1) Was this film helpful in understanding the obstacles the civil rights activists faced in the South?
2) Many critics have criticized the film’s portrayal of the two fictional white FBI agents. They argue that the film’s depiction of passionate and heroic FBI agents in the film is in direct contrast to the FBI’s actual behavior during the time. Assess the validity of this statement. You may need to research J. Edgar Hoover’s relationship with the Civil Rights Movement to answer this question. For those of you went on the class trip to see the Broadway play All the Way you could refer to the depiction of Hoover in contrast with Agent Ward.
3) Another criticism of the film was the portrayal of African-Americans in the film as passive victims. Is this a fair critique? Would a film have been popular at the box office if it focused instead on SNCC organizers like Bob Moses or Ivanhoe Donaldson?
4) What were the most powerful scenes from the film? Was there any memorable dialogue? What did you think of the director’s use of music?
Here is the NYT film review.
Here is one
by Roger Ebert.
Here is a
great website that examines the trials of the murder suspects involved in the
killing of Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman. Make sure to look at the recent
updates.
I do not believe the critique of the passivity of African Americans in the movie is quite fair. This is a Hollywood film, meant to gather large crowds and make a lot of money. The focus wasn't to educate the general public on the Civil Rights movement. Rather, the public can view documentaries on the era, and learn from those. It cannot be expected that every film on civil rights will be 100% accurate and teach it's viewers what truly occurred. Therefore, while the African Americans may have been portrayed as weak victims in the movie, it was to enhance the Hollywood experience that it was done so, not any attempt of presenting an image of African American inferiority and docility. That being said, I don't believe the film would have been as popular if it focused on SNCC organizers. For moviegoers, they want to have attention-grabbing scenes with lots of action throughout. Presenting people who held peaceful protests or headed down South during Freedom Summer wouldn't have these effects in full. Rather, the public wants to see these FBI agents fighting day in and day out to solve the case of the missing activists. They want to see the struggle between the agents and the native Mississippians. While presenting SNCC activists might have been able to encompass these wants in some ways, they wouldn't be able to do so to the full extent as the film actually did. In conclusion, I think there should be some type of disclaimer in the beginning of the movie stating the film should not be taken as truth, however, and if anyone wishes to have an accurate view of the Civil Rights movement, they should watch a couple of the already-made documentaries.
ReplyDeleteThis film was extremely effective in portraying the plight of Civil Rights workers in the South, as it portrayed the racism well; the racist remarks in the opening scene where the 3 activists were murdered, and the scene where the businessman declares "I believe in white Anglo-Saxon democracy!" and goes on to say that no other ethnic group would be tolerated are two prime examples.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this film is inadequate in that it would communicate to someone without a background knowledge of the Civil Rights movement that FBI agents were heroes, while African-Americans scramble to run away from Klansmen. And in fact, this was in contrast with the actions of the FBI at the time; J. Edgar Hoover, for instance, wiretapped and threatened activists, most notably Martin Luther King Jr. Although his actions might not have completely represented the attitude of the FBI, they nonetheless showed that to an extent, the FBI was apathetic to the Civil Rights cause.
African Americans were not passive victims during the movement, but in the film, they were portrayed as so. I believe that this is one of the core weaknesses of the film because it is completely possible to portray African Americans as more active and more vigilant while still preserving the Hollywood vibe. A focus on a Civil Rights activist such as Bob Moses or Ivanhoe Donaldson would definitely have been more informative, and would definitely teach the audience more history, but alas, Hollywood is Hollywood and the film needs to sell.
History aside, the film was definitely put together well. The use of music was phenomenal, and it really helped build the suspense. In addition, the interactions between Ward and Anderson helped develop the plot very well.
I agree with Courtney. Though there may be some issues with how African Americans were portrayed, and how the FBI is emphasized as the heroes of the film, I don't think that this was the movie's purpose. I think that this movie had two reasons. One was to show the division between the FBI and the North versus the stubborn South. The other would have to show the violence and the racist discrimination that was seen in the South. The movie did a great job in showing the degree of how violent the South was, which we are unable to really experience through just textbooks. Being able to truly see the violence and the hatred leads to a deeper and bigger reaction.
ReplyDeleteSome things are used in order to historically tell us a story. But I think that Mississippi Burning was used in order to provoke a response. I think that the movie really provoked its viewers to look more into the discrimination of the 1960s, and to go and look for where this movie was coming from. And I think that this is necessary, because it sparks interest to the public.
The most powerful line in the movie would probably be when Ward said that "Anyone who's guilty who watches this happen and pretends it isn't." This line is so powerful because it really challenges the viewer to think of themselves. Am I guilty of this? It directly confronts the viewer, and makes you really think about the actions ourselves.
I agree very strongly with Courtney's comments about how this film isnt about educating the general public but to get an audience and sell tickets. The film is not truly accurate because FBI agents did not really help the civil rights movement even refusing protection for the protestors. J Edgar Hoover also wiretapped many
ReplyDeleteof the movement's leaders and called them communists. Even though there were some discrepancies with the accuracy, this film showed me the moods of the whites living in the South, they did not like people from the north trying to change how they lived for the past 100 years of disenfranchisement of the blacks and it really showed that they did not care the boys being missing because they were trying to change them. In my opinion there should have been more African Americans in the film because the FBI agents werent alone down there in Mississippi, there were SNCC activists and other organizations fighting for voting rights. One of the best scenes was the black FBI agent intimidating the mayor, it was only good because of the paucity of blacks standing up against the whites. Throughout the film blacks in Mississippi were always running away from the KKK, getting their farms and homes burned down and afraid of speaking with authorities because they would get harassed. However, as one can see in the Film Red Tail, the all black cast did not sell well in Hollywood and the film industry, so my criticism is that Anderson could have been played by a black character or add in another main character who is black. One of the most memorable scenes is the one when Ward enters a segregated diner and when he tries to sit with the blacks, all the white people were staring at him and being silent. This shows how the whites refused to integrate and how segregated the south was. I liked the use of the music in intense scenes like the burning of the homes, there was no sounds, just the music and i think this amplifies the experience of the film because you can really feel what the people were going through at the time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI disagree with Victor Cai because the film was made to educate the whites about the events in Mississippi. In order to get white men to watch this film, various techniques had to be employed, such as a white cast, empowerment of the FBI agents, and the twisting of history. Making a film about Bob Moses or Ivanhoe Donaldson wouldn't have educated the mass public because no one would have watched this film. As a result, this film served its purpose in spoon feeding certain facts about Mississippi during the Civil Rights Era. Although some points were left out, it gave the general public a broad understanding of the turbulent life in Mississippi.
