Something that I don't really like about this movie (and we've discussed this a bit in class) is that the whites come down to Mississippi and played the hero for the blacks, when in actuality equality is due to the blacks and their own action. The movie portrays the blacks as being scared and intimidated of the KKK, which definitely was a common feeling in the South, but they also fought back themselves some and searched for other solutions. In the movie it seems like the whites are doing all the work and the blacks aren't cooperating with them. Other than that, I think the movie is really powerful and gets the significance of the event and the mood of the time across very effectively. I was especially shocked when the man was hanged from a tree and the farm animals were burned alive. It was not only shocking, but incredibly angering. The movie really highlights how the KKK would brutally attack blacks for simply being black. It was also interesting when the CIA completely changed tactics and started fighting back with more violence and intimidation. This part, though, I think we need to take with a grain of salt since it is definitely an embellishment.
During this next section of the movie the violence ramped up several degrees. When the plan of action switched from gentle persuasion to intimidation and violence, people started to give up more information. I thought it was interesting how the director chose to increase the violence factor dramatically once the person in charge of the investigation shifted. Obviously, the investigation did not change quite as drastically and as quickly as it was portrayed in "Mississippi Burning," but making the switch so evident and startling was more effective in making the point the director sought out to make. While it was difficult to watch the main FBI agent beat up people and become the bad guy, I think that if the movie were not portrayed in this manner the audience would not have gotten the point. The point of having the stark contrast between the two methods of investigation was twofold: to add excitement to the movie and to show the viewer the extreme difficulties the FBI had in finding out what happened to the three missing men.
The movie effectively builds the viewer’s understanding that the FBI agents are the good guys and the KKK members are the sneaky villains. Whenever a scene appears with an African-American person, I instinctively cringe anticipating the next attack against them. The film effectively incites fear from the viewer for the African-American on screen in anticipation for these attacks. The film capitalizes on those feelings after seeing so many scenes of burning crosses, churches, barns, and beatings. The film has nonstop serious scenes and tones, which increase as the film continues. Although some humor is used by Anderson’s jokes, they are dark humor and I cannot ignore the underlying problem of racism. The whole movie makes me sick. During the “I love Mississippi pep rally,” the close up on the white children’s faces made me nauseas. The scene made me realize how these children were being indoctrinated to hate African-Americans. Flash forward to the moment when the African-American boy is holding his dead lynched dad and crying with the barn burning in the background and you realize why the movie is called Mississippi Burning. This scene made me strongly oppose the KKK since it revealed how vulnerable and human African-Americans are. However, I do not like how victimized and vulnerable African-Americans are portrayed. I am glad that they had the speaker + the Black March at and after Cheney's funeral to show how strong African-Americans were.
This movie does a fantastic job at reinventing the emotions that many blacks, and some whites, felt during the civil rights movement. One of the scenes that evoked the most emotion from me was the scene where the barn and house were burned down and the man was hanged. It is horrible to realize that the fire completely destroyed that family's life and income along with taking a family member's life and was started because blacks were trying to fight for what they deserve. It truthfully shows what black people had to go through before and during the civl rights movement. Even though this many does have some inaccuracies, it is definitely not easy to relax and sit through because it forces you to realize the pain and completely unnecessary brutal lives blacks had to live. Another scene I found interesting was the scene where the deputy beats his wife with three men watching because she tipped off the FBI agent. This scene really stood out to me because we just finished the Women's movement and this is a good representation of the inequalities and abuse that women had to go through. Also, it gives off the overall impression and idea that white men basically ruled the state in southern states, especially Mississippi. It showed that there were many corrupt views throughout the country and that it's hard to change people's beliefs because they grew up with the same hatred. There is no way white men could have respect for blacks if they could not even respect their families, especially their wives.
