Notes

Part 1:
I think that this was a terrible movie from a directorial standpoint. In general, it tried to fit in too many characters and emotional moments without properly building them up. For example, Diane Nash did literally nothing the entire movie yet she is treated like a main character. The SNCC leaders did next to nothing yet they are treated like main characters. All of MLK's friends did literally nothing yet they are treated like main characters. Really, the only actual main characters that did stuff in this movie is MLK, President Johnson, and Sheriff Jim Clark. They are the only ones that consistently contributed to the film. This is problem is especially compounded by the fact that we are expected to feel emotional when something happens to these characters that we know nothing about and do nothing. For example, this movie makes a big deal about the President ruining MLK and Corrie's relationship. However, they did nothing to tell us anything about Corrie and literally only show one scene of the two of them even interacting before their relationship starts getting ruined. How am I supposed to buy the weight of the relationship being torn apart if there is only one scene with the two of them together (and even in that one scene Corrie is borderline scolding MLK for not being more joyous about winning a Nobel Prize). Additionally, they try to treat Jimmie Lee Jackson as a main character so the audience would feel sad after his death. However, the only thing we ever see him do before his death is literally just idolize MLK and that's it. I don't know anything about him so why should I care! Obviously I do care because I know the weight of death, but it wouldn't have even been too hard to actually show him doing anything beforehand which would've gotten me significantly more invested. The same thing applies to Reverend James Reeb in this movie. Also, the movie is also incredibly tell not show. For example, they introduce the SCLC, what it means, and it's top officials in a dialogue dump to Richie Jean. This is also made especially stark by the fact that it occurs in an incredibly jovial scene and it all just clashes. Also, they explain stuff to her that she surely knows just so the audience can catch on.

Part 2:
1) Was MLK justified in turning around the march considering that the participants knew the danger and willingly participated?
2)
3?) Are Martin Luther King's protests truly nonviolent if they provoke violence? In the first scene that introduces SNCC, MLK literally says that the goal of his nonviolent protest is to get the police to slip up and get violent so they can get on the news to convince white house officials.