Movie Monday: "All for Liberty," a film by Chris Weatherhead, 2011.

[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes it is not the most flashy or well-funded films nor, even, the story itself that is significant in a film. Part of the charm, perhaps, of historical dramas are that the filmmakers use creative license to create a coherent narrative, grounded in historical source material. All for Liberty is not a high-budget film, nor does it really stand up to modern Hollywood conventions, despite being released in 2011. This film depicts the struggle for Independence during the Revolutionary War, and centers on little known Henry Felder, a Swiss-German colonist who settled in South Carolina and participated in the war, alongside his family.

Felder is capably acted by descendant Clarence Felder, who brings his obvious passion for the story into his performance. Actor Felder's stage experience is clear as many acting techniques (which look overdone on film) are more suited to the limitations of live stage than film.

The film focuses on several events from Felder's life, including his writing of the Articles of Separation from the English King c. May 1776. There are several scenes of skirmishes with British forces as they advance through the South, and the film closes with the surrender of Cornwallis.

So little, outside the regional histories, is known about Henry Felder, and the fact that the screenplay was penned by a descendant brings some historical aspects of the film into question. As a viewer and a student of history, sources like this film become problematic without supporting evidence. Further, one must question the facts based solely on one point of view. For me, however, this is not the most significant aspect of this film. My favorite part of the film is actually the last ten or so minutes, as the dialogue shifts to a kind of "concluding paragraph" that asks the viewers to seek out information on those who are not celebrated in the historical narrative, and learn about the common men and women of historical events. Unfortunately, this is not always possible because sources often say little about the "little people," those who supported the heroes and folklore legends of history. This, for me, is the strongest lesson from this film. There is never just one man or one battle that created history, but a total narrative that covers the leaders and the followers, the logistical people, the "little people."

This film is not "good" in the traditional sense, and I often found myself looking at how much longer the movie was. It relies heavily on the story of Felder and even the battles, while more dramatic than most of the movie, are not the center of the story. Perhaps that, too, is a strength in disguise. Battles, while having a place in history, cannot be the only picture, so having a film focus on the people is refreshing. The acting quality is sporadic, and some actors seem miscast or caricatures based on a cursory investigation of a "common" 1770s colonist. The narrative also doesn't go much into the complex ethnic relations, mainly between Africans and Anglos. The film also only gives a simplified look at Anglo-Native American interactions, although does recognize that the Anglos were "inevitably" going to take over (of which the Native American character stoically nods). This film is not a documentary, although the longer expository voice-over narration gives that feeling. Nor is this film concerned so much with historicity as it is with telling Felder's story.

This film is a project of love, as Clarence Felder obviously appreciates the role of his ancestor in the Revolutionary War. Some viewers will be intrigued by the story and hopefully will be moved to investigate the lesser known stories lost to history. This is my hope for viewers of this film, that their curiosity will bring them to more interesting historical tales. Others will be deathly bored, and honestly I had my moments. The dubious origin of the screenplay, the romanticized relations between Africans, Native Americans and some Anglos (while existent, was not as equal as the film would have viewers believe), and the focus on a single man make the historical value rather weak. Nevertheless, the call for viewers to investigate the lesser known aspects of history is the single strongest message to come from a film recently, in my opinion. This film doesn't demand that we take one story to be the only story, and "official" version of history, and that, to me, is priceless.

Stream "All for Liberty" on Amazon Prime.

Movie Monday: "Selma," a film by Ava DuVernay, 2015

Yoichi Okamoto [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Films that depict historic events often come with the necessity of literary license in the specific content of the film, either because there are gaps in the historical record or the success of the film relies on dramatization. Much has been said about the film Selma, and I am happy to have seen it on Amazon Prime. This historical drama depicts the events of the Civil Rights Movement that lead up to the march to Montgomery and, eventually, President Johnson calling for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What members of the various movements endured, the struggles and challenges not only from Southern whites favoring the status quo, but the doubts that arose in their own minds, and I love that about film.

The film showcases the acting abilities of a variety of quality actors, including David Oyelowo, who depicts Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tom Wilkinson ably commands the screen as both a talented actor and an embodiment of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Carmen Ejogo shines as Coretta Scott King, and was personally approved by Ms. King to portray her in the film. Tim Roth brings his acting abilities to bear as Alabama Governor and (at the time) unashamed segregationist George Wallace, who also memorably stood at the doorway of the University of Alabama's Foster Auditorium as the college was desegregated by law. I believe the casting was very carefully done, as no major faults in delivery or quality exist in this film for me.

The film opens with two events that shape the flavor and nature of the Civil Rights Movement. First is the image of Dr. King (Oyelowo) receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. This is paired with scenes of the 1963 KKK bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church, which left four children dead. The circumstances and context for the film are set up early, with a scene where Annie Lee Cooper (played by Oprah Winfrey) is denied the right to vote by the white registrar in Selma (although legally African Americans were afforded the right to vote, the decision of "fitness" for that right was largely left to individual registrars who, in the South, set up arbitrary, impossible questions and conditions for applicants). These events set the stage for the Civil Rights Movement's various organizations (including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)) to respond with different tactics and philosophies, both of which are touched upon in this film.

