Selma

Failure to accuse Caucasian officers in the murder of unarmed African men in Ferguson, Missouri and Staten Island has nothing and everything to do with “Selma,” Ava DuVernay’s 2014 challenging review into Martin Luther King Jr.’s landmark 1965 voting-rights march from Selma, Alabama, to the state capitol in Montgomery. The sad truth is that racial injustice is fitting than ever. Righteous anger is in the air, and that enthusiasm to stand up and be counted is all over “Selma.”

This is all towards the good. DuVernay, working from a terrific, strongly motivated script by Paul Webb, blows the dust off history to find the main core. Look at the problem facing King, played terrifically by British actor David Oyelowo: Black voters in the South are being intimidated, beaten and disqualified. Alabama Governor George Wallace, played by Tim Roth, likes it the Jim Crow Way. In the White House, Lyndon Johnson, played by Tom Wilkinson, “hems and haws,” according to Peter Travers. King had to take action. He thought a nonviolent march in Selma, where racism was at its peak, would create a media fury and force the president’s action.

King was right, but at serious cost. Inside the civil rights movement, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee hated his interruption. King expected push-back from supporters of violent action. However, in a meeting between Malcolm X (Nigel Thatch) and King’s wife, Coretta (Carmen Ejogo), a more surprising strategy comes up. Travers said, “Political gamesmanship is at play, and DuVernay shows how every hand gets dirty.”

There are no crowns in DuVernay’s film, and that reaches out to King. “Selma” isn’t a documentary – it celebrates community action – but in seeing King through the prism of one critical moment, the film gives a moving picture of a born preacher not without problems. Oyelowo’s emotive, sad performance deserves excellence. His delivery of King’s speeches, especially “How Long, Not Long,” rings with emotion. However, it’s in quite moments of humor heartbreak and severe uncertainty that we see man in the flesh. King and his wife talk about his cheatings with a twisting honesty that goes deep. Ejogo’s work is also enthusiastic and award-worthy. It’s ironic that Ejogo and Oyelowo are British, as are Wilkinson and Roth, but why complain when acting is this amazing?

On March 7^th, “Bloody Sunday,” black and white marchers are forced to turn around on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in front of police holding billy clubs. Later, a judge forces a treaty and the march continues. Travers said, “DuVernay and the gifted cinematographer Bradford Young, shooting in Alabama, achieve visceral wonders as we watch history forged in flesh and blood.”

Something that needs to be said about the real woman behind the Selma march: Oprah Winfrey, one of the film’s producers, is deeply moving as Annie Lee Cooper, a nurse who attacked a white sheriff for denying her right to vote. Lorraine Toussaint succeeds as Amelia Boynton, who is badly beaten on the march, and so does Tessa Thompson as Diane Nash, a silent hero of the movement.

Travers had noted, “Still, the woman of these two blistering hours is DuVernay, 42, a former publicist for the likes of Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood. Her second feature, 2012's Middle of Nowhere, made her the first African-American woman to win the Sundance award for directing.” In “Selma,” DuVernay’s talent is at the max. The collapse of an event that led to the path of the Voting Rights Bill in August 1965 is disobedient, especially in one film. However, nothing is going to stop DuVernay. In “Glory,” a song by Common and John Legend that ends the film, we hear the verse “That’s why we walk through Ferguson with our hands up… They say, ‘Stay down,’ and we stand up.” DuVernary’s historic film is a testament to those words. The struggle continues.

If you have never seen this movie, you are missing out. This is a must that you should see to understand the cruelty that African-Americans had gone through during the segregation period. You will feel bad without a doubt for all this trouble that no one even deserved but just because they were different, they were treated like dirt.

Well, that ends “Black History Movie Month Part 4.” I hope that I made some good recommendations this month for everyone to check out. Look out for more exciting reviews next month.

A Time to Kill

“A Time to Kill,” based on the first novel by John Grisham, is an expertly built 1996 movie that pushes all the right buttons and comes at all the right conclusions. It starts with the cruel rape of a 10-year-old black girl (Rae’Ven Larrymore Kelly) by two rednecks (Nicky Katt and Doug Hutchison) in a pickup truck. The girl’s father (Samuel L. Jackson) kills the rapists in cold blood on their way to a court hearing and handicaps a deputy (Chris Cooper) at the same time. The local white liberal lawyer (Matthew “Alright, Alright, Alright” McConaughey) agrees to defend him. The Klan plans to get revenge. Good obviously wins – but we’ll return to that momentarily.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “I was absorbed by “A Time to Kill,” and found the performances strong and convincing, especially the work by Samuel L. Jackson as Carl Lee Hailey, the avenging father, and Matthew McConaughey as Jake Brigance, the lawyer. This is the best of the film versions of Grisham novels, I think, and it has been directed with skill by Joel Schumacher.”

