Its central premise is slanderously wrong--if that were not true, it'd be great

Rating: 4/10 (3 February 2015)

Even if Joseph Califano hadn't made the point, I would have been appalled by the portrayal of LBJ in this film, since I'm old enough to remember LBJ. The CENTRAL PREMISE of this film is that MLK had to do something dramatic, and even court tragedy, in order to convince a reluctant LBJ to push the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That is the "drama" on which this entire historical fiction hinges. The climax comes when fictional LBJ changes his mind, having witnessed what local authorities did, and what Gov. George Wallace allowed, on a bridge outside Selma. LBJ then makes an address to Congress, the bill is passed, and everyone praises MLK for making it happen.
As Califano said, "Selma was LBJ's idea, he considered the Voting Rights Act his greatest legislative achievement, he viewed King as an essential partner in getting it enacted — and he didn't use the FBI to disparage him."
I don't mind when liberties are taken with historical fact in the interests of making a good film. I've defended "The Imitation Game" despite various distortions--the central premise, that a math wiz named Turing made it possible for the Brits to crack the Enigma code, that he conceived of computers as we now know them, and that he was persecuted for his homosexuality, are true beyond dispute (although other events were involved in breaking the code).
But Selma's key dramatic element, it's emotional core, is based on well- known and well-remembered historical fact, and it is a lie. The filmmakers say that the film is a dramatic story, and that they have taken liberties, yet they make it seem, by the use of a teletype device at the bottom of the screen, that they are recounting events contained in FBI wiretaps--the teletypes contain dates of particular events that we are seeing dramatized. It is a device that gives veracity to the tale.
Of course, it's just a film, and the filmmakers are not responsible for the impressions of history conveyed who don't know it, but I could sense that the young people in the auditorium where I saw the film were emotionally invested in seeing LBJ as a villain. An audible gasp arise when LBJ, speaking with George Wallace, referred to the "Nigras"; I saw a person near me shaking his head, as though the N word had been said. If LBJ were alive and if public figures were able to sue for defamation, he would have a case against this defamatory motion picture.
So why did I give it any "stars" in this rating system? Because, other than the central premise, it was a terrific movie. David Oyelowo is a magnificent actor. The speeches written for him to deliver, in lieu of the actual speeches which they were not given the rights too, were powerful, and delivered with such sincerity and force that you wanted to go out and march behind Oyelowo. The director did not ignore MLK's affairs with other women, but portrayed him and Coretta talking about them, dealing with them as adults. There is a recognition of MLK as a flesh-and-blood human, as well as a person who was able to recognize, in himself, that he was in a position where he could change the world. The scenes of freedom marches were powerful and exciting.
So, with the exception of its main story line, this movie is great. And because of falsity, the movie is slanderous.