DeleteOn a (slightly) brighter note, I loved how the movie incorporated news interviews to show the feeling of the Mississippians. It demonstrates that there is no clear viewpoint about a certain topic. While many Mississippians believed that all this was a plot cooked by the NAACP for attention, many other sympathized with the African Americans. However, their opinions were not important because Mississippi at that time was ruled by fear and it was the people in power (mayor, sheriff, etc.) that formed the general consensus.
I cannot say that this movie completely summarizes and analyzes the various obstacles that civil right activists faced in the South. However, it definitely highlighted the extremes and described the major obstacles through multiple tense and dramatic scenes. Because this is a Hollywood film, we cannot truly grasp the mental and physical torture that activists faced such as the three American civil rights' workers, James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael "Mickey" Schwerner who were murdered for trying to register African Americans to vote. J. Edgar Hoover was clearly not an advocate of the Civil Rights Movement. By alienating Martin Luther King Jr. and blackmailing him to commit sucide, Hoover expressed little sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement. This characterization of Hoover might have influenced the actions and jobs of the FBI agents during the actual investigation. Calling the FBI agents the heroes would be too much of an overstatement. In my opinion, I agree with the criticism that the African-Americans in the film were portrayed as passive. However, there are specific characters that, although had few lines, played an important part in the movie. The little African American boy who preached to the black families symbolized the activism and spirit of black children and teenagers during the Civil Rights Era. However, we have to realize that this is a Hollywood movie. If it portrayed blacks only and focused on the "truth" with no exaggerated plot lines, it would not gain as much popularity. The most memorable, controversial, and disturbing phrase in the film was when Sheriff Ray Stuckey defined the NAACP "Ni**ers, Apes, Alligators, Coons and Possums" This definition of the acronym bewildered me and made me despise the whites in the film immensely.
ReplyDeleteIn general, the film was helpful in understanding the obstacles civil rights activists faced in the South. The Ku Klux Klan had a large membership, and terrorized all those trying to change the "Southern way of life." Many police officers were either part of the KKK, or simply took part in violent activities like lynchings. If anyone was arrested for harming a civil rights activist, he would either be acquitted or given a lenient sentencing. All this, and more, is show in the film.
ReplyDeleteThe portrayals of the FBI agents and African-Americans are less-so realistic; the FBI reluctantly sent in agents to investigate the disappearances Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman, and those that were sent to the South did not so actively and righteously investigate the crime. J. Edgar Hoover himself despised the civil rights activists, wiretapping their phones and accusing them of being communists. The falsehood of the characters is emphasized at the end, when Agent Ward states that perhaps they were all guilty of the murders for looking the other way. No FBI agent would probably ever say, let alone a typical white American. African Americans were shown as passive victims, which is also not true. Many joined civil rights activists and fought for their rights. However, I don't mind such blatant errors because this is a Hollywood movie, not a documentary; it was made to make money and entertain the public, not to teach it. If a movie had been made with the focus on SNCC organizers, it most definitely would not have been as popular. The public demands action and non-minority groups; it's a sad part of reality and filmmakers must do what is in their power to attract as much attention to the film as possible. However, if the person watching the film knows enough about the civil rights movement, then the film shouldn't have any adverse side effects.
The film “Mississippi Burning,” directed by Alan Parker was a action-packed portrayal of the murders of the three, young civil rights workers, Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner. The film received critique because of the liberties that Parker took in his depiction of the events following the murder and the FBI agents investigating the murder. Parker defends all of the changes that he made by explaining that his aim was to create a blockbuster that tens of thousands of people would watch. Parker wanted to shock people and get them talking, and he believed that it was more important to get some form of the story out to a wide audience rather than get it to a small subset of the population interested in watching historically accurate films.
ReplyDeleteDespite the changes made to the history in the movie, the film did an amazing job of portraying the atmosphere and the tension in the south. Although they might not have been historically accurate, the scene where FBI agent Allen Ward sits down at the lunch counter with the African American man and the whole diner goes silent and stares at him and the subsequent scene where the African American man that Ward sat with was assaulted by Klan members gave the audience a very clear picture of the tensions in the south. The film also showed many scenes where African Americans that were approached by FBI agents were very hesitant to speak because they feared for their lives. The Ku Klux Klan was very much alive in the south at the time and they did lynch people and burn down churches and houses.
I do think that Parker could have attempted to include African Americans with a stronger voice and a stronger presence, rather than the fearful African American Mississippians. Rather than focusing on the FBI agents he could’ve looked at the continued and unwavering presence of other African American civil rights workers like Bob Moses or Ivanhoe Donaldson. Unfortunately, I do believe that had the movie focused more on other civil rights workers instead of the action packed mission to find the three men it would not have been as popular.