So far, I have been enjoying the movie. I think, however, that it is a stark contrast to the documentary that we watched earlier in the week. The movie does an exceptional job at getting at the viewer’s emotions in telling the story. Two scenes that come to mind are the scene where the Klan members lynch a black man and burn his farm and house. The other notable scene was when Ward and Anderson followed a truck that had just been seen kidnapping a black man who was coming out of the sheriff’s office. They follow the truck into the woods, and they find a black man lying there, having just been shot. Ward, cradling the dying man in his arms, says “What is wrong with these people.” The two scenes are clearly appeals to the viewer’s emotions, and they are effective at getting the message across. However, the cost of the emotional appeal of the movie is that the director had to dramatize most of the scenes heavily. Since the movie was dramatized so heavily, it lost a good portion of its factual value, but gained a significant amount of emotional appeal. The documentary took a different approach. It stuck to just the facts and did not do any embellishing of the story. This made the documentary have a much stronger basis in fact, but it was less entertaining and it was not able to evoke nearly the same level of emotion.
I have to agree with what specifically Lauren said, that as soon as I see a black character appear on screen, I instinctively cringe, waiting for when they will be attacked by the KKK. The fact that the movie is able to draw out this kind of emotion from me while watching makes it a good movie, however I'm still not sure how accurate it is. I believe it gives us a better insight into the lifestyles of both races in Mississippi during the 1960s, however some parts of the movie seem to have gone Hollywood. Specifically, when Ward realizes his tactics aren't getting the FBI agents anywhere, and Anderson and his men take over the investigation. Anderson uses new tactics with the help of other agents, such as dropping the KKK member off in the black neighborhood after the KKK meeting in the church. Or when Anderson calls in the black agent to threaten the mayor of the town in the shack in the middle of nowhere. The particular scene that really struck a chord with me was when Agent Anderson starts beating Deputy Pell in the barber shop. There was a cynical almost comical aspect to Anderson's attack but at the same time I felt myself looking away and cringing when he was throwing Pell around the shop. Then Ward tries to enter the shop but none of the other FBI agents let him in. I guess this scene kind of stuck out at me mostly because we see the FBI using similar scare tactics as the KKK to get information out of the townsfolk. I have to wonder whether or not the FBI actually did this or if this scene was made more interesting in order to get better box office reviews. Something to consider.
Mississippi Burning definitely causes viewers to become emotionally involved with the plot. It was heartbreaking to watch the KKK lynch the old man, and then to see the little boy afterwards trying to help him. It's even more heartbreaking to know while watching the movie that things like that actually happened during that time. To see it in a movie is more saddening than reading about it. I also think, as I said in my last post, that it is disappointing that the movie was dramatized. The events were dramatic enough, and although it enhances the story, it's misleading. I remember reading in one of the articles that we were assigned to read that the FBI never used force on the Sheriff. Again, I think that they could have used what actually happened to make a dramatic movie. I think that the movie does a really good job with capturing the essence of that time period, however. But, like Olivia explained, they only show the white people as leaders, when in reality the African Americans were the forces behind the Civil Rights Movement. Despite its criticism, I really like this movie, even if it is a little misleading.
I liked the movie. The general story was enjoyable, ad the plot was interesting. However, I also recognize that that is just what a movie is supposed to do. The real events, however, do not hold the same interest. After all, a month's worth of dredging a swamp does not make for good cinema. In terms of theatrical violence and language, I have seen worse and I have seen better. I can not tell you if the story was faithful to the actual plot, but I know that there were differences. Of course, that is to be expected when a real event becomes a theatrical one. There were more than a few hundred Greeks fighting at Thermopylae, and there was a bridge at the Battle of Stirling, despite what the movies 300 and Braveheart might portray. Of course, a documentary on the Battle of Thermopylae or the Scottish Revolt of the High Middle Ages would draw less of a crowd. This means that less people will know the story and that the theaters would receive less money. All in all, I think that the movie was faithful enough to the original events while still being interesting.
