Imagine if the film industry took every meaningful, inspiring, insightful and incite-ful story and made it G-rated, a box office success and shaved off every bit of thorny truth or multi-layered complexity. Imagine if a writer misrepresented a real person and retold a historic event to suit themselves. Maybe it is their right to do that, to show one side of a life, but a tragic loss occurs when a generation believes that the sanitized version, the mischaracterization, the fantasy re-telling is the actual reality.
Every year around Women’s Equality Day, the best of people advise us to watch Iron Jawed Angels. Every year I comment that Alice was so much more. Not only was she more than the movie character but the striking inaccuracies reveal a warped bias on the part of the movie makers. They made up a male interest. They made up a Congress member’s wife. They imply that Alice had some kind of melancholy about not having children (the fictional boyfriend is a widower with a son who charms Alice). But, more importantly, what is lost in this fantasy? What is the viewer robbed of? That is the real tragedy. Who was this strong, mouthy, brave, relentless, sometimes divisive woman? It is my position that the fluffy interpretation negatively impacts every American woman who would have found camaraderie in the true fire and soul of Alice Paul. I would go so far as to say that the pink hat wearing, gum chewing, bumbling character is held up to be an example as to how far an acceptable woman can veer from lady-like behavior. Read a book and you will see what it actually took for her to accomplish the 19th Amendment, how she stood trial in 1917, her demanding leadership style, she did not suffer fools, she was not anything near the Hillary Swank edition.
Now the identical thing will be happening around May 22, Harvey Milk Day. Oh yes, the movie Milk won an Oscar, starred Sean Penn, was truly moving. I have watched it 6 times, at least. But if you watch The Times of Harvey Milk and then watch Milk - ask two questions: What is the difference in these two representations of Harvey and what is the impact to future generations if they believe the man portrayed in Milk is the whole picture. The fictionalized Milk epitomizes the very thing that is a terrible problem in the LGBT movement; it shows a single issue man on a single issue mission. The Times of Harvey Milk shows Harvey working with labor, with women, with seniors, with people of color and imparts to the viewer that being gay was one facet of Harvey - he was the Mayor of Castro before it was a mecca for gays. He was inclusive and open; something the LGBT movement could surely use today. My hope is that high schools that do celebrate Harvey Milk Day will watch BOTH movies and have a real lesson plan that identifies the differences in these movies.
Most recently I sat in a theater and watched, The Help. Loved it. Loved the casting. Loved the poster. Loved the sets, the clothes, the chotchkies, the music. But I am 63 and lived through that period and I know that the entire movie from start to end was one vanilla, milquetoast, BS pie. It has nothing to do with the facts of prejudice, poverty, politics of that time. Madger Evers murder was some little wispy mention, a black woman leaving her abusive husband was a flick solved with some deep fry and what’s more fun than not allowing a woman to use the loo – a knee slapping good laugh; pass the popcorn. Hollywood will surely have a 5 minute reprieve from sexism during Oscar season, as The Help gets a dozen nominations. Can’t you just picture all of the bigotry and anti-woman business of the industry being whitewashed on the red carpet. And what of this movie being used as a teaching tool? Gee, wasn’t the 60’s just a lot of good music and silly women acting all clique-ky.
Notable exceptions validate a wish that non-documentary films can tell the truth. Sir Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi was meticulously scripted and shot. In fact, the book, Gandhi, A Pictorial Biography shows the shots side by side; Patel, Nehru, Kasturba, Jinnah, the ashrams, the courtrooms, the jails – all painstakingly accurate. Certainly Gandhi the man was infinitely more complex than this movie but it is not dishonest, sanitized, fictionalized and offers the viewer genuine inspiration.
Martin Scorsese’s Kundun, portrays the life of the 14th Dalai Lama from ages 2- 24 with astounding accuracy. Particularly significant is that many of the actors are direct blood relatives of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. You can be sure that the ceremonies and traditions are accurately portrayed.
I love movies. I love social justice. I worry that cute is painting over pure. I worry that polite is being advanced as possible. I worry that women, in particular, are being corralled by darling little shots of Ben teaching Alice to drive. I worry when Hollywood makes a movie that implies that the Civil Rights Movement was a wonderful success and, golly, wasn’t it just a lot of fun.















