precision of a great impersonation, but with more truth and humanity than impersonations usually have. Should he have received a Best Actor nomination for it? Probably. I think I would give Steve Carell's Foxcatcher slot to Oyelowo (but then, I likely would have given the slot to Channing Tatum's Foxcatcher performance anyway).

Selma is a solid film overall. But the "human factor" works on a more generic level than through any specific character, and its few missteps into traditional biopic territory definitely cost it narrative and emotional momentum. I give it a B.