Ebert goes on to say, “But as I watched the film, other thoughts intruded. Grisham recently attacked director Oliver Stone, alleging that Stone's “Natural Born Killers” inspired drugged-out creeps to murder a friend of Grisham's. Stone should be sued by the victim's family, Grisham said, offering the theory that “NBK” was to blame under product-liability laws.”

Well, Grisham is a lawyer, and lawyers are there to case suits. However, one could practically ask whether the criminals would have done the murder without taking the drugs. One might also ask if Grisham quits his right to good advantage by including a subplot in “A Time to Kill” that gives the Ku Klux Klan reputation and a certain collapse charm. Yes, the Klan is the enemies. Ebert said, “But to a twisted mind, their secret meetings and corn-pone rituals might be appealing.”

However, if you leave out everything that might inspire a psycho, you don’t have a movie left – or a free society, either. Artists cannot put themselves prisoner to the possibility that imperfects might abuse their work. Grisham should just be honest enough to recognize that he does the same things he says Stone shouldn’t do.

As a story, “A Time to Kill” works successfully. (Ebert said, “I will have to discuss certain plot points, so be warned.”) Everyone in the county knows Carl Lee Hailey killed the two men who raped his daughter, and many of them understand his reasons. (Even the handicapped deputy says, under oath, that he would have done the same thing.) However, can a black man get a fair trial after murdering two white men, even in the “new” South? The movie asks this question for all it’s worth, which isn’t much; unless the everyday audience thinks Hollywood will let Klan members to win over the hero. “You’re my secret weapon,” the black man tells his white lawyer. “You see me the way the jury will see me. What would it take, if you were on the jury, to see me? What would it take, if you were on the jury, to set me free?” As Brigance prepares his case, crosses are burned on lawns, anonymous phone calls are made, and his wife, played by Ashley Judd, moves their family somewhere safe.

That’s perfectly timed to make room for another character, the young lawyer Ellen Roark, played by Sandra Bullock, a right Northerner who studied law at Ole Miss and wants to be Brigance’s intern. He doesn’t let her, but she arrives with useful leads, and he needs someone to help him fight the expert local district attorney, played by Kevin Spacey.

The movie climaxes with the required courtroom scenes. Ebert said, “Brigance's summation is well-delivered by McConaughey, but his tactics left me feeling uneasy.” He describes the aggressive works against Hailey’s daughter in almost adult detail, and then asks the jury, “Now imagine she’s white.” That’s a strange line, meaning that the white jury wouldn’t be offended by the crimes if the victim was black.

Yet the movie itself has trouble picturing its black characters. The subplots involve mostly Brigance’s white friends and coworkers: his alcoholic old mentor (Donald Sutherland), his alcoholic young mentor (Oliver Platt), his alcoholic expert witness (M. Emmet Walsh), his secretary (Brenda Fricker), his wife (Judd), and his intern (Bullock). Another string involves the planning of the Klan, led by the fierce Cobb, played by Kiefer Sutherland. There are a few scenes that has the NAACP’s legal defense people, who convince the local pastor to hold a fundraiser for Hailey’s legal defense – but claim the money be used for a black lawyer. Ebert mentioned, “Hailey turns them down, in an awkward sequence intended, I think, to equate the NAACP lawyers with figures like the Rev. Al Sharpton.”

One questions why more screen time wasn’t found for black characters like Hailey’s wife, played by Tonea Stewart. Maybe the answer is that the movie is interested in the white characters as people and the black characters (apart from Carl Lee Hailey) as atmosphere. Ebert suggested, “My advice to the filmmakers about the black people in town: Try imagining they're white.”

Ebert goes on to say, “The ending left me a little confused. (Again, be warned I'll discuss plot points.) A child bursts from the courtroom and tells the waiting crowd that Hailey is “innocent.” A cheer goes up. There is joy and reconciliation. But hold on. Hailey's own defense admits he killed those men. The jury probably found him not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. But “innocent?” Maybe the device of the shouting child was used to avoid such technicalities, and hasten the happy ending.”