The violence increased a lot more with the rest of the movie that we watched and it was clearly a Hollywood movie in this aspect. After the trial when their sentences were suspended, there were numerous house burnings by white men and members of the KKK. A shocking scene was when they hanged the father after beating him up and burning down his house and barn. It seemed so extreme and cruel, and it was scary that it had become almost normal to have so many houses burned down. Three other strong examples of untrue violence were the sheriff beating up his wife, the black man threatening the mayor, and Mr. Anderson smacking the sheriff around in the barber shop. It's almost believable that violence like this did occur, but it still seemed a little too over the top. The man threatening the mayor was not the actual way that the FBI got the disclosed information about the location of the bodies, but the Hollywood version was much more exciting than a large bribe.
As we watched more of the movie I noticed that there was much more violence that was happening. From what we watched on Thursday and what we saw Friday it was taken to a whole different level. One part that was difficult to watch was when the KKK had hung the african american father from a tree and the farm animals were all burned. As I watched this I was in shock. The amount of pain they caused to him was awful. All he was trying to do was protect his family and keep them safe, but that was a risk that he had to take. The hard part was not only watching the black father suffer, but seeing his young son try and take care of his dying father was hard. This was a young child who had to see his father in a state that he never should have witnessed He needed his father and he had hope that he would be okay. The movie really makes me think and reflect upon how these things really were happening. It is crazy and disgusting to come to grips with the fact that this was what the blacks had to face solely because of the color of their skin.
After seeing the movie for the second day, one particular scene that stuck out to me was when the FBI workers brought in a hundred more men to sweep the swamp where they believed the murder took place. This showed the dedication that took place during the Mississippi Summer Project. It allowed me to see that the FBI agents wanted to be sure that Klan violence would not be tolerated any longer. This scene told me that the government wanted people to see the murders as more than just another act of violence from the Klan. They wanted the murder to mean something in the minds of Americans. However, the publicity that was created in the town as a result of the swamp investigation seemed to hinder the progress.
Personally, I am still enjoying the movie. One thing that I thought was shown well during the movie was the fear of the black people in the company of the FBI agents. The movie has shown (possibly too extensively) the intimidation that the black community suffered from the KKK. If someone spoke to the FBI agents in the movie, they would be hunted down by the KKK and brutally beaten or murdered. The movie does a great job of showing the reluctance of the black community to converse with the FBI agents, out of fear of what will happen to themselves and their families. One part of the movie that I wondered about in terms of its credibility was the large KKK meeting in town. I didn't think this seemed quite realistic because the presence of the KKK was not supposed to be publicly known, and in reality I don't believe the leaders would have taken the risk of having such a large meeting--even if they had disguised it as something political--with all the FBI agents so close by. One last thing that became increasingly effective in delivering the message of violence during this last segment of the movie was when the mayor was kidnapped and threatened very graphically. I wonder if this event ever occurred in real life--and if it did, what impact did it have realistically on the mayor? Did it give him a different perspective, or serve only to further strengthen his sense of racism?
Watching the second half of Mississippi Burning was more difficult than the first half. Not only for the excessive gore, but for the more emotional portions. The lynching of the black farmer, the breakdown of the deputy's wife, the subsequent beating of her from her husband, the numerous burnings of black facilities and beatings and rapes. The director clearly wanted to play at the heart strings of the audience and evoke an emotional response from them. A lot of these emotional scenes were less related to the case itself and focused more on the blinding racism of Mississippians. When people watch this movie, their emotions would respond to the unfairness of the black people being beaten simply for existing as opposed to the three bodies of the civil rights workers being found. The movie simply did not play up the crime as much as the racist acts that went on every day. In that regard, the director's approach was to use the disappearance of the three civil rights workers as a backdrop to the real point he wanted to get across about racism in Mississippi. As I said before, the director's sole purpose was to evoke an emotional response from the audience, and he needed everything in the film to be able to do that. So, he changed several details, such as the seduction of the deputy's wife and the black man threatening the fat white man with a knife, to intensify the emotional response from the audience. Personally, I do not believe that this was the route to take. If he wanted to make a movie about racism in Mississippi, then he should have blatantly done so. Instead, he took a historical event to base the movie off of, made the historical event the backdrop to the racism going on in the country, and changed historical details into falsehoods. Simply put, if one is going to make a movie about a historical event, then he should not make up things about it and should not fail to make it the primary focus of the movie.