Lastly, my favorite piece of dialogue was Ward’s statement when they found the man who hanged himself, “Mr. Bird, he was guilty. Anyone's guilty who lets these things happens and pretends like it isn't. No, he was guilty all right. Just as guilty as the fanatics who pulled the trigger. Maybe we all are.” This quote really struck me because to a large extent it was true.
As opposed to other Hollywood films such as Gone With the Wind and Birth of a Nation, Mississippi Burning was not made to be seen as a movie to depict racism against the African Americans. It was blatantly obvious in Gone with the Wing and the Birth of a Nation where scene such as the waving of the Confederate Flag and depictions of African Americas as "monsters" raping the White Women were included. Mississippi Burning however, was not meant to be educational in any sense, and I agree with Courtney and most of the others on the Blog on that matter. It shed no new light on the Civil Rights movement and was made to be popular amongst movie goers. The main heroes were both White FBI agents from the North, and those who were African American were usually depicted as victims who ran away from the racist Southern Klan members. And although the cruelty and violence were depicted in a somewhat accurate manner, again, the African Americans in the film were just poor victims who couldn't defend themselves. Had the movie been more like Redtails, where the entire cast was African American, it wouldn't have been successful at all. During the 80s, people were still racist against the African Americans and would much rather see 2 White FBI agents as heroes as opposed to figures such as Malcolm X, Bob Moses, and Stokley Carmichael. One of the most important scenes was the scene where the Southerner was telling the FBI agents that the FBI wouldn't be in the South had it not been the 2 White kids that also died. The movie being based around the deaths of Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney, 2 being White and one African American, if the 2 White kids were indeed African American and it was 3 African American student activists that went missing and were killed, would the FBI have come at all? Being that J. Edgar Hoover was racist I don't think that the FBI would've been sent, and also the majority of Americans wouldn't have cared as much either. There is no denying that many Americans were still racist at the time and it wouldn't have been as big if there weren't the 2 White boys that were also killed.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Courtney. Hollywood movies are made to sell, and if they are depicting anything historical, we have to take it with a big grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that there are many historical inaccuracies, this movie is able to redeem itself by making every lynching, every fire, everything racist be done so realistically that I could actually feel the undercurrents of prejudice and hatred against African-Americans. I felt that the movie was able to show just how brutal life was in the South for African-Americans during that time period. Not only did the movie do that, but it was also able to keep me interested by having really amazing lines. Two lines that comes back to me are Anderson's, when he's talking to Sheriff Stuckey and Deputy Pell in the barber shop, and says that he likes baseball because "it's the only time when a black man can wave a stick at a white man and not start a riot." and the other line is Ward, after finding the mayor had hung himself, despite not being charged for anything, says that "Anyone's guilty who lets these things happens and pretends like it isn't." Also, just the partnership between Ward and Anderson was really just so fraught with annoyance and disapproval that I really adored it.
The best part of this movie was definitely the music. Whenever any suspenseful scene happened, there was always background music that signaled it, and it just really made me enjoy the movie so much. The movie starts right off with that music, and it just grabbed my attention straight from the start, so that was a great way of starting off the movie.
Overall, I think that this is a great portrayal of the attitude and atmosphere of the South during the 1960s, but sometimes it felt so real that it made me sick to the stomach.
I largely agree with the consensus thus far. The movie was made for entertainment value, and as such the directors have a certain degree of creative liberty in order to create a more entertaining scenario. I believe the film, for what it was (not a documentary), did a great job of elucidating the situation plaguing African Americans and civil rights activists in the Jim Crow South. Although the FBI agents are seen as the principal heroes of the film, the powerful and somewhat graphic nature of the scenes, especially those of anti-black violence, conveyed the terror and brutality of the discriminatory, Klan-affiliated southerners' crimes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough a discrepancy does exist between the actions of the fictional FBI agents Ward and Anderson and the reality of the era, it was done to create a more memorable and entertaining plot. This is especially shown when Ward sits down at the all-black counter at the diner and attempts to talk with the African American men sitting there. While the criticism of the stark contrast between Ward and Anderson and J. Edgar Hoover's actions is valid, I feel it can be overlooked for the sake of appealing to the viewers and making the film as true as possible, while still being entertaining.
I also agree somewhat that putting African Americans in a more active role would have amplified the movie's message, however. The most active black character in the movie was only a boy (although he was very likable), so adding more prominent African American characters would have made the film's account of the Jim Crow South more powerful. Their playing a supplementary role, I felt, did detract from the movie's veracity. That being said, I do believe that the African Americans who did play an active role contributed much to the story. The brave boy and the black FBI agent who threatened the mayor of Jessup County were nice additions that helped drive the story home.
Finally, one of the most memorable scenes of the movie, for me, was the closing scene, where the white and black members of the Jessup County community sang together in the burnt ruins of the old church. It represented the first instance of racial togetherness that existed in the small Mississippi township, and made me feel like the movie had a happy ending, beyond the mere indictments of the Klan members who killed the three activists. That scene was the one that made me feel like the agents had done their job and had taken steps to eradicating the Jim Crow discrimination so prevalent in the South. It tied up the movie quite well and I really enjoyed it. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. While not as educational as a documentary, it found a good balance between entertainment and education, and was a pleasure to watch.
I agree with many of those who commented above that the critique of the film not being “historically accurate” in certain aspects is not justified. It’s true that the film’s protagonists are two FBI agents, whose passionate feelings for the civil rights movement contrast with those of the FBI from the time. It’s also true that all of the African Americans held passive roles throughout the film, and that the only one with a minor speaking role was a child. However, as many of my classmates have mentioned, Mississippi Burning is not a documentary. Mississippi Burning is a Hollywood movie that is supposed to be passionate and entertaining. Had it focused instead on a civil rights leader such as Bob Moses or Ivanhoe Donaldson, I, unfortunately, don’t think that it would have been as popular at the box office. Despite this, I do think that film should have had given more active roles to the blacks in the film, instead of portraying all of them as passive.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite aspects of the film is how the environment of Mississippi is portrayed so clearly. From the very beginning, one can see how rural, and in a way, isolated, this small Southern city was. By the end of the film, I had an acute sense of how the people of rural Mississippi talked and thought in 1964.
