Oyelowo brings MLK to life

Rating: 8/10 (11 May 2015)

Now that the Oscars have come and gone, once can't help but mention how Selma got snubbed in both the director and actor categories. This kind of discussion turned into a debate on the systemic racism inherent to the predominantly white Academy. It's not that I disagree with those opinions. It's just that I think it's important to remember that the same academy awarded Steve McQueen with Best Picture for 12 Years a Slave last year and gave Mexican director Iñárritu three(!) Oscars for Birdman this year which ensured that Linklater's very 'American' tale of growing up (Boyhood) went home mostly empty-handed. That's all I'm sayin'
Anyway, let's discuss the film. Needless to say, it's about Martin Luther King Jr.'s march from the eponymous city to Montgomery as a way of protesting against the violations of African Americans' right to vote; although they are technically allowed to vote, the institutionalized racism in many of the Southern states makes it impossible for them to do so, as the opening scene adequately shows. A black woman, Annie Lee Cooper, enters the voting office, only to find herself confronted with a racist behind the counter, asking her to cite the Preamble to the Constitution. She succeeds after which she's asked to answer how many judges there are in Alabama. Again she answers correctly, but when she's asked to name each and every one, she fails and her request form is stamped with a big, red 'DENIED'. It's a great way of showing how racism and discrimination aren't simply rooted out by way of a law or two. Otherwise, African Americans would've been truly free during Lincoln's time. No, the fight against racism is a long and arduous one that lasts for generations if not centuries.
It is during these troubling times that Dr. King decides, together with his trusted circle of friends and advisors, to stage a march in Selma. As preparations are made, tragedies continue to pile up. We get a glimpse into the racist mindsets of the southern states; the way the constant 'haze of death' looms upon Dr. King and his household, much to his wife's chagrin; Dr. King's negotiations with President Lyndon Johnson, etc.
I've read complaints regarding historical accuracy here and there: for instance, that it was wrong to suggest President Johnson instructed the FBI to keep tabs on Dr. King. As to whether there is truth in this, I personally don't know. What I do know is that the first and foremost task of a biopic isn't to follow history to the letter, but to make history come alive. In this, Selma succeeds and it particularly shows during Dr. King's speeches. Actor David Oyelowo gives a transcendent performance. It's impossible not to be moved and enraptured by the passion on display. Though I will never know what it must've been like to experience Dr. king's speeches, Selma gives me a pretty damn good idea. In spite of how you may feel about the film's historical accuracy, it's undeniable that (especially during the speeches) the film makes history come alive.
There're only two things that nagged at me: the presence of too many familiar faces and the misuse of slow-motion. Sometimes, an all-star cast is great, but some stories don't lend themselves well to that approach and a film about MLK is one of them. This is the type of film that requires great, but not overly familiar, actors, otherwise it turns the whole thing into a who's who. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be immersed into MLK's struggle than being like 'hey, that's Martin Sheen' or 'hey, that's Oprah Winfrey'. It automatically pulls you out of the experience. 12 Years a Slave suffered from a similar problem: too many familiar faces = 'oh yeah, it's only a movie' and that defeats the whole purpose.
As for the slow-motion, all I can say is that director DuVernay loves herself some slo-mo. Don't get me wrong, I like slo-mo, but you have to use it very carefully, because it's basically a cinematic trick that defies realism. The film usually employs this tactic during scenes of violence, when the police are beating down African Americans on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, or when a young black man is shot to death in a restaurant, etc. What I think is jarring is that slo-mo seems to raise violence to art in a way. The slo-mo effect allows you to take in what is happening in all its gory glory. But paradoxically, by slowing the action down, it also robs the violence of its effect. If memory serves, something similar happened during the Rodney King trial, where the defendants' lawyer repeated the infamous video footage so many times that the effect wore off on the jury. Selma's use of slo-mo has the same effect: not only does it pull you out of the film, but it paradoxically reduces the impact of the violence on display.
Other than that, Selma is gripping cinema. The film's quite understated in its portrayal of MLK. DuVernay has also made the tasteful choice of not ending the film with MLK's murder, instead ending with a speech in Montgomery with text overlays explaining the fates of those involved. It's highly appropriate for the film to end with a speech and not the murder, because his speech symbolizes equal rights, whereas his murder symbolizes racism. MLK's struggle was bigger than him. It's not so much about his life as his commitment and dedication to secure equal rights. As such, showing his murder would've been the sensational, but not the wise thing to do. Instead, the film ends with a message of positivity and hope for the future. Hallelujah, indeed.