I continue to enjoy the movie and personally think the cinematography is very good. The most striking park of this movie though is the amount of violence. I would very much like to know how much of it comes from real life and how much is the directors fiction. The specific types of violence, especially when one of the KKK members kicked the young boy who was praying in the head. What would really interesting me would be to read an in depth case file because I have no idea what is real and what is not in this movie. From what we know, the scene where the FBI agent seduces the wife of the deputy isn't real. However I find myself asking again and again what is real and what isn't. I would like to believe that the one FBI agent's tough talking skill and strange meodths are really what turns the investigation but I don't know for certain.
The second part of the movie was more shocking to me because there was more violence portrayed through graphic scenes. The most disturbing scene was when the Ku Klux Klan members raided the house of a black man and started to burn it down, after which they killed the owner of the house by hanging him. It was very sad to see his little child cry next to his dead father and I couldn't believe how inhumane people were at that period of time. The movie was able to hit the emotional note and make people genuinely understand the seriousness of racism. I could not understand why the KKK members kidnapped and murdered blacks for no reason, and that it was normal at the time in the South. However, the movie also depicted the FBI’s effort to find the bodies of the three civil rights workers that were murdered. They assembled hundred people and searched the pond completely. FBI was making a significant step towards equality, as they were starting to use violence to find information about the lost bodies. They were not tolerating any more racist activities of the KKK.
Something that I don't really like about this movie (and we've discussed this a bit in class) is that the whites come down to Mississippi and played the hero for the blacks, when in actuality equality is due to the blacks and their own action. The movie portrays the blacks as being scared and intimidated of the KKK, which definitely was a common feeling in the South, but they also fought back themselves some and searched for other solutions. In the movie it seems like the whites are doing all the work and the blacks aren't cooperating with them.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I think the movie is really powerful and gets the significance of the event and the mood of the time across very effectively. I was especially shocked when the man was hanged from a tree and the farm animals were burned alive. It was not only shocking, but incredibly angering. The movie really highlights how the KKK would brutally attack blacks for simply being black. It was also interesting when the CIA completely changed tactics and started fighting back with more violence and intimidation. This part, though, I think we need to take with a grain of salt since it is definitely an embellishment.
During this next section of the movie the violence ramped up several degrees. When the plan of action switched from gentle persuasion to intimidation and violence, people started to give up more information. I thought it was interesting how the director chose to increase the violence factor dramatically once the person in charge of the investigation shifted. Obviously, the investigation did not change quite as drastically and as quickly as it was portrayed in "Mississippi Burning," but making the switch so evident and startling was more effective in making the point the director sought out to make. While it was difficult to watch the main FBI agent beat up people and become the bad guy, I think that if the movie were not portrayed in this manner the audience would not have gotten the point. The point of having the stark contrast between the two methods of investigation was twofold: to add excitement to the movie and to show the viewer the extreme difficulties the FBI had in finding out what happened to the three missing men.