A powerful scene in the film was the hanging scene which begins with an attack by the Ku Klux Klan on a black family. The KKK sets fire to their house and their victim, the children’s grandfather, is captured and hung. For the next few seconds, he struggles, kicking his feet, until he is finally limp. He is later rescued by his family who cut him down from the rope and a hymn accompanies the scene in the background. Although I did enjoy the humorous quibbles between the two very different FBI agents, it was these powerful, often violent, scenes that revolved more around the deeply-seated racism of the South during the time, that made the film so influential.
Overall, this film was very effective in portraying the situation and the difficulties faced by African Americans in the South. Through its vivid scenes of lynching and KKK meetings, the film shows more than enough for the audience to feel the fear that African Americans had to live with.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that this film did not accurately show the history. For example, the two white FBI agents are fictional figures who were just made up to be the heroes of the movie. Although some critics have argued for portraying African Americans as weak victims although they actively fought back in history.
However, it's inaccuracy is somewhat justified because it is a Hollywood film made for commercial purposes rather than to educate the general public. Also, if it was not focused on the heroic white FBI agents, it would not have been as successful. Those brutal treatments of African Americans and heroic acts of FBI agents depicted in the film were very provoking, and in response, got me thinking about the actual situations in the South. Therefore, in that sense, I think it served its role.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEveryone who states that the movie is "fine" because it's primary purpose was to entertain, not teach should be heavily warned of the grand consequences this idea leads to. The amount of people who say it is okay for the entertainment purpose heavily frustrates me. The average person after watching "Mississippi Burning" is not going to go through historical documents and textbooks looking for the "truth" about the murder of the civil activists. To them, the movie is the truth. Are there disclaimers in the movie itself or signs in the movie theatre that tell the audience to go home and research more about the topic because the movie itself is distorted? Of course not. The audience members will always worship the FBI agents as heroes unless they are retaught history.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the true heroes of this movie? Where are the civil activists, black or white, in the film? This movie just merely noted them as footnotes. Instead of trying to teach the audience more about the history about the Civil Rights movement, it merely seemed like a crime show about finding the victims.
I challenge the Hollywood industry and Mr. Parker, the director of the movie to create a film that both entertains and portrays the truth. If that is not possible, then don't do it at all. Creating a superficial movie with white glorified actors instead of black actors just because of the sake of viewership goes against both the "purpose" of this film and the reconstruction and revamp of the Hollywood industry.
While I do agree with the fact mentioned by people stating that the film is not quite accurate, I believe that this does not quite detract from the effect that the film was intended to have. As Roger Ebert says in his review of the film, "We knew the outcome of this case when we walked into the theater." This case is very famous and many already know what will essentially happen. The purpose of this film wasn't really to showcase this famous case and teach us about what really happened, but rather to show us the tension and racism that existed in the South at this time. All of the violence, from burnings of homes and churches to the beating up of blacks to silence them, was no exaggeration. All of it actually happened during that time, and this film does a very good job in showing just how brutal it was. While all of these specific events may not have happened, and while these two FBI agents are almost entirely fictional, the film was still very realistic and is definitely worth watching.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with much of what has been said above, especially Courtney’s comments regarding the real purpose of the movie. Largely due to the fact that it is a Hollywood production intended for the general American audience, it provides action-packed, thrilling entertainment with a fast-moving and engaging plot. I thought that the main characters - two white FBI agents - had a dynamic between them that is as commonly police-procedural as they come, and yet worked remarkably well: one is older and wiser, the other younger and a bit stubborn. The slight historical inaccuracy of their placement in this position, as acknowledged in comments above, is not so terrible as to be disrespectfully ignorant. However, it does underplay the active black figures of the Civil Rights movement, whose presence are not at all felt in this movie, except for a few derogatory remarks by Southern whites regarding Dr. King and his (supposedly) “communist-sympathizing” backers.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the presence that is shockingly pervasive throughout the movie is the racial hatred of the South and the Ku Klux Klan. The quote that I found resonated most strongly was: “People down here think some things are worth killing for.” From the gross injustice of black homes being burned (while condoned and even supported by the police), to the targeted violence towards blacks for talking to whites or even congregating in a church building, the various gripping scenes of racial injustice were effective in that they demonstrated a level of violence that I could not previously have imagined just from reading a history textbook alone. In that sense, this movie’s inaccuracies are justified; this isn’t a Ken Burns documentary, after all.
Overall, I thought this movie was enticing and an enjoyable one. It's a good example of a hollywood film; it was a fast-paced, seat-edging thriller. However, it's flaw is that the movie was molded so it could be a blockbuster, not a historically accurate film. This is why I don't believe that this should be shown in a history classroom purely for the sake of visually teaching history.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this film, I got a good sense of how the racist South was like before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How the characters talked, looked and acted all seem real and fluid. I also noticed how the film-makers spent a lot of effort on creating the setting. The small details of the houses, the streets and different neighborhoods sucked me into the film. For example the huge contrast between how the blacks and whites lived was very shocking. Small details such as the presence of huge dust clouds and the effect of the weather (the heat) also caught my eye.
