So the director of Selma is saying that she chose to mistakenly portray LBJ as trying to block the Voting Rights Act because she didnt want to tell the same story of a white savior. So, does that just mean she is a bad director? She was incapable of telling the story of the work of Dr King and the other black civil rights leaders who worked so hard, without literally lying about LBJs contributions? There are literally tape recordings of conversations between LBJ and King where LBJ unambiguously is pushing for the importance of voting rights. King is trying to lobby LBJ on nominating an African American to a cabinet position because to that point there had not been one and King thought it would be good for black people to see an example so close to the president as a sign of opportunity, and LBJ actually is trying to sway King by saying that voting rights is more important, that everything else they want to accomplish will be held back until the Voting Rights Act passes. So, why is it so bad to tell a story where a white politician who has deep experience with how politics and the government works shares that wisdom with a black civil rights leader whose expertise was in organizing people and motivating them? It almost seems like the director doesnt feel like that is a worthwhile story to tell. There was zero need to make LBJ look like an asshole to be able to make the other characters achievements look worthwhile.
Posted on: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 01:48:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015