ReplyDeleteThe movie effectively builds the viewer’s understanding that the FBI agents are the good guys and the KKK members are the sneaky villains. Whenever a scene appears with an African-American person, I instinctively cringe anticipating the next attack against them. The film effectively incites fear from the viewer for the African-American on screen in anticipation for these attacks. The film capitalizes on those feelings after seeing so many scenes of burning crosses, churches, barns, and beatings. The film has nonstop serious scenes and tones, which increase as the film continues. Although some humor is used by Anderson’s jokes, they are dark humor and I cannot ignore the underlying problem of racism. The whole movie makes me sick. During the “I love Mississippi pep rally,” the close up on the white children’s faces made me nauseas. The scene made me realize how these children were being indoctrinated to hate African-Americans. Flash forward to the moment when the African-American boy is holding his dead lynched dad and crying with the barn burning in the background and you realize why the movie is called Mississippi Burning. This scene made me strongly oppose the KKK since it revealed how vulnerable and human African-Americans are. However, I do not like how victimized and vulnerable African-Americans are portrayed. I am glad that they had the speaker + the Black March at and after Cheney's funeral to show how strong African-Americans were.
ReplyDeleteThis movie does a fantastic job at reinventing the emotions that many blacks, and some whites, felt during the civil rights movement. One of the scenes that evoked the most emotion from me was the scene where the barn and house were burned down and the man was hanged. It is horrible to realize that the fire completely destroyed that family's life and income along with taking a family member's life and was started because blacks were trying to fight for what they deserve. It truthfully shows what black people had to go through before and during the civl rights movement. Even though this many does have some inaccuracies, it is definitely not easy to relax and sit through because it forces you to realize the pain and completely unnecessary brutal lives blacks had to live.
ReplyDeleteAnother scene I found interesting was the scene where the deputy beats his wife with three men watching because she tipped off the FBI agent. This scene really stood out to me because we just finished the Women's movement and this is a good representation of the inequalities and abuse that women had to go through. Also, it gives off the overall impression and idea that white men basically ruled the state in southern states, especially Mississippi. It showed that there were many corrupt views throughout the country and that it's hard to change people's beliefs because they grew up with the same hatred. There is no way white men could have respect for blacks if they could not even respect their families, especially their wives.
So far, I have been enjoying the movie. I think, however, that it is a stark contrast to the documentary that we watched earlier in the week. The movie does an exceptional job at getting at the viewer’s emotions in telling the story. Two scenes that come to mind are the scene where the Klan members lynch a black man and burn his farm and house. The other notable scene was when Ward and Anderson followed a truck that had just been seen kidnapping a black man who was coming out of the sheriff’s office. They follow the truck into the woods, and they find a black man lying there, having just been shot. Ward, cradling the dying man in his arms, says “What is wrong with these people.” The two scenes are clearly appeals to the viewer’s emotions, and they are effective at getting the message across. However, the cost of the emotional appeal of the movie is that the director had to dramatize most of the scenes heavily. Since the movie was dramatized so heavily, it lost a good portion of its factual value, but gained a significant amount of emotional appeal. The documentary took a different approach. It stuck to just the facts and did not do any embellishing of the story. This made the documentary have a much stronger basis in fact, but it was less entertaining and it was not able to evoke nearly the same level of emotion.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with what specifically Lauren said, that as soon as I see a black character appear on screen, I instinctively cringe, waiting for when they will be attacked by the KKK. The fact that the movie is able to draw out this kind of emotion from me while watching makes it a good movie, however I'm still not sure how accurate it is. I believe it gives us a better insight into the lifestyles of both races in Mississippi during the 1960s, however some parts of the movie seem to have gone Hollywood. Specifically, when Ward realizes his tactics aren't getting the FBI agents anywhere, and Anderson and his men take over the investigation. Anderson uses new tactics with the help of other agents, such as dropping the KKK member off in the black neighborhood after the KKK meeting in the church. Or when Anderson calls in the black agent to threaten the mayor of the town in the shack in the middle of nowhere. The particular scene that really struck a chord with me was when Agent Anderson starts beating Deputy Pell in the barber shop. There was a cynical almost comical aspect to Anderson's attack but at the same time I felt myself looking away and cringing when he was throwing Pell around the shop. Then Ward tries to enter the shop but none of the other FBI agents let him in. I guess this scene kind of stuck out at me mostly because we see the FBI using similar scare tactics as the KKK to get information out of the townsfolk. I have to wonder whether or not the FBI actually did this or if this scene was made more interesting in order to get better box office reviews. Something to consider.