Although this film did a good job in terms of aesthetics, it did a poor job in terms of authenticity. First, I was very annoyed at how African Americans were portrayed in the film. They were constantly portrayed as helpless people. They barely had any lines and when they did appear, they were either running away or getting beat up by white mobs. Also this movie revolves around two fictional FBI agents.They were two justice-doers who had unlimited support from the FBI and the federal government. This was not true looking back at history and this glorifies the wrong people.
All in all, this was a great movie to watch. However, it's debatable as to whether this should be shown to teach history. I think if this were to be shown it should be shown as a supplementary to another more historically accurate move/documentary.
I agree with the large majority of my classmates. The movie "Mississippi Burning" was made for entertainment purposes. It is not fair to criticize the movie on the flaw that it does not portray the African-Americans and the FBI correctly because that was not its purpose. The director portrayed the white FBI agents as the heroes on purpose in order to appeal to the majority of the audience seeing the movie. As Courtney said, there are countless documentaries about the Civil Rights Movement that correctly depict the role of the FBI and the SNCC activists and they are much more successful in terms of historical context. I think that if the movie had featured prominent SNCC activists, the movie would not have been as interesting as it was and it definitely wouldn't have been as popular in the box office. As films such as Red Tails have shown, movies that star African Americans in the lead roles are generally not as successful as movies with white actors.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the movie had a lot of historical inaccuracies, the movie was able to successfully portray the anti-African American sentiment that was felt by southern whites. A very good example of this can be seen in the interviews that the white southerners give to the news reporters. All of the interviewees had essentially come to the same conclusion, "the boys got what they deserved." The movie also did a good job of portraying how violent the Ku Klux Klan was. Klan members burned down churches and killed African Americans arbitrarily. In one scene in the movie, a car of Klan members drove up to the house of an African American and set the house on fire with people inside.
In my opinion, one of the most powerful scenes was the scene when the three boys are chased by the police cars and then ultimately stopped. The virulently racist comments by the white policemen that followed were appalling and gave a very good perspective of just how racist the Jim Crow south really was. If there was one scene to pull out of this movie to show to a class when discussing the Civil Rights Movement, I would pull out this scene and/or the interviews that I talked about before because it shows that not only were African Americans fighting to overturn the Jim Crow laws, but they were also fighting to overturn the beliefs of all of the white Americans around them.
Anderson: “You know, if I were a Negro, I’d probably think the same way they do!”
ReplyDeleteWard: “If you were a Negro, nobody would give a damn thought what you thought!”
I thought that these two lines were extremely powerful in describing the atmosphere of the Jim Crow South in a nutshell. Blacks in Mississippi were expected to be obedient, servile, and accepting of their social status--any form of curiosity or challenging would be severely punished. And I happen to believe that this small piece of dialogue effectively speaks volumes about the way this movie chose to portray blacks. Yes, blacks are shown as weak and passive characters to this movie, but this was how it was for a majority of the population in the Anglo Saxon South. With the Ku Klux Klan looming over one’s shoulders, burning down churches, blowing up houses, and committing other atrocities, “Mississippi Burning” was successful in showing the terror created by the powerful KKK, and the traumatizing effect this had on blacks. This can be supported by an autobiographical sketch by Richard Wright, where he describes how he first learned about how a Negro was supposed to live by the Jim Crow laws. Wright describes how his mother slapped him for fighting with the white boys, learning to keep quiet and to respond to all whites with the phrase “yes sir,” etc. And the sentiment that he portrays through this piece was the overwhelming fear felt by the black population, as is shown by the film “Mississippi Burning.”
I admit that this movie could have done more to show the other side of black sentiment, and could have exposed the story behind the riots in the urban cities, the Greensboro sit-ins, and the leaders behind the Civil Rights Movement such as Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and so on. However, I felt that the decision to portray the movie as is helped to highlight and emphasize the few scenes in “Mississippi Burning” where blacks were, in fact empowered and spoke up. For example, the scene where the black FBI agent kidnaps the Mayor of Neshoba and threatens to cut off his scrotum should the mayor refuse to tell him who killed Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner in a mafia-gangster style easily became a favorite scene because of the courage portrayed. And my personal favorite was the funeral scene, where the black preacher was giving a sermon about how he was tired of attending these funerals, and that the violence needed to be stopped, and that blacks would not give in. This scene immediately made me draw a parallel to the small cameo appearance in the play “LBJ: All the Way,” and I mentioned this on the previous blog, where a black man runs up to the balcony and effectively shouts the same thing, evoking a sense of tension, pity, and frustration in the audience. The same reaction occurred for me, with this similar scene in “Mississippi Burning,” and I think that the LBJ play might have gotten its inspiration from this very movie.
All in all, I really enjoyed watching this movie, and I’m glad that we did. Its depiction of the FBI may not be accurate, but what is to be expected from a Hollywood movie? As Ryan and others said before, this movie was made to draw attention to a chronic issue of racism and civil rights, and it clearly did its job, with all of the controversy surrounding this movie. I think we can all agree that this is one huge step up from the movies such as Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind, which idolizes the Antebellum South.
I agree with what everyone has said so far. It's pretty obvious that the producers placed commercial value over the actual turn of events in Mississippi Burring. Upon further research of Mrs. Pell’s character I found that she was actually in place of a real life figure who called himself Mr. X and passed on information about the buried bodies to the authorities (He was even rumored to have been paid $30000). I believe that producers should not have fabricated a Mrs. Pell for the added Hollywood romance. However, when her husband beats her, the movie did help me to understand the dangers of Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi at the time.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most powerful scenes for me was the scene in the diner. I agree with Victor and you could see that there was so much tension in the air whenever two people of different color made any interaction. I was able to feel a bit of the atmosphere of fear and anger that blacks faced every day in the South. I think that Mississippi Burning did a fantastic job at showing how blacks were treated during this time. The hatred and extreme violence was so extremely vivid and heart wrenching. Watching the scenes of Klan violence, lynching and house bombing deeply affected my feelings of what the South was like 1960s.