Ebert admits, “This review doesn't sound much like praise. Yet I recommend the film.” What we have here is an interested example of the way the movies work. “A Time to Kill” brings up a lot of questions, but they don’t happen while you’re watching the film. The acting is so convincing and the direction is so flowing that the material seems believable while it’s happening. Ebert said, “I was moved by McConaughey's speech to the jury, and even more moved by an earlier speech by Jackson to McConaughey. I cared about the characters. And then I walked out, and got to thinking about the movie's choices and buried strategies. And I read about Grisham's attack on Stone. And I thought, let he who is without sin ...”

I highly recommend this film. Be careful though because this film is heavy. Emotionally speaking, it is difficult to watch, but you will be rooting for Hailey the whole time. From beginning to end, you will want Hailey to come out of this case clean. I think that Ebert spoiled the ending for you, but I still say watch it.

Look out next week for the finale of “Black History Month Part 4,” where I will be looking at a recent movie that is magnificent.

Man of the Year

For this year’s “President’s Day” review, I will look at a comedy where it talks about what happens if you elect a comedian as president. If you haven’t guessed by now, I’m referencing the 2006 comedy “Man of the Year.”

David Medsker started his review out by saying, “A funny thing happened while I was watching the comedy “Man of the Year”: a thriller broke out. Not some blunt-instrument melodrama, like what happened in Robin Williams and director Barry Levinson’s last collaboration, “Good Morning, Vietnam,” but a full-blown thriller. And even after they launched the thriller, they refused to give up on the comedy. Now, comedy and drama can work together, hence the silly industry buzzword dramedy. Comedy can even work well with horror, which is good since a lot of horror movies are funny whether or not they actually intend to be. But thrillers are about establishing tension, and tension is oil to comedy’s water. The end result is a movie at odds with itself; Levinson does himself in by trying to say too much.”

The late Robin Williams plays Tom Dobbs, the host of a satirical news show, and while making his audience laugh one night, an audience member suggest that, instead of cracking jokes on politicians, he should run for office and beat them at what they are known best for. Instantly, he decides to do it, and to his great surprise, a whole lot of people like his no-nonsense message. After an impressing performance in the presidential debate, he becomes the popular one, and when all the votes are counted on Election Day, Dobbs is the new president.

However, he didn’t really win. The Delacroy-made voting machines that everyone used (Medsker said, “which I’m sure bears no relation to Ohio-based company Diebold”) had a glitch in the system, and Eleanor Green, played by Laura Linney, the Delacroy employee who finds the glitch, is demanded to keep her mouth shut. Obviously, her company does so much to dishonor her before she can tell anyone. However, she knows that Tom Dobbs will believe her, so she tries to find him in order to tell him the sad news.

My last paragraph surprised you, didn’t it? Medsker asks, “You thought “Man of the Year” was an update on the light-hearted movie “Dave,” right? Wrong. Levinson is out for blood, and despite Dobbs’ claims that both parties are screwed up, his words only target one of those parties, and I’ll leave it to you to guess which one.” The voting machine story proves to be the movie’s downfall. It just cannot be taken lightly, and in the end, it creates a madly uneven tone that brings the movie to an abrupt stop on countless moments.

Yes, this is sad because the funny parts are very enjoyable, if predictable. (Apparently, those who have seen Williams’ standup routine that came out before this movie will know many of these jokes already.) Williams smartly keeps his strong, inner improv genius in check, but maybe that’s because he’s bordered by Christopher Walken and the angry comedian Lewis Black, as his manager and head writer, respectively. Jeff Goldblum gives in a wonderfully shady bit part as Alan Stewart, the eyeliner-wearing head counsel for Delacroy (Medsker said, “seriously, it’s like he’s reprising his performance on the “SNL” skit “Goth Talk””). Linney, on the other hand, has the movie’s most difficult role, the unfairly maligned goody two-shoes without a friend in her life. It also looks as though the movie was about a step away from showing how the process had already damaged the apparently honorable Dobbs camp within weeks, but they stepped off the cliff at the last minute. Darn.

Medsker compared, “Watching “Man of the Year” is like taking a shower when one of your roommates flushes the toilet.” Without caution, everything changes in a really unlikable way. Levinson is hands-down flashy as a director, but holy smokes, is he good when he’s got his A-game material. Medsker ended his review by saying, ““Man of the Year,” however, is like the Zucker Brothers remaking “The Pelican Brief.””

In the end, I would say watch this movie. If you like the cast members that are in this movie, definitely give it a chance and you will be entertained from first minute to last, I promise you. If anyone wonders why Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert or John Oliver won't run for President, this movie proves to you why. Also, there are cameo appearances in this movie from political commentator James Carville, talk show host Chris Matthews, and even the SNL duo Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.

Happy President’s Day my online readers! Check in this Friday for the third installment of “Black History Month Movie” reviews.

A Charlie Brown Valentine

Valentine’s Day has arrived again. For this occasion, I will look at two shorts that I just finished watching. The first is going to be “Be My Valentine, Charlie Brown,” released in 1975.

While Charlie Brown (Duncan Watson) is waiting anxiously by his mailbox, Snoopy (Bill Melendez) puts on a puppet show and Linus (Stephen Shea) buys a box of chocolates for his teacher. Seeing Linus leave the store, Sally (Lynn Mortensen) thinks that the chocolates are meant for her, and works with Charlie Brown to make the right valentine in return.

When Valentine’s Day finally arrives, every kid has to cope with disastrous expectations. The little red-haired girl ignores Charlie Brown along with everyone else, and Linus’ teacher drives home with her boyfriend before he can give her the box of chocolates. However, Charlie Brown’s friends bring him a belated card, giving him back every hope about how many valentines he might get the next year.

“Be My Valentine, Charlie Brown” follows the same path as “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown,” but in this film Charlie Brown and Sally share Linus’ raised hopes for the holiday. Even small children can understand Charlie Brown’s disappointment when he doesn’t receive a single valentine and most adults and understand Linus’ hopeless crush on someone who doesn’t even notice him with his big box of chocolates. Michelle Erica Green said in her review, “Cynical asides about the commercialism of the holiday don't detract from the common desire to feel loved on Valentine's Day.”

This simple, traditional cartoon includes a humorous “pawpet show” by Snoopy (Bill Melendez) where Lucy (Melanie Kohn) gets covered in mud. Peanuts traditions like Lucy’s psychiatric advice and football coaching are especially not there. Yet the famous Peanuts composer Vince Guaraldi’s piano score includes bits and pieces from Bach and Beethoven to improve the active mood.

Green mentioned, “Five and eight year olds laughed aloud at Snoopy's puppetry and the valentine stuck to his nose by Woodstock. Kids charmed by doggie romance also appreciate Disney's LADY AND THE TRAMP. RUGRATS: I THINK I LIKE YOU has a similar storyline about a boy who doesn't have a valentine.”

Now that I have finally looked at that, it’s time to look at the second Peanuts short, “A Charlie Brown Valentine,” released in 2002.

The spirit of Charles M. Schulz and his beloved “Peanuts” characters are alive and well in this special, the first original TV special since Schulz’s passing the previous year. Collected from more than 18,000 daily comic strips written by Schulz, “A Charlie Brown Valentine” uses the same formula and production team that made Snoopy and the kids one and the same with major holidays.

Laura Fries stated in her review, “ABC, which bought the rights to the “Peanuts” franchise from CBS, plans to air more of these all-new specials in addition to the classics. Although CBS was blasted for letting go of Charlie Brown after 35 years, the Alphabet has recently been accused of manhandling the “Peanuts” legacy by airing “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown” and “A Charlie Brown Christmas” amid formidable competition or in forgettable time periods. “A Charlie Brown Valentine” marks the first step toward redemption by giving it a holiday primetime premiere.”

Fries goes on to say, “A better timeslot means Charlie Brown gets humiliated on a larger scale with Valentine’s Day eliciting more disappointment for the guy with the big round head.” Charlie Brown (Wesley Singerman) is in love with the little red-haired girl and hopes to be her valentine. However, when Charlie Brown finally gets enough confidence to call her, he accidentally calls Marcie (Jessica D. Stone) and starts a friendly fight between her and her friend Peppermint Patty (Emily Lalande).

Meanwhile, Snoopy (Bill Melendez) is typing up Valentine’s Day love notes for the Peanuts gang, but his poems, which includes lines like “Roses are red, chocolate is brown,” leaves room for a lot of improvement.

Several themes remain an ongoing in the “Peanuts” realm, the most persistent being unanswered love. The second is problem-solving, which is achieved through farsighted wisdom informed by elementary school kids.

Fries is right when she says, “Although the same animation team is behind this production, the colors don’t look as rich and the backgrounds don’t appear as detailed as in previous specials. David Benoit’s rendering of the now-famous Vince Guaraldi tune is a case where more would be better. As is, the music is a bit watered-down.” Schulz still gets the writing credit, but the script is updated with modern vernacular like “Hold it right there, dude,” which is a shock of realism in the timeless universe of Charlie Brown.

Even though this is nitpicking, it’s still looks right for Valentine’s Day. The voice talent is obviously new, but for the most part, manages to keep the honesty of the characters in one piece. One that is evidently missing however, are Woodstock, Violet, Frieda and the kid who does the cool zombie dance in the Christmas special.

Still, director Bill Melendez continues to give dependable family entertainment, if not anything new and innovative. In the “Peanuts” realm, psychiatric help is only a nickel. Charlie Brown never gets any respect and Lucy (Lauren Schaffel) can’t win the heart of Schroeder (Christopher Ryan Johnson). That’s just some of the repetition that should remain intact.

Whenever Valentine’s Day comes around every year, you should definitely see these two Peanuts specials. They are going to give you some very good entertainment and you will be laughing from first minute to last.

As always, I will be saying Happy Single Awareness Day. Hopefully everyone who is single will be aware and happy of it, because I sure am. Check in tomorrow for my yearly President’s Day movie review.

Mississippi Masala

The director Mira Nair made a surprising discovery a long time ago: A lot of independent motels in the Deep South are owned and run by Asian Indians (I’ve known that forever). Although they go all the way back to India or Pakistan, many of them arrived in America through Uganda, where they had set aside roots for two or three generations, showing a talent for running small businesses before Idi Amin demanded them out in 1972. Roger Ebert noted, “Nair, who is herself from India via Harvard, made her discovery while journeying in the South after the release of “Salaam Bombay!” (1988), her wonderful first film about a street child.” She decided to make a movie about it.

Her 1992 film starts in Uganda, where an Indian lawyer’s family has a comfortable and secure life until Amin takes the property of tens of thousands of Indians and demands they leave immediately. The story continues in Greenwood, Mississippi, where the lawyer and his wife, played by Roshan Seth and Sharmila Tagore, own a worn out roadside motel, Their daughter Mina, played by Sarita Choudhury, a child of vague memories of Africa, has grown into quite a beauty of 24, with an American accent that immediately implies she does not share all of her family’s ideas.

Driving a car one day, she crashes into the van of a young black man, played by Denzel Washington, and gives addresses and maybe a slight look of curiosity. He’s interested too, and eventually they go out on a date. This is not the sort of social life Mina’s parents are supportive of. They expect their daughter to marry within their extended community of Indian exiles, and say she is never to see Washington’s character.

This order only is given to emphasize the isolated nature of the young woman’s life, and there are ironies in the racism and color consciousness she faces. Within her own community, she is considered too dark-skinned to make an attractive wife (her mother explains that if you want to have a husband, you can be dark and rich, or light and poor, but not dark and poor). Within the black community, the Indian woman is at first liking how friendly they are (Washington takes her to meet his family at a backyard picnic). However, after every single one of the Indian motel owners boycott Washington’s rug-cleaning company, the blacks also get furious.

Ebert noted, “What we are dealing with is more than a transplanted version of “Romeo and Juliet.” Both the black and Indian characters (and certainly the local whites, who are not much of a factor in this movie) have a vast and comfortable lack of curiosity about other races; they prefer to think of them in stereotypes, and have no desire to meet them as individuals. When the Indian woman and the black man meet and fall in love, everyone on all sides falls obediently into place to condemn their relationship.”

It was racism, obviously, that brought the Indians to Africa in the first place, to build the railroads, and racism that exiled them. And it was racism that brought Africans to America. Ebert mentioned, “But to be a victim of the racism of others does not inoculate anyone against the prejudice that can grow in their own hearts.”

All of these serious questions remain just under the outline of “Mississippi Masala,” (released in 1992) which is, regardless of the subject, surprisingly funny and happy at times, and gives a full-blown romanticism.

Denzel Washington is an actor of great and natural charm, and he makes the right match with Sarita Choudhury, and newbie who looks a little awkward in some of her scenes, but uses that feeling as part of her performance.

Ebert said, “If I have a complaint about Nair's work, it's that she tries to cover too much ground. She knows a lot about her subject, but should have decided what was important and left out the rest. The scenes in Uganda, for example, are not necessary for narrative purposes, and her closing scenes (as the father returns to the home of 20 years earlier) upstages the conclusion of the love story.”