ReplyDeleteMississippi Burning definitely causes viewers to become emotionally involved with the plot. It was heartbreaking to watch the KKK lynch the old man, and then to see the little boy afterwards trying to help him. It's even more heartbreaking to know while watching the movie that things like that actually happened during that time. To see it in a movie is more saddening than reading about it. I also think, as I said in my last post, that it is disappointing that the movie was dramatized. The events were dramatic enough, and although it enhances the story, it's misleading. I remember reading in one of the articles that we were assigned to read that the FBI never used force on the Sheriff. Again, I think that they could have used what actually happened to make a dramatic movie. I think that the movie does a really good job with capturing the essence of that time period, however. But, like Olivia explained, they only show the white people as leaders, when in reality the African Americans were the forces behind the Civil Rights Movement. Despite its criticism, I really like this movie, even if it is a little misleading.
ReplyDeleteI liked the movie. The general story was enjoyable, ad the plot was interesting. However, I also recognize that that is just what a movie is supposed to do. The real events, however, do not hold the same interest. After all, a month's worth of dredging a swamp does not make for good cinema. In terms of theatrical violence and language, I have seen worse and I have seen better. I can not tell you if the story was faithful to the actual plot, but I know that there were differences. Of course, that is to be expected when a real event becomes a theatrical one. There were more than a few hundred Greeks fighting at Thermopylae, and there was a bridge at the Battle of Stirling, despite what the movies 300 and Braveheart might portray. Of course, a documentary on the Battle of Thermopylae or the Scottish Revolt of the High Middle Ages would draw less of a crowd. This means that less people will know the story and that the theaters would receive less money. All in all, I think that the movie was faithful enough to the original events while still being interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe violence increased a lot more with the rest of the movie that we watched and it was clearly a Hollywood movie in this aspect. After the trial when their sentences were suspended, there were numerous house burnings by white men and members of the KKK. A shocking scene was when they hanged the father after beating him up and burning down his house and barn. It seemed so extreme and cruel, and it was scary that it had become almost normal to have so many houses burned down. Three other strong examples of untrue violence were the sheriff beating up his wife, the black man threatening the mayor, and Mr. Anderson smacking the sheriff around in the barber shop. It's almost believable that violence like this did occur, but it still seemed a little too over the top. The man threatening the mayor was not the actual way that the FBI got the disclosed information about the location of the bodies, but the Hollywood version was much more exciting than a large bribe.
ReplyDeleteAs we watched more of the movie I noticed that there was much more violence that was happening. From what we watched on Thursday and what we saw Friday it was taken to a whole different level. One part that was difficult to watch was when the KKK had hung the african american father from a tree and the farm animals were all burned. As I watched this I was in shock. The amount of pain they caused to him was awful. All he was trying to do was protect his family and keep them safe, but that was a risk that he had to take. The hard part was not only watching the black father suffer, but seeing his young son try and take care of his dying father was hard. This was a young child who had to see his father in a state that he never should have witnessed He needed his father and he had hope that he would be okay. The movie really makes me think and reflect upon how these things really were happening. It is crazy and disgusting to come to grips with the fact that this was what the blacks had to face solely because of the color of their skin.