I find it ironic that there was lack of a protagonist strong black character showing how America was still racist when the film was released of a film against racism and discrimination. If I were to remake the film, without a doubt I would add several black leaders of the civil rights movement and I would have emphasized their significance and nonviolent acts of protest. I think that struggle would add so much more to this movie than having white FBI heroes who did not even exist. Also, the producers added in scenes that showed the determined FBI agents that worked hard to try to find the dead bodies and suppress the KKK. This was an inaccurate portrayal of the role of FBI agents, who were actually much less involved and more passive.
I loved the use of the interviews of Mississippians. I really appreciated this bit of reality that the movie did incorporate. Overall I thought this movie was worth watching and did give me a changed perspective of what African Americans had to face, despite the inaccuracies.
For the first half, the film was accurate in portraying the prejudice against African Americans in the South, through scenes such as Ward sitting in the diner in the area reserved for African Americans, and the stares he gets from others. Along with interview scenes with those saying the African American kid that was killed deserved it. This gave off an excellent mood to start the film.
ReplyDeleteHowever, towards the second half, I felt as if the film tried to tend to a "Hollywood style", with more action scenes and drama, causing the film to stray off from a historical perspective. Of course, I see the need to do this, as I do not believe a film made 100 percent accurate would have sold well at that time, and there are documentaries for that sort of information.
About the critique that African Americans were too passive, I do feel that they could have done more, instead of only one scene where an African American FBI agent kidnaps the mayor. However, I also think the passivity was what African Americans really felt, or at least those portrayed in the movie, since they were slaves, and were truly afraid of being punished or killed for every small mistake.
The film effectively showed the extent of tension and animosity between the African Americans and White Americans in South. Through dramatic events and portrayal of hostility of white Mississippians toward African Americans, the film was able to depict the racial tension in Mississippi. Even though the film is not historically accurate considering that the film heroized two FBI agents when it is well known that FBI did not take active role in real history, the film was worth watching as it gave me a sense of hostility African Americans faced in South.
ReplyDeleteSome criticize the film for its absence of active black actors and how all African Americans in the film were passive. However, I think this is understandable, for the film is a hollywood production made for profit. Also, the main focus of the film is giving the viewers the sense of hostility and animosity from African Americans had to face. Even though the film was a thriller made for entertainment, not a historically accurate documentary, there was something that people can get out from watching the film.
Along with the general consensus of my classmates, I enjoyed this film although I understand the criticism of the passive and victimized African Americans and the two white FBI men as the heroes. Like many of my classmates said before, this criticism is not entirely fair; the purpose of this film was to reach a younger generation and to make them aware of the racism and chaos that occurred not too long ago (and arguably still going on albeit to a lesser degree). Alan Parker said, (according to the NY Times review) "There have been a lot of documentaries on the subject. They run on PBS and nobody watches them. I have to reach a big audience, so hopefully the film is accessible to reach millions of people in 50 different countries." I agree with Mr. Parker in that a white-dominated cast sells better to people across the globe - even in the U.S., this holds true. Only 2% of Americans have seen 12 Years A Slave despite it being an Oscar winner and having a few famous Caucasian actors in important roles. However, there definitely should have been at least one main African American figure. The scene with the African American FBI agent intimidating the mayor was epic and memorable, but it was only one scene.
ReplyDeleteMoving on to what is actually portrayed in the film, this movie did a great job in setting the atmosphere of Mississippi in the 1960s. Its opening scene was great in silently presenting the injustice of segregation and the small-Southern town vibe. Later in the film, the clips of the interviews of Southern white folk was a great addition. It showed the opinions of these folks phenomenally, and the contrast with the Northern FBI boys was stark.
I found the film very helpful in understanding the obstacles the civil rights activist faced in the South. For example, the violent attacks of the KKK seemed very distant when read from a textbook. But seeing the vivid horror of men burning homes and beating innocent people takes a different toll on the audience visually. The general disapproval of the South to the actions was made more clear through their unwillingness to cooperate and rather to accuse the North of Communism.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is true that the FBI was mostly passive during the civil rights movement, seeing as they would take notes while witnessing a black man being harassed, the films portrayal of the FBI is with purpose. That purpose being to attract a larger audience and bring awareness to the issue of racism. If somebody wanted to watch a boring, historically accurate portrayal of movement, they would watch a CBS Documentary. But for those who wish to see the larger scope of the matters would find no harm in this sort of film which is why I believe the film is effective. Also, black portrayal was inaccurate seeing as many of them were actually more active and did not cower in the face of white opposition. But the film portrays them as helpless victims fleeing from battle. This portrayal is a bit extreme and should be corrected, but I don’t think that a larger audience would be attracted if organizers like Bob Moses were the focus of the film.
The most impacting scenes were the scenes of KKK attacks because of the vast difference between reading and watching such horrors and the mini-interviews with Mississippi folk because it captures the environment of the public at the time. The music helped to dramatize the incidents and atmosphere of the scene. Overall the film was very nice.
I really like how Teresa brought in those quotes from the movie and I agree with what she wrote about the atmosphere of Jim Crow South.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this movie was geared more so toward commercial and Hollywood success as oppose to historical accuracy. We saw some of the obstacles that the civil rights activists faced in the South, with the activities of the KKK and the biased authorities. However, I think we would have had a deeper comprehension of the challenges they faced in the South had the protagonists been African Americans. But had they been African Americans, the movie wouldn't have been the success that it was. It's ironic that the movie is about the investigation of the missing three civil rights activists during Freedom Summer but in my opinion, the activists didn't have that big of a role that they should have had.
