Issue 2: White v. Black

By Prof. Edward J. Gallagher's Reel American History class, August 2012

The charge: "Parker uses blacks only as victims," says Jim Emerson, "as meat for the grinder." "The black characters are the movie's sacrificial lambs," adds Rita Kempley. "How long," complains Coretta Scott King, "will we have to wait before Hollywood finds the courage and integrity to tell the stories of some of the many thousands of black men, women and children who put their lives on the line for equality?" "Where are the Fannie Lou Hamers, the Anne Moodys, the Amzie Moores, and the other local people who heroically sustained and built the movement in defiance of white terror," demands William Chafe?

Parker: "The two heroes in the story had to be white. That is a reflection of our society as much as of the film industry. At this point in time, [the film] could not have been made in any other way."

Responses: Patrick O’Brien, Jaeyong Shim, Edward Tabor, Harrison Lawrence, Sarah Ballan

Patrick O’Brien: It’s unthinkable to make a movie about an event pivotal in the Civil Rights Movement, in Mississippi, in 1964, and portray almost no human agency other than the conflict between two white guys and their conflict with local white racists. Parker may be right that otherwise the film probably wouldn’t have been made. But what does that day about “us”? Kelly Madison has argued that such narrative constructions create a paternalistic view of the Civil Rights Movement and race relations in general. As such, films such as this, which Madison calls “anti-racist white hero” films, tend to reify “whiteness” -- the very thing they are critiquing -- and all of its social, political, and cultural implications, albeit in a softer package. To Madison, the filmmakers’ economic rationalization for making such a movie does not “legitimate or lessen the impact of such white supremacist constructions of collective memory.” To be sure, it was possible, even then, to make an excellent film that portrays a significant “black” event through the “white” gaze and still maintain commercial appeal while portraying inspirational “black” characters with agency. Edward Zwick’s Glory, which opened the year following Mississippi Burning, is an outstanding example.

Edward Tabor: Parker traces his interest in depicting our racial struggle from his identification with civil rights protesters as a White working-class English youth. Ironically, though, instead of creating a progressive film that identifies with the oppressed minority class, he props up the power of the Washington elites and grants them the divine power of solving the struggle. Although Parker may be a closet Marxist, he knows which films will be made: “The two heroes had to be white.” Such a statement draws one to question Parker’s artistic integrity. Madison makes the argument that Hollywood establishes and legitimates the hegemonic role of white popular culture. This certainly leaves some directors in a kind of Faustian bargain when it comes to making films. Some films will simply not be made, so perhaps directors will not seek to make them. Hoerl also indicates that the “Hollywood film industry frequently caters to White audiences presumed unlikely to watch films featuring Black actors.” It appears more often than not that Hollywood, to support its racist agenda, blames economics and the consumer for its standpoint. Madison further argues that excessive racial violence is portrayed to distract viewers from current forms of discrimination and racism. Hence Parker is following Hollywood guidelines to present his film as progressive, but subversively he may be propping up the status quo. Considering Parker’s career, it appears he has run the gamut from oppressed worker to neocapitalist Hollywood tool.

Jaeyong Shim: "The two heroes in the story had to be white.” Sad, but probably true. Parker may be right. However, when it comes to the civil rights movement, I wonder if people more likely think of white heroes than Martin Luther King. Besides King, it is well known that many African Americans sacrificed themselves to achieve freedom and equality. Nevertheless, Hollywood has yet to put substantial effort toward creating heroic images of African Americans prominent in the civil rights movement. In 1988 Coretta Scott King questioned "how long will we have to wait before Hollywood finds the courage and integrity to tell the stories of some of the many thousands of black men, women, and children who put their lives on the line of equality? How long will it be before black writers, producers, directors, and actors are entrusted with the resources to make serious films about the black experience?" Since Mississippi Burning we’ve had Malcolm X (1992) and Ali (2001) -- one a decade. Now that we’ve had a black president, isn’t it about time that we had a film on Martin Luther King? So much time has passed -- can Hollywood be still judging the public as Parker did?

Harrison Lawrence: Parker's main focus was the aftermath that followed these tragic killings, and, in his artistic opinion, the African Americans didn’t have much of a presence in or impact on the investigation and prosecution of those crimes. Hence, they don’t appear in leading roles. And thus he is technically correct in portraying blacks as he does. Parker certainly enjoys legitimate artistic liberties in the choice of subject matter, with what characters he creates, and with whom he casts. But in focusing solely on the heartache of the black community, however successfully, and in portraying African Americans totally as victims without backbones, Parker not only misrepresents the general history of the civil rights movement but he creates the impression that he doesn’t care about African Americans. That is not good. As to his justification that the movie could not have been made any other way in that cultural moment, that claim is not substantiated.

Sarah Ballan: Mississippi Burning is clearly focused on the two white FBI agents. Since the plot was designed to examine their different ways of solving the case, black people are basically eliminated from the film aside from a few minor scenes. What surprised me more than the minimal role black people were given is the “submissive, illiterate, and quaking” way in which they are portrayed. This timid attitude is far from the courageous one many black people living in Mississippi in the 1960s embodied. To me, it is a shame that Parker does not even allude to the existence of these brave souls and has the audacity to make every black person seem like a coward. Was he trying to spread ