329-2012--Week 12 Questions/Comments

Things the movie got right
White/class privilege

Wow… '''the movie really hit home about the class divides between African Americans and Whites. Each of Odessa’s kids got only one present, but the Thompson’s ENTIRE living room was FILLED with presents!''' I don’t think anybody could have missed that because it didn't seem that realistic. I mean come on… who would give two kids that many presents! The movie also seemed to accurately portray the bus boycott in that it was about 99% effective because during the entire course of the film, only 1 person got on the bus. –Paige

'''One thing that stuck out to me is when Miriam is calling the police commissioner and say that an officer kicked her nine year old out of the park, instead of kicking Odessa out of the park. I thought that was an interesting choice of words since it would have affected the child, but it would have been Odessa that was kicked out of the park.''' ~Kayle P

I actually thought the movie did an excellent job portraying the white's logic for their racism. "We don't know the true them, they are like a different species." “These niggers want too much without working for it.” By refusing to acknowledge them as humans and lazy animals at best you understand their fear a bit more.'''Racism to most nowadays seems almost comical and completely illogical but learning to understand their flawed logic helps understand their behavior. Additionally the White Citizen's Council was correct in that this isn't about buses, its a fight for society as they know it.''' Everything they knew as their way of life was at stake, much like how Antebellum South's way of life was at stake in the Civil War. I think the most powerful moment in this movie is when Odessa confronts Mariam over her rationalization of her helping the boycott as just a silly fight over buses. Its about whether Mariam is willing to give up life as she knows it for justice. And she chooses to help despite knowing the full implications to her family and position in society. - Zhen Chen

Whites thought that if they won the bus boycott it would turn into something else. Their violence towards blacks was mostly there as an idea, but I guess they didn't want to lynch someone in a 1990 film. White women would gossip about the news over cards and cocktails.

'''I thought the Christmas dinner scene was an incredibly obnoxious because of how blatantly offensive Miriam's mother-in-law was being with her racist comments. However, her references to communism playing a role in the boycott was a common suspicion concerning the Civil Rights movement. It also reminds audiences of the Cold War occurring in the background, which young Mary Catherine''' vaguely refers to when talking about her childhood innocence. -WD

'''The reasoning behind all of the racism by whites seemed like they truly thought it was legitimate. They did not care if the African Americans heard them, like at the Christmas dinner.''' - Emily

'''The movie accurately depicted white women’s social circles and their activities and attitudes. Tunker’s use of the pejorative “boy” in the car lot accurately depicted white’s disrespect of black men of any age. Also, Miriam’s story about her experience as a teen in Oregon in the 30s at the non-segregated public pool was a really poignant example that shed some light on how white people during this time were able to blindly accept things that simply didn’t pass the “reasonable thinking man’s test.'''” - Sara G.

The racism was very psychological. There was a scene involving Miriam where she complains that Odessa wasn't told to leave the park instead of her son. This part wasn't directly towards Odessa, but the racist mindset even when Odessa is working for her closely with her son, she expects better treatment for her own. Odessa is expendable. - Sam R.

Character Portrayals

I thought this movie did a good job using different characters to show the different views of the boycott. For instance, Odessa and her husband were for it completely and they suffered the blisters and bruises and even put their jobs in jeopardy. Miriam was not as harsh as the other white woman, or even her own mother. She was never against, and then eventually joined herself. In the beginning you can tell she cares for Odessa somewhat. She realized how much her feet were blistered and she even tried to get her husband to not affiliate with the council citzens meeting. Even though many white women did not end up joining the boycott or to the extent of joining the carpool, I do think that some white women did have similar views to Miriam. Uncle Tonk (spelling), Norman's younger brother represents the view of keeping blacks in an inferior position and one that says whatever and does whatever he wants regardless of what others' think. He is against blacks getting any rights or allowing them to even get close to being equal to whites. The movie does a great job in portraying the different views of the times. --Aqsa Z.

'''I have harped about this throughout the semester and I'll say it once again. The feeling presented during the opening scenes of a movie can determine the tone for the entire film. We saw the accurate portrayal of how blacks who rode the buses had to pay in the front and get off and then walk to the back to board.''' --NJenn

I thought that the way in which Miriam was portrayed as not being an ardent supporter of the bus boycott from the very beginning felt like a very genuine portrayel of a genuinely good person. Instead, while she was kinder than most most people in her social circle, her motivations for being supportive in the beginning were mostly practical. After that, her character gradually evolved. At the same time, the relationship between her and her husband (Reg Barclay, what happened??) highlighted the divisiveness of the issue, especially with the change in his character. He went from being mildly supportive/leaving domestic decisions up to his wife, to looking at the boycott as an issue of pride almost when it became political--"I'm trying to hold my head up in this town as a white man..." Their relationship also looked like an accurate snapshot of gender roles of the mid-50's as well, with the public v. private spheres. ---Mary Quinn

Comparisons with The Help

I felt that this movie did a really good job about portraying how complex race relations were during the 1950s. At first when I saw the movie poster, I was nervous that this would be another version of "The Help" where the miraculous white lady saves the entire Civil Rights movement by not being a terrible human being. But then Miriam wasn't shown as being totally on-board with the boycott for a long time; she only gave Odessa a ride at first because it was convenient to her, and it took her husband joining The Diet Klan and forbidding her from giving Odessa a ride for her to actively involve herself with the carpools. Granted, sometimes things did get a little simplified, but I thought overall it was handled pretty well, especially considering the way race was treated in some of the other early 1990s movies we've watched this semester. --Carrie

I loved this movie. I can’t believe that I hadn’t heard of it before this class. While I loved The Help more for the humor (I mean come on, that pie story? You can’t beat that. Plus Celia Foote’s character was hilarious), I think this story was a bit more profound and had a greater outcome. We can whine all day about how of course a white woman is a central figure in this film and how she’s the most dynamic character at that, but I think the relationship between these two women was the greatest character of them all. Sure, maybe most white middle-class women didn’t give two craps about treating their domestic workers with respect and dignity, but then we wouldn’t really be watching them in a movie now would we? This movie is a positive look on how the relationship between two women that seem so different can come together against what they believe is wrong. Miriam was tired of just doing what everyone expected of her. Yes, she still didn’t) want anyone to know about what she was doing to help Odessa and the boycott, but can we blame her? Overall, I think this movie best showed the tension between African Americans and whites during this time. -- Brooke P.S.--I think it's pretty cool they had Sissy Spacek and Mary Steenburg in both this movie and The Help.

I definitely saw the similarities and mostly the stark differences with Richard Pearce's (the director) portrayal of 1950s race relations as opposed to the depictions in The Help. The main thing that struck me was what Zhen Chen discussed above, the different IDEAS whites had about blacks and how off-base and totally misconstrued they actually were. --Ellen S.

Like The Help, whites that helped blacks or participated in any way were encouraged not to and marked as someone who wanted equality in any way. Family members did not support their actions. - Hannah

'''This is a very different kind of movie from The Help. While I enjoyed both the book and the movie, The Help portrayed a completely fiction event in which a young, awkward, white upstart inserted herself into the lives of these women and very unrealistically was able to gain their trust. Regardless of how adorable Emma Stone was, it is HIGHLY unlikely that she would have been able to persuade the women to speak out against their employers. This story was real and plucked from history and it involved a white woman who chose to insert herself into a movement that was orchestrated and perpetuated by the black community. I don’t know how realistic it was, but I especially liked the part where Odessa was talking to Miriam about the bigger picture after Miriam’s “it’s just about the busses” comment. “What about when we vote? Because we will. What about when a black family moves into your neighborhood? What about when black teachers teach your white children?”''' - Sara G.

'''The Long Walk Home accomplishes more in one scene than The Help does in 146 minutes. Just remember, Minny don't burn no chicken.''' --Mary O.

Gendered roles

Pretty sad that Miriam is the most enlightened white person in the movie, considering that she is pretty naive about her own privilege and the role she plays in the subjugation of her African American maids. Even her husband has to explain to her that the police officer was not actually apologizing to the maid for throwing her out of the park, he was apologizing to Miriam. '''Speaking of the husband, I appreciate (this is not the right word) that they extended white men's paternalistic attitudes, not just to blacks, but to their wives as well. The film captured pretty well how childlike he thought she was, and that her impulse to give Odessa rides to work was just whimsy.''' Glad I recently re-read The Feminine Mystique so I could be double annoyed. '''All in all, this was a very female story, and it was good to see a film showing women with actual political agency, with more reactionary male characters. FOR ONCE.''' (No, I didn't see The Help). --Stef L.

'''I think the movie got the emotion struggle of Miriam trying to do what she feels is right and what society tells her what is right seems dead on. She can't voice her opinion for fear of disgracing her family but she also doesn't want to be as rude the other white people.''' Her struggle of good vs. evil and the tension it causes between her and her husband. The honest hatred white people felt towards any one who question the rules of the South. The movie gets most of the emotions of the time and the boycotts right. --Olivia

Another aspect I think the movie got right was the duties and relationships between the husband and wives, for both the Thompson couple and Odessa and her husband. Miriam said it herself, "Mr. Thompson's a great provider... it's my duty to take care of the house, the laundry, the cooking and cleaning." Majority of middle class white women were not working and these were their expectations. Even though Miriam was college educated, she was not working. Instead she represented herself and her family through her husband and junior league and other social activities. When she first called the police station, she identified herself as Mrs. Norman Thompson and that's how she identified herself. She also didn't have anything to really call her own or to show her accomplishments. When Odessa suggests she could write a check, she said, "No, that would be Norman's money. I want to help..." Then there's Odessa and her husband who obviously is supportive, but he doesn't have any major parts so that's all we really see. But in that household, they both expect each other to provide financially. When Odessa said she would ask for a couple days off, her husband said to be careful and not lose her job, and of course we know he works as well. I thought it was well played and interesting to see the dyanmic of the two relationships. --Aqsa Z.

'''I really like how gender roles were stereotyped in the movie. As discussed in class for a while white women were meant to be domestic, and Miriam was definitely that while Odessa was needed outside the home to help her family.''' Just the portrayal of gender roles in terms of black and white, and then male to female, where Norman assumed the the right to tell Miriam that "driving Odessa to work wasn't the right thing to do" - pmccloy

I think the movie said a lot about the ways in which the different genders of the races were involved in the boycott. '''Really the only black characters in the movie were women with the exception of Odessa's family, but even then they had much fewer lines than the women. This represents the central role black women played in the boycott and civil rights in general.''' For the white characters there is Miriam, but other than that most of the whites in the movie are men. -Kendall

I thought the movie did an incredible job of capturing the start of the Civil Rights Movement. The movie stayed away from portraying African Americans as larger than life heroes who had a master plan from which they would gain equality. Instead the movie highlighted the fact that great changes start with small actions.The movie’s use of strong racially charged language and scenes of physical violence make you feel disturbed and uncomfortable.Another powerful aspect of the movie is in the way the movie explains racism and injustice as a disease that is passed from one generation to the next. -Jason Milton

I thought that the film showed gender roles perfectly. The wife was at home slaving away in the kitchen making chicken tetrazini for her family while the man is at work. The black women took care of the children and also had to take care of their own families. - Emily

There were a number of social layers present in the film. The black workers are obviously at the bottom. The next highest social class was the wives. They had domain over the home, the child, and the maid. The final social rung was the men/husbands. They had final say over everything. Miriam mentions the positions a few times. It's one of the main reasons she remains against civil rights so long, her husband says no. - Sam R.

Things the movie got wrong
Overall historical context

Although the movie did give a sense that things needed to change and the bus boycott was an attempt to do so it didn't really give an accurate background to the build up of the movement. In the film it just seemed like everyone wanted to boycott the bus cause Rosa Parks got arrested yet it goes so much deeper and further back than that. I don't know if the film could have accommodated that build up or if it would have been worth while to even include but it does leave audiences with a false sense of what actually happened. -Rachel T.

This doesn’t really fall into the category of “wrong” but more of a “why didn’t they?” I am surprised they didn’t have someone portraying MKL Jr., or at least use voice clips from newsreel. I know this film is only supposed to represent the early days of the bus boycott, but I wish they had been able to include some more of the grassroots efforts that allowed the boycott to continue successfully for 381 days. One good example would be “The Club from Nowhere,” who prepared and sold meals at the mass meetings and used their profits to help sustain the movement. Also, it would have been neat if they could have included the whole taxicab thing (black drivers charging 10¢ vs. 45¢) as well. - Sara G.

I noticed that the taxi cab system was missing, as well as some of the supportive systems set up during the boycott; however, I don't think that the movie was actually wrong to leave them out, just a bit specific. Also, the narrative suggested that the boycott movement began with Rosa Parks when Odessa's son reads the newspaper, though the article itself did mention that hers was not the first case. --Mary Quinn

Specific issues

Although I thought the movie was overall pretty accurate, I was sort of confused why Miriam and Odessa almost got pulled over the first time Miriam gave her a ride, but once Miriam started doing the carpools with 3+ African American women in her car, she never even sees a cop. The readings and the movie talked about how the police would pull cars over with too many African Americans riding, so it was just weird that they nearly get pulled over when it was just Odessa riding. --Carrie

I wish they went into detail or at least alluded to the constraints put on other forms of transportation. I mean the idea of carpooling probably would have come up naturally, but I wish they went into what the city did to control the boycott, rather than just looking at individual people - pmccloy

Would Miriam really have been so clueless as to what the boycott was about? In the scene where Miriam is deciding to join the carpool, Odessa has to explain that its not just about riding buses but about being treated equally. Also, she is shown to be reading the paper every morning and watches the news every night at dinner but her husband still treats her like she isn't informed. That just bothered me. -Kendall

'''The first time Miriam picked up the three black ladies up, one of them sat up front without invitation. That would never have happened. Those three ladies would have all jammed themselves into the back before presuming that it was okay to sit up front alongside Miriam.''' - Sara G.

Characters

I don't know if it is wrong but the character of Miriam almost seemed a little too good to be true. Until the end of the movie, she seems unaware of race relations in Montgomery. She has her husband, her children and her maids and she runs her house .'''It seems that as long as the outside world doesn't affect her world, everything was fine. She defends and helps Odessa, but it is not until the end of the movie. Until then, it seems that she only does what is convenient and lives in a bubble'''. ~Kayle P

'''Odessa’s character. She was like Viola Davis playing Aibileen in The Help just without any of that silly character development. No, really, she was terrible'''. She had the perfect, supporting husband, family...what? At least The Help showed Minnie having domestic violence. And while I’ve always been interested in the relationship between nannies/domestic help/maids and the children they raise, '''I felt this movie did a poor job of portraying the relationship between the family and her. She seemed so disconnected unlike Viola and the little girl she was basically raising.' I think The Help'' depicted that relationship a lot better and more accurately. '''And on that note, why did the movie start and end with the little girl narrating? That offered absolutely nothing to the story for me. It was like wth? Where did that voice come from? Who are you again?''' -- Brooke

'''I guess this is more of a question than a critique. It seemed odd, I don't recall ever seeing a single white male driver, only females? Would that have really been the case'''? pmccloy

If Norman didn't approve of his wife driving Odessa why did he give up so easily. Did he have little concern over what his wife was doing or was he ignorant? - Hannah

I was expecting the film to further develop the relationship between Odessa and Mary Catherine, since it was she who narrated. There were a couple little clues that there was some affection, though Mary Catherine did not feel like a terribly important character in the story. --Mary Quinn

Selma

'''When the three men were harassing Selma on the bus, I highly doubt that the bus driver would have come to her defense. Even if he did, I don't think that he would have made the three punk kids leave the bus'''. He probably would have let them harass her based on the evidence in class that bus drivers would drag black along the bus for blocks at a time. When the driver leaves Selma to deal with the guys is more realistice. -Amanda

SELMA WHY DID YOU RUN TO THE PARK? --Stef L

'''The bus driver confused me, when Selma wanted to ride the bus. He said that he did not want any trouble and he reiterated that twice. His tone made me think that he actually cared about Selma.''' In reality I would think that he would be indifferent to a teenager riding the bus. - Emily

Final Sing along

At the very end of the film when the women were making their stand against the white men at the carpool, would the white men really have just walked away when they started singing? I don’t get it. They could slap Miriam in the face but then get too scared when the African American women sing? I understand that it’s supposed to be a symbolic point, but it just seemed a little unrealistic to me, especially when you look at all the violence that occurred during the Civil Rights Movement.—Paige

Ok really though, '''the white people gave up really easily. When the women start to sing in the last scene, the men just walk away. Why?''' I know some of my classmates have brought this up too. I think the movie just needed a definitive end, some small battle won. You can't say, "well this little story happened, and nobody learned a lesson, and the violence escalated for a decade or more after than." Except that's what really happened. Oh well, movies need endings.--Stef L.

Though protesters during the Civil Rights movement did sing when they had stand-offs or confrontations with racist mobs, the singing did not prevent them from being beaten. -WD

The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it
'''I was actually a little surprised with the film and how some of the people were portrayed because wasn’t the 1990s a period of political correctness? I mean, they used some pretty derogatory terms in the film and I thought they would have shied away from that'''. –Paige

@Paige. I think that's a question of what is political correctness. Political correctness for me is using euphemistic terms in order to not offend/exclude a target group. However I don't see any group having issue with 1950's whites saying racial slurs. I think the concept of political correctness is usually applied to modern stories. However where I do see political correctness is in the type of characters that movies have. There is always a anachronistically moral white character (see the Patriot and Last of the Mohicans) and rarely a really terrible racial character. Although I think Mariam's struggle is believable and powerful, it illustrates the type of story that films tell. '''There are very few modern films out there about racism that don't feature a moral white person because not having one would make the modern white audience squirm. On the flip side, there are very few modern movies about racism that show the division among the ethnic communities. What about the sexism that activist males had against their female counterparts? What about the schisms in the activists in the 1960s, such as when the SNCC kicked out their white members? Part of this is that Hollywood doesn't want to tell, and audiences don't want to watch a complicated story. The Civil Rights movement is a feel good story, why mess it up with details?''' -Zhen Chen

I was surprised about how the filmmakers approached this topic that has now become so touchy. '''Like Paige I agree that the film did not shy away from the realities for blacks during that time, which is interesting for the 1990's when political correctness was being pushed. It made me think of the Help which came out just a year or two ago and how The Long Walk Home was unforgiving in telling about life in the south during the 1950s. Perhaps filmmakers have become more PC over time because there is a giant gap between these two films that are made about the same time and relatively same issues.''' -Rachel T.

I feel like this movie got it right while many of the movies we have watched in class come with a director’s claim attached to them as being painstakingly accurate and then fall woefully short of such a claim. This movie accurately portrays an important part of American history in large part because of its limited focus. The entire movie is spent telling the story of a handful of characters who play a small role in a much larger story, the story of the Civil Rights Movement. The Long Walk Home’s ability to tell such a powerfully accurate story in such limited time makes one wonder why other movies have achieved so much less with so much more film time. While the movie was created during a time of political correctness I feel as if the movie had shied away from strong language and violence it would have been doing the men and women who lived and struggled during this time a great injustice. - Jason Milton

While the different social classes presented in the film are interesting (the black workers < the white women < the white husbands), the way Miriam's change takes place is unbelievable. Miriam is so caught up on what society thinks is right and her husband, etc. Her change to supporting civil rights made her seem like a confused character the whole film. People had very strong feelings about this at the time. People didn't just change sides because people like Odessa were nice to them. Miriam changes because it's the feel-good thing to do for the 1990 audience. Apparently Miriam was walking around her entire life saying things she didn't believe in and just spouting the societal norm without forming her opinion. Or, more likely... maybe this is all part of a commentary on feminism?! - Sam R.

Comments on the reading versus the movie
I actually wondered if the writers/director/producer had access to some of the same documents we did, particularly the one written by the woman who gave rides to boycotters. She described howwhite police officers would pull over carpools on made-up offenses to give them tickets in the hopes of breaking the boycott, which the movie at least hinted at when the motorcycle followed Miriam and Odessa the first time they shared a car. But other maids, on and off screen, also used quotes that sounded really familiar, like about how "when you have your hand in the lion's mouth, it's better to just pat him on the head" or how some of the maids would give made up excuses about why they didn't ride the bus, like they were afraid for their safety. So it seemed like some of the movie was taken directly from the readings... can't get much closer than that! --Carrie

I agree with Carrie. The readings went along with the movie perfectly, from the lion quote and the hard times the had to experience from whites for the boycott. Because it goes along with the readings so well it adds creditably to the movie. --Olivia

The movie was accurate to the reading about Virginia Durr, who described her support for the maids if not the bus boycott itself. She talked about how maids and white women would both lie when asked about the bus boycott. White women would say that they just wanted their maid to get to work or were going out that way anyway, just like Miriam did when talking to her bridge club and husband, when really the only reason she did it was so Odessa wouldn't have to walk. Odessa also lied, at first telling Miriam that is was just for her own safety not to ride the buses.I'm not sure how likely it would have been for Odessa to tell Mr. Thomson the truth about her feeling of the boycott, but other than that the film was very close to this reading. -Amanda

A nice nod to the unequal education of blacks and whites, noted in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, is when Odessa's youngest son is reading out the pamphlet very slowly in broken rhythm. - Zhen Chen

How refreshing to read documents and then watch a movie that aligned with them. After our discussion in class concerning the Brown vs. Board decision and then watching both white and black children in the movie really brought the reality of that court case to life. --Ellen S.

'''Everyone here seems to agree that the readings and the movie lined up fairly well. I wonder if the films that are made about more recent events appear to agree more with primary sources from the time. It feels like, in certain instances, film makers feel the need to make a film like this one more accurate because the events are fresher in American collective memory.''' Among the films we have watched in this class the trend has been that the films have gotten more historically accurate the more recent the subject matter is. Also, the it seems that subjects like the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, which are a more significant part of popular culture than Amistad (for example), seem to be more accurately portrayed for the same reasons. --NJenn

To echo everyone else's sentiments, it was nice to see that the screenwriters did their homework and consulted *actual* primary sources instead of making it up as they went along. - Sara G.