There were many powerful scenes in the movie but a scene that really stuck to me was the little boy praying while his fellow churchgoers were being beat up by Klan members. A Klan member walked by him, watched him pray and then kicked him in the face and relentlessly beat the boy. Another scene that stuck to me was one of a boy untying the rope that the white men tried to lynch his father with. I think that his father is a character that deserves more credit than he is given because he is one of the few African Americans that actually fight back against the Jim Crow racist ideas (which led to his attempted lynch). With the exception of the father and the undercover FBI agent that interrogates the Mayor, the film portrays African Americans as scared, helpless things. They should have added more characters like the undercover FBI agent but in the end, the movie was to appeal to the audience by having the white FBI agents save the day.
I definitely agree with the responses so far about the atmosphere of the film. I think it did a great job of accurately portraying the hatred and racism in the South. It helped me understand just how badly the South wanted to keep their old way of life, and how much they thought that white anglo saxons were the superior race. I also agree with people saying that, more specifically, this film isn't very historically accurate. It is a Hollywood film, not a documentary, and they had to make it more exciting with car chases, etc, as well as add main characters, the 2 main FBI agents (Anderson and Ward), none of which existed or happened.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this film is a little more historically accurate then we think. Even the title was the codename the FBI gave the case. Specifically, I disagree with most of the comments in regard to their view on the role of the FBI. while most people say this was another historical fallacy, it's actually true. The FBi sent over 150 agents to Mississippi during the investigation to find the 3 missing civil rights workers (Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman), and they ultimately arrested 13 people. And yes, the head of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover, was very racist and hated the civil rights movement and its leaders (even going so far as to try and convince MLK to kill himself), it is still true that the FBI solved this case, and Hoover who ordered the investigation in the first place.
Finally something I found interesting when doing research on the case was that while in the film the actual catching of the criminals was very exciting as the agents used scare tactics as well as illegal tactics to obtain information on the killers, in reality, it was much less exciting, and just involved paying of a KKK informant for $30,000 in order to find out who was in on the killings
The movie, extremely intriguing and action-packed, like many others have said, was excellent at catching my attention. I found that I was never bored, and as cliche as this may sound, was always at the edge of my seat (also literally on the edge, as it was quite difficult to see at times from where I sitting).
ReplyDeleteAlthough this movie is far from reality, I also do agree with many others that the intention of the directors and other producers was to sell tickets, rather than being 100% historically accurate. Of course they did base the movie off the real deaths of the three SNCC activists and accurately portrayed the extreme racism that the white Southerners lived their day-to-day lives with.
During the movie, I thought one of the most powerful scenes was when Mr. Anderson visits Mrs. Pell after she moves back into her home that resembles a disaster zone after her husband and his friends beat her up. Mr. Anderson desperately wants to help her, shield her, protect her from all the horrors of the South, but she refuses, saying that Jessup County is her home, as she has grown up and lived there her entire life and will continue to do so. As a result, it struck me in that moment that Mrs. Pell was a symbol of all the other Southern white people who witnessed all of this racism and terrible treatment of blacks but could not say anything, because they had family members, children, or a house that they needed to preserve. This just showed how stuck the South was in its backward system of trying to maintain segregation, and how it was ultimately harming even the people with its Jim Crow system.
Another scene which I thought was equally powerful was when Mr. Ward found the man hung at the end, and one of the investigators replies and asks him why he did it, even though he was not involved in the killing of the SNCC activists, and therefore innocent. However, Mr. Ward instead said in response, "Mr. Bird, he was guilty. Anyone's guilty who lets these things happens and pretends like it isn't. No, he was guilty all right. Just as guilty as the fanatics who pulled the trigger. Maybe we all are." Like my previous point about how many of the South were too afraid or helpless to speak out against these racist laws, they were just as guilty as everyone else because they watched it happen and didn't do anything.
In conclusion, I thought the movie was extremely worth it, and definitely shows another side of the Civil Rights Movement, even though it is through the lens of two white FBI agents, who are overglorified.
I also agree with what the majority above have said about the atmosphere of this movie and how the movie was successful in portraying the challenges that the civil rights activists faced in the South. The movie spent a lot of time showing the violence that occurred in the South, with African Americans being killed or nearly killed after being targeted. However, this usage of time was helpful in understanding that the Southerners were not prone to change, with even one character mentioning that Northerners were annoyed with Mississippi because it had managed to obtain a state of "successful segregation." Also, throughout the movie, the white southerners, other than Mrs. Pell, that were portrayed were generally thinking of themselves as Mississippians rather than as part of a bigger American society which again helps to show the sentiment at the time. While Mrs. Pell does remind the audience that not everyone in the South is as bad as the movie portrayed it to be, generally the movie did a good job of highlighting the negative racist sentiments in the south at that time.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, to help highlight the atmosphere in Mississippi at the time, the African Americans in this movie end up becoming victims. While some might see it as a criticism, I understand that it can also be seen as another way to show the difficulties civil rights activists faced. Throughout the movie, I can only remember one African American who actually tried to resist an attack and that only resulted in him getting hung. As a result, the movie shows why African Americans might have appeared passive and reluctant to demand for their rights: they were scared for their lives. While it was disappointing that the movie did not show an African Americans that protested and did not get attacked for it, it was useful for us to understand how harsh the circumstances that African Americans lived in.
I strongly disagree with the widely upheld argument that we can excuse the inaccuracies of the film because its aim was to be an action thriller that made a lot of money. Hollywood ought to be held accountable for at least recounting historical events in an faithful, thought-provoking way, even if it has to ultimately bend the details in order to reach its cinematic goals. The recently ended critically acclaimed AMC show Mad Men opened with a scene in New York in 1960 that dramatically and accurately portrayed an interaction between a wealthy white man and a black man attending to him. That a widely lauded show could open with such a scene, and that the scene was both jarring and engaging, speaks to the power of a realistic portrayal of history, even in an entertainment context.