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing the movie for the second day, one particular scene that stuck out to me was when the FBI workers brought in a hundred more men to sweep the swamp where they believed the murder took place. This showed the dedication that took place during the Mississippi Summer Project. It allowed me to see that the FBI agents wanted to be sure that Klan violence would not be tolerated any longer. This scene told me that the government wanted people to see the murders as more than just another act of violence from the Klan. They wanted the murder to mean something in the minds of Americans. However, the publicity that was created in the town as a result of the swamp investigation seemed to hinder the progress.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am still enjoying the movie. One thing that I thought was shown well during the movie was the fear of the black people in the company of the FBI agents. The movie has shown (possibly too extensively) the intimidation that the black community suffered from the KKK. If someone spoke to the FBI agents in the movie, they would be hunted down by the KKK and brutally beaten or murdered. The movie does a great job of showing the reluctance of the black community to converse with the FBI agents, out of fear of what will happen to themselves and their families. One part of the movie that I wondered about in terms of its credibility was the large KKK meeting in town. I didn't think this seemed quite realistic because the presence of the KKK was not supposed to be publicly known, and in reality I don't believe the leaders would have taken the risk of having such a large meeting--even if they had disguised it as something political--with all the FBI agents so close by. One last thing that became increasingly effective in delivering the message of violence during this last segment of the movie was when the mayor was kidnapped and threatened very graphically. I wonder if this event ever occurred in real life--and if it did, what impact did it have realistically on the mayor? Did it give him a different perspective, or serve only to further strengthen his sense of racism?
ReplyDeleteWatching the second half of Mississippi Burning was more difficult than the first half. Not only for the excessive gore, but for the more emotional portions. The lynching of the black farmer, the breakdown of the deputy's wife, the subsequent beating of her from her husband, the numerous burnings of black facilities and beatings and rapes. The director clearly wanted to play at the heart strings of the audience and evoke an emotional response from them. A lot of these emotional scenes were less related to the case itself and focused more on the blinding racism of Mississippians. When people watch this movie, their emotions would respond to the unfairness of the black people being beaten simply for existing as opposed to the three bodies of the civil rights workers being found. The movie simply did not play up the crime as much as the racist acts that went on every day. In that regard, the director's approach was to use the disappearance of the three civil rights workers as a backdrop to the real point he wanted to get across about racism in Mississippi. As I said before, the director's sole purpose was to evoke an emotional response from the audience, and he needed everything in the film to be able to do that. So, he changed several details, such as the seduction of the deputy's wife and the black man threatening the fat white man with a knife, to intensify the emotional response from the audience. Personally, I do not believe that this was the route to take. If he wanted to make a movie about racism in Mississippi, then he should have blatantly done so. Instead, he took a historical event to base the movie off of, made the historical event the backdrop to the racism going on in the country, and changed historical details into falsehoods. Simply put, if one is going to make a movie about a historical event, then he should not make up things about it and should not fail to make it the primary focus of the movie.
ReplyDeleteI continue to enjoy the movie and personally think the cinematography is very good. The most striking park of this movie though is the amount of violence. I would very much like to know how much of it comes from real life and how much is the directors fiction. The specific types of violence, especially when one of the KKK members kicked the young boy who was praying in the head. What would really interesting me would be to read an in depth case file because I have no idea what is real and what is not in this movie. From what we know, the scene where the FBI agent seduces the wife of the deputy isn't real. However I find myself asking again and again what is real and what isn't. I would like to believe that the one FBI agent's tough talking skill and strange meodths are really what turns the investigation but I don't know for certain.
ReplyDeleteThe second part of the movie was more shocking to me because there was more violence portrayed through graphic scenes. The most disturbing scene was when the Ku Klux Klan members raided the house of a black man and started to burn it down, after which they killed the owner of the house by hanging him. It was very sad to see his little child cry next to his dead father and I couldn't believe how inhumane people were at that period of time. The movie was able to hit the emotional note and make people genuinely understand the seriousness of racism. I could not understand why the KKK members kidnapped and murdered blacks for no reason, and that it was normal at the time in the South. However, the movie also depicted the FBI’s effort to find the bodies of the three civil rights workers that were murdered. They assembled hundred people and searched the pond completely. FBI was making a significant step towards equality, as they were starting to use violence to find information about the lost bodies. They were not tolerating any more racist activities of the KKK.
ReplyDelete