One of the most important outcomes of films like Selma, that moves beyond their occasional lack of historicity, or absolute historical authenticity, is that audiences are reintroduced to significant events in history. My hope is that viewers will explore the fight for civil rights as conducted by King and others on their own, while also realizing that the fight is not yet won. Selma and other films like it are, at their core, films about American identity, but also what it means to be part of the human species. It calls us to recognize the inherent worth in ALL people, regardless of race or religion.

The great tragedy of the events in this film is, while some creative license is taken when interpreting individual characters or their thoughts on Civil Rights (most critical was the portrayal of President Johnson as a reluctant supporter of Civil Rights when, from the documents, Johnson was a firm believer in King's mission), the core events, murders and prejudicial treatments of African Americans is true and largely uncontested. Anglo American supporters of the Movement were often branded "white niggers" and brutally attacked and murdered. African Americans who peaceably protested the systematically unfair treatment were imprisoned by their government, and spit on by their neighbors. Dr. King was assassinated.

American civil rights are an ongoing fight, and not only for African Americans, but all ethnic groups. Civil rights for African American populations are also at the forefront of current events, with murders of African American suspects plastered all over the headlines of the national media. Though we as a country have come a long way since 1965, Americans must all look to their consciences and continue to question just what values will be carried forward into the future, not only for the country itself, but for international relations and human rights, as well. The eyes of the world are always upon us, are we acting in a way to warrant such attention? Selma is a great introduction for further exploration of what the Civil Rights Movement in the US meant to the development of our yet imperfect Union.

Stream "Selma" on Amazon Prime.

Movie Monday: "Proud," a film by Mary Pat Kelly, 2004.

Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

This film came to my attention through Amazon Prime, as it was recommended based on my searches for American History films. I am happy that I got the chance to see this film. The narrative revolves around the exploits of the USS Mason (DE-529) destroyer escort during WWII, manned by a nearly all African American crew at a time when the military was segregated. This American history narrative is not well known or explored outside specialty history courses at a select few campuses. Unfortunately, historical narratives are sometimes limited by the prejudices and norms of the time they're written, and the USS Mason's narrative is a casualty of this condition. It is only from the 1970s, 80s and 90s that "minority history" has gained more recognition in the mainstream historical narrative.

Films like "Proud" are useful for introducing the audiences to hidden narratives, and serves to peak interest in the respective subject matter. "Proud" has a good quality cast that captures both the triumphs and shortcomings of WWII society and military efforts. The racism is present, and real, but is not overly front and center. The narrative focuses not as much on what society believes these men cannot do, but shows how the men themselves respond to the conditions they are introduced to, both in the navy and in the war. I'll admit, I know little about the mainstream actors in this film, so I cannot adequately comment on their respective filmographies. On viewing this film, however, it seems like each actor brought their respect and efforts to bear in their characters. What I appreciate a lot about this docudrama is the use of actual primary source footage from the USS Mason's missions. I believe this supports the overall structure of the film, as a grandfather narrating his experiences and memories to his grandson and friends.

The film opens with one of the main characters, as an older man, narrating his experience in Harlem, and how it became a home for him and his family. His grandson is living with him, and invites his friends over to listen to loud music in the early morning hours. His grandfather is woken up and goes downstairs to tell them to turn that noise off, and how the living situation really isn't working out. This sets the stage for him to tell his story, and how recognition for their efforts has been a long time coming. He has not held on to anger about the slight, however, and this paints the portrait of one seaman's response to their prejudicial treatment. He says that if he had given in to anger and resentment, it would have justified "their" (white men in government, American society, all the doubters, etc) point of view of African Americans at the time.

This film is intriguing to me, as I admit knowing relatively little of the African American experience during World War II. My own research mainly centers on Asian American experiences during World War II, so I am thankful for having another perspective. While it is not surprising to see that prejudice reigned among sailors and government officials during this time, what was refreshing was how the film portrayed the Captain of the USS Mason caring for his crewmen within the context of sailors, not African Americans who happen to be sailors. Further, I was surprised at the treatment of the sailors on shore-leave in Northern Ireland, where the men welcomed them as Yankees first, not black men. The narrator states that he was surprised the crew had to travel all that way to be treated like Americans.

Any viewer interested in the lesser known, but well worthwhile, stories of WWII may like this film. While not perfect, it is a refreshing plot reminds viewers that Americans of all backgrounds fought against the Axis Powers. Whether viewers see too much patriotism woven in this story is largely left to the opinions of each individual, but it is hard not to feel a sense of national pride any time there is a war film. Hopefully, films like "Proud" will be shown more often in classrooms, if not necessarily for the raw historical accuracy, then to visually represent alternative stories for students not familiar with the role all Americans played in the Allied victory in WWII.

Stream or Purchase "Proud" on Amazon