ReplyDeleteBy extension, I really dont believe I got a better sence of the obstacles faced by Civil Rights activists in the South. While certain lines of the film were shocking for their blatant portrayal of the racism of white Mississippians (notably the acronym NAACP being converted into a devastating list of slurs), I felt like this movie missed an opportunity to tell the equally thought provoking and exciting true story of "Mississipi Burning". I would have enjoyed seeing the tension between SNCC activists and those southern African Americans they were trying to convince to join the civil rights movement, but barring the three activists from which the movie derives its underlying plot there was no mention of Bob Moses' Freedom Summer, probably the most historically relevant thing happening in Mississippi during the FBI investigation of the dissappearance of the three Civil Rights activists, and, in fact, the very reason they were in Mississipi to begin with.
Furthermore, the tension between activists and the southern Whites whose social structures they were trying to tear down was another point the movie failed to tell the real, more interesting, story of "Mississippi Burning". Sure, the one dimensional White characters (most, if not all, of the characters were one-dimensional to be frank) expressed their satisfaction with the dissapearances. However, how did these people react to their changing environment? How did they change or push back? The only answer the movie provides is in its title "Mississippi Burning" - they lynched, burned, and abused African Americans. But little mention is made of any other sort of response.
So ultimatetly I agreee with Kevin. How many people cross-reference the "facts" they see in the theater? It terrifies me to think that people might believe that the FBI was at all as passionate as the movie suggests. They were standing around taking notes and proclaiming civil rights activists Communists. The film's gross misrepresentation of history is a dangerous one, and the truth - the struggles of young individuals who came together to create the change they sought in the world around them - seems to me, as thrilling as a paper thin romance between a FBI agent and the wife of a small town deputy, as compelling as one dimensional stubborn characters, and as engaging as a linear plot that ultimately churns out the same naive message as a kid's movie "Good triumphs over evil".
Mississippi Burning did an excellent job in showing the mood and unreasonable Southern racism and hatred of black people. The movie started with the powerful scene in which three Freedom Summer workers get killed by KKK members. Before they were stopped, they are chased by the KKK members in car, and the suspense building up along with music and the chasing itself showed just how much the civil rights activists had to face - unreasonable hatred and incredible risk. They tell each other that they will be alright, but almost as soon as they stop the car they get shot by KKK members.
ReplyDeleteA lot of comments were made regarding film's portrayal of fictional white FBI agents, and I agree with the general consensus that Mississippi Burning cannot only be criticized, because it is, after all, a Hollywood film. What I think the movie did is that it showed us just how much the Southerners were different from what we think America was at that time. They were killing, lynching, and burning blacks and their properties almost for their entertainment - they did not have any specific reason for their hatred, blacks were just blacks and therefore should be under their suppression.
It is definitely true that many black civil rights activists were ignored. But as Mr. Sandler has said in class, Mississippi Burning was able to succeed in Hollywood because it dealt with more interesting white FBI agents instead of factual civil rights activists (i.e. Freedom Song that Donaldson mentioned). Many movies with blacks as main characters were unsuccessful in the box office, and Mississippi Burning took a safe route - but Mississippi Burning, although it did not show black activists, did show us racism in the South and separation in black and white communities in the South. I appreciate the movie just from that, and I do not think this film should be criticized for not including black activists. What I do think should have been included was that blacks be given more of speaking roles, because all they did throughout the movie were running away and be horrified, except a little boy who overall had a minute or two of speaking.
What shocked me the most is the Southern reaction to the interview done. Most of the Southerners thought slaves were "treated fair[ly]." The southerners absolutely despised blacks, lynched blacks, hanged blacks, burned and stole black properties, and escaped from their crimes; that's their definition of treating blacks fairly. One of the Mississippi resident also remarks that if the three Freedom workers were in the swamps then they probably earned it themselves, that "they came down here for trouble and they found it." That scene really showed how much white southerners unreasonably hated black people and how black people's lives were worthless to them.
I enjoyed Mississippi Burning a lot as it is, and I admire the Freedom workers and the civil rights activists who were willing to commit themselves to this risky task of empowering blacks in the South. The southern atmosphere of hatred and racism struck me, that the white southerners hated black people just because their skin color is black. Just because they're blacks, they were subject to death and torture, and whites got away from their heinous crimes because they're whites.
As a movie, Mississippi Burning was an average film. It did nothing spectacular but doesn't contain any mishaps either. However, the film took too many liberties in terms of historical inaccuracies. Some inaccuracies include the African American FBI Agent that interrogated the mayor. Back then there were no African American FBI agents at all. Furthermore, the FBI actually played little to no role at all during the civil rights movement. The majority of them only stood by and took notes instead of actually intervening and protecting African Americans. In the movie, Dafoe played a character that kept calling in agents in order to protect them. In other words, the most rewarding scene in the entire movie was completely made up with little historical background. There may have been an Italian mafia member that interrogated people but certainly there weren't any African Americans doing that job.
ReplyDeleteAnother critic of the film that I believe holds up is that the portrayal of blacks are secondary and passive. Throughout the whole film, they were portrayed as fearful of everything and ran away from events or any involvement at all. Meanwhile, the white FBI agents seen as the white knight cruising in to save the day.
However, there were some redeeming aspects of the film including the introduction of the movie with burning of the church and the deaths of the three civil rights worker. Another powerful aspect was the remade interviews of people of the south that showed the racism, hatred and ignorance of that time.