Ebert goes on to say, “She also has a lot of material about the daily lives of Indians in Mississippi, and while I find some of it amusing and all of it interesting, it also serves to keep the young lovers out of the foreground for extended periods of screen time.”

There are really three movies playing in this one: the exile from Uganda, the love story, the lives of Indians in the Deep South, and really only screen time enough for one of them.

Ebert said, “And yet I do not complain too much, because “Mississippi Masala” has the benefit of showing me people I had not met before, coping with the human currents that carried them all, blacks and Indians, out of Africa and across the ocean to Mississippi.” The movie is about people who, having survived those commotions, nevertheless have no curiosity about those outside their own social and racial boundaries – and about a few who do.

I would say that you should check this movie out because it's actually a good one for Black History Month, believe it or not. You can see the boundaries that are set up between two different races that are not far off in the color of their skin. To be honest, I actually thought this was a good one to watch and I liked it.

Check in next week when I look at a very powerful and heavy movie in "Black History Movie Month."

The Ernest Green Story

Welcome back everyone to my fourth annual “Black History Movie Month.” Today we’re going to kick the month off with a movie that I saw when I was in High School, “The Ernest Green Story,” released in 1995 DocuDrama, “The Ernest Green Story.”

The year is 1957 at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. On the first day of school, the protagonists should be high school students excited about the new school year, some graduating that year, some starting high school, and some ready to be back with their friends. Instead of excitement and delight, the place has hatred and fear. The angry Caucasian mob and the National Guard take the focus off of children starting a new school year and instead are towards the characters that do not belong in a high school environment.

What do you think is going on in Ernest Green’s (Morris Chestnut) head? The previous day, he was your typical teenager trying to enjoy a basketball game with his friends before the first day of school. Did he know that the next day, on his first day, he would be met at the front door by National Guards, hearing livid adults calling him racial slurs, and being dared by one of his soon to be classmates to enter the building? Just overnight, his life changed that was beyond his wildest thoughts along with the other eight African students that are with him that day.

This was the beginning of change, a change that was started by hate. A HubPages user that goes by the name of sybol said, “I’m sure he was aware of the hate but was he aware of how strong this hate could be. In just trying to make life better for himself and others like him, just ordinary teenagers, did he understand the pain and life threatening experiences that he and his friends would suffer.”

How could something as important as getting a good education comes with this amount of pain?

“The Ernest Green Story” is a very good movie. It is hard to watch and brings many emotions in all races. However, by watching it, you are able to get a better understanding of the environment of that time, the mindset of those who played importance in the civil rights movement no matter which race they were siding with and make decisions when confronted with people who are different. Race is one difference but there are many differences.

Desegregations would allow black and white students to go to school together regardless of their differences. These nine black students were the archetypes in the desegregation of Central High School. They encountered strong conflict from the community and the governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus (James Harper), who was responsible for the National Guard preventing the nine from entering the school. President Eisenhower said that whatever the mob did was outrageous and federalized the National Guards and sent the U.S. Army’s 101^st Airborne Division to Little Rock to take the nine black students into the school on September 25, 1957. The Airborne Division was with them throughout the school year.

Eight of the nine students finished the year at Central high and Ernest Green was the first black student to graduate from Central High School. Green said that he had first handedly dealt with human relations.

Alone and surrounded by the mob, Elizabeth Eckford (Lisa Marie Russell) later said, “I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the mob, someone who maybe would help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.”

Sybol is right when they said, “Working with children, you see that children are aware of difference but the differences does not make them not want to play with those who are different. Mistreating others because of their color is a learned behavior. I believe that children should be allowed to watch movies which illustrated unjustified hate even though they are intense. People need to feel and somewhat experience how hate hurts. They need to recognize that hate targets people who do not deserve to be a target. People need to see both sides of the destructive force better known as racism.” Just as some of those who targeted Ernest Green and his friends now recognize that something was very wrong with their actions at that time, movies can play a role in people seeing and understanding history. Should history repeat itself? They are times that you can say yes and times you can say no.

In the end, I say to watch this movie if you can find it. It was made for TV, but it leaves a huge impact on you. This is definitely a good movie to check out in the month of February.

Well, I hope everyone liked by first post. Stay tuned next week for the next installment in “Black History Month Movie Reviews.”