ADVERTISEMENT

'Selma' Shouldn't Lose at the Oscars Because It's 'Historically Inaccurate'

'Selma' should lose because it's, well, kind of dull

January 12, 2015

First, a scheduling note: You may have noticed a slower-than-usual pace of posting at the Editor's Blog last week. Andrew Stiles was off bringing peace to Eastern Europe (possibly in the company of Biff Diddle; our intel on this matter is shaky, at best) while I was filling in for Alyssa Rosenberg over at the Washington Post.

One of the items I published over at the Post was about the question of "timeliness" and the Oscars. My argument was a simple one: If Oscar voters are going to reward films for shining a spotlight on current events through the medium of film—as some are arguing Selma should be rewarded—then they should strongly consider giving Gone Girl best picture. After all, David Fincher's latest is a movie that better helps us understand the controversy surrounding the almost certainly fabricated allegations of gang rape at the center of Rolling Stone's "A Rape on Campus."

Now, the whole piece was a little tongue in cheek, insofar as I don't actually think that films should be rewarded for being "timely" or "shining a light on a current controversy." That's dumb, and it's a standard that risks substituting political concerns for artistic ones. Equally dumb has been the push from some allies of President Lyndon Baines Johnson to disqualify Selma from awards consideration for failing to be entirely historically accurate. Richard Cohen suggested that he liked the film before it showed LBJ to be not entirely on board with the march for voting rights in Selma, Ala., at the heart of the film. "The movie should be ruled out this Christmas and during the ensuing awards season," former LBJ aide Joseph Califano explicitly argued.

These critics, of course, are deploying the same tactics against Selma that Glenn Greenwald and others deployed against Zero Dark Thirty. And they're doing so for largely the same reason. They are not at all concerned with artistic merit and are instead worried about the political implications of the artwork in question. They see a view of the world that they do not like, one that contradicts a cherished internalized belief—harsh interrogations never work; LBJ was totally down with The Struggle, no questions asked—and they lash out against it.

Don't get me wrong: There are plenty of reasons to oppose Selma winning best picture at the Oscars. It is well-acted and competently shot, but no more than that: there isn't a single striking visual image, a single shot that made me sit up and go "whoa." It frequently feels like a television movie, if we're being honest, one that hits a bunch of historical marks—ooh, look, Malcolm X is in town for a scene for some reason!—and features a number of big-name guest stars (such as Martin Sheen showing up for a few moments at the end of the film as a judge). The movie is telling an important story, but it's not telling an important story particularly well or particularly powerfully.

But to argue that a piece of art only works if it gets everything about history right is simple foolishness. Consider, for instance, Gladiator, Ridley Scott's best-picture-winning swords-and-sandals epic that concludes with the restoration of the Roman Republic following the death of the emperor Commodus in the arena. This is, well, not what happened—and it's a departure from reality far more striking than anything in Zero Dark Thirty or Selma.* But that doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter because Gladiator is a thrilling, epic story about life and love and freedom and honor. It's great art. Who cares if it's "true"?

*Fun fact: On a midterm in a class about Roman history in college, there was a version (I forget the exact wording/requirements) of the following extra credit question: "For one additional point, list five inaccuracies in the movie 'Gladiator.'" I think I listed something like 12 just to show off. My love for the film has not diminished one iota as a result of its massive inaccuracies, however.