EYEWEAR THOUGHT SELMA THE BEST AMERICAN FILM OF 2014 SO WE ASKED THE CRITIC AND WRITER
STEVEN TIMBERMAN, AN AMERICAN, TO WRITE ABOUT IT FOR US HERE IS HIS PERSONAL ESSAY, A REVIEW WE ARE GLAD TO SHARE SELMA IS TIMELESS, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL STALE
I don’t want to write about Hollywood’s problem with
fostering, accepting, and recognizing diversity. I don’t want to write about
Selma’s status as another javelin to be thrown in our Great Culture Wars. I
don’t even want to write about Selma’s
ability to shift historical narratives in order to reach greater emotional
truths. Well, much.
I want to write about how viewing Selma made me feel.
I want to write about how viewing Selma made me feel.
Though I grew up in Southern California, our community
had a strong conservative lean. When students tried to organize a “Day of
Silence” in support for LGBT rights, parents pulled their students from school
in droves. An English teacher had the gall to criticize George W Bush as a
“crook” and had to appear on fox news to apologize. But public school creates
diversity by design, and my English teacher made it her mission to educate. A
tiny mormon woman, she was conservative in everything but the books and
messages she exposed us to. We read Frederick Douglass’ account of his life,
Martin Luther King’s letters written from Birmingham Jail, and even the
Autobiography of Malcolm X.
So when 12 years a slave became a cause celebre
last year, I dutifully purchased a ticket. And although the film left me
saddened, I wasn’t shaken. I had read first-hand accounts of slave narratives,
the barbarism no more real because it was belatedly transposed to the screen.
For me, there was a distance I could afford between myself and america’s great
national trauma of slavery.
Selma affords no such distance. One Oscar voter, under
anonymity, slurred Selma by calling it a “rap version of history.” Selma is a
profoundly angry film, offering none of the usual compromises on its way to
tell its story. There is no comforting white presence on which the narrative
can return to, like a security blanket for those terrified to see a story
driven by something other than benevolent white man.
King’s message has always been diluted, from the way
mainstream history ignores his later years focusing on the Vietnam War to the
myriad ways that “Non-Violence” has been misinterpreted and redefined. At the
heart of Selma is the cold calculus of the civil rights movement – court but do
not invite violence, stand humble but unbowed, and hope that your enemy finds
your mere presence so disagreeable that he’ll ignore the flashing camera bulbs
as he kicks your ribs in.
Most biographies tend to treat their subject as a God,
his words or actions divinely arriving at the right place with the right grace.
Selma exposes this as a fraud. This is not the Martin Luther King Jr. America
gave a national holiday to. This Martin takes out the garbage, bickers with his
wife, growing unsteady as the weight of the movement he created cuts ever
deeper into his shoulders. We treat Kings’ words as gospel. Selma treats them
as rhetoric, no less honorable but far more relatable.
And white voice do appear, eventually. White figures
are present in Selma, and choose to embrace or reject King’s message. Selma’s
choice, as revolutionary as it is mundane, is to give equal weight to the men
wrapping barbed wire around baseball bats as the clergymen who saw King as a
brother-in-arms. Selma doesn’t attempt to capture the centuries of oppression
that led to King’s calls for justice. It does, however, depict the faces of a
country deeply at unease with the recent passing of the Civil Rights Act.
Countless faces who saw progress and retreated to their bunker. Or sat on a
hill and cheered as white lawmen lobbed teargas and baton sticks with casual
indignation, the confederate flag proudly flapping away in the background.
I find myself fumbling to recount the ways in which
Selma sliced my perspective open with the precision of a surgeon’s scalpel.
Selma doesn’t overwhelm with bombast; any film can portray butchery. Selma’s
strength is in its reserve, its careful rhythm that reminded me of a
prosecutor’s opening argument. To accuse the film of having an agenda is to
ignore that every work of art ever made has an agenda, intentional or
otherwise.
It is impossible to write about Selma and not write
about today. That same English teacher who once wheeled in boxes full of The
Autobiography of Malcolm X used to talk about how artists had to be specific in
order to hit universal truths. Selma recalls that platitude long before Common
references Ferguson in the closing credits. At one point, the film
unflinchingly portrays the murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson. White cops brutalizing
and then casually choosing to take a black life.
Selma doesn’t intend to
politicize that moment. But it does want to recognize it as a reality, as
something far more damning than a “tragedy”. Make no mistake, Selma is incendiary. The film is not
wholly drawn from a long tradition of anger and bitterness, but it acknowledges
that aching succession of frustration and despair. It acknowledges the sheer
tonnage of shit that America has asked black America to carry. And sadly, the
critical conversation around Selma demonstrates the ways in which we ask
minorities to never speak with even the slightest tinge of anger of emotion –
cold and cerebral, that same ghastly calculus twisted again and again.
Those that seek to tear down Selma aren’t scared that
Johnson’s legacy will be tarnished. that white America will somehow be held
culpable, that we might dare treat King as a man instead of a myth.
They're scared that a film this angry feels this
emotionally true.
There is hope to be found in Selma's story. But
there's also a lot of sadness, too. To acknowledge the latter does in no way
disqualify the former.
Comments