King: The Martin Luther King Story, Movie Review Example

Shortly after six o’clock P.M. on April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Junioris assassinated as he stood on the balcony of his hotel room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. The news of this tragic event stunned the world, and it occurred just one day after King portended his own demise in his infamous “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech. The 1978 three-part miniseries entitled The King–written and directed by Abby Mann–traces the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, a seminal leader in the Civil Rights Movement between the years 1954 and 1968 when he met his untimely demise. A winner of one primetime Emmy, the film explores the themes of racial inequality and social injustice through poignant, evocative scenes of the peaceful protests he spearheaded against segregation in the Deep South as well as the marches he led to undermine institutional and structural racism that hampered American society. Such themes mirror those explored by John Baldwin, a writer and product of the Harlem Renaissance, which was an epoch during which artists and writers facilitated the diffusion of black consciousness to the masses through cultural venues. Doing so empowered African Americans to participate in the socio-cultural movement and fomented hope in their minds that social change was imminent. The King documents the life of the most important figure in the Civil Rights Movement by exploring the theme of social and racial injustice that has pervaded American literature and cinema for centuries. Various scenes from the movie explores different facets of racial injustice is present in American society and culture and how proponents of white hegemony sought to undermine any collective efforts to disrupt the racial status quo by King and his followers through explosive violence.

The violence inflicted by white supremacists against civil rights leaders and ordinary African-Americans represents the physical manifestation of simmering racial tensions that undergirded the foundations of social and racial inequality throughout the twentieth century. One scene that alludes to the violence witnessed during the Civil Rights Era is the one in which sheriff “Bull” Connor, the commissioner of public safety in Birmingham, Alabama, threatened to undermine the peaceful protests conducted by young, black schoolchildren at the behest of King from his jail cell by shooting powerful fire hoses of water against them. Police let loose attack dogs and attacked the black activists with water hoses. This seen contains some fabrications, however, because it shows Bull Connor’s men walking out of them room upon hearing his suggestions. Such a fabrication undercuts the veracity of the narrative. However, it alludes to the violence witnessed in subsequent scenes because of ubiquitous racism that is present in American society. The director most likely included this fabrication in order to further vilify Bull Connor as the mastermind of the police brutality that was witnessed in Birmingham during this time period.  Critics decry that the majority of the film “compromises the truth with the hokiest of fabrications,” thereby eschewing any epochal concerns for why such distortions were done (Rovi, 2010). While such distortions detract from the documentary nature of the film, epochal concerns must be taken into account for why such inaccuracies were presented. Police brutality has always been a race issue and a larger societal issue. Deflecting the blame on one figure as the reason for police brutality deployed for the preservation of an unjust social and racial status quo rather than limning it as a systemic, institutional problem tempers any outrage that audience members may feel and act on after viewing such a film.

Another interesting scene that explores the nuances of the struggle for social and racial justice is the scene that shows a conversation between King and Malcolm X, another Civil Rights leader who embraced a more direct and violent approach to solving racial inequality. Although this conversation never took place, thereby rendering it an imaginary, fictive addition to the story of King, it nonetheless makes sense why the director included it in this movie. Both leaders articulated and discussed their differing points of view in a rational and coherent manner. While King conveyed the sentiments of a diplomat who sought to change the system itself within existing structures, thereby condoning politics of supplication through non-violent tactics, Malcolm X articulated more revolutionary sentiments in which attacking the problem directly through violent means if necessary was called for. Mann included this scene most likely to debunk the dyadic thinking so salient in the American consciousness that renders Malcolm X the embodied antithesis of Martin Luther King Jr. who maintains a fixed image as the hero of the civil rights while vilifying Malcolm X. This scene underscores the reality that neither Malcolm X nor Martin Luther King Jr. were completely wrong or completely right regarding their methods to achieve social justice and racial equality. Both sides were critical in putting ample pressure on America to begin the gradual approach of changing its systemically racist policies and treatment of African Americans.

References

Mann, A. (1978). King: The Martin Luther King Story. Film.

Rovi, H.E. (2010). King: The Martin Luther King Story (1978: A review. New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/27372/King-         The-Martin-Luther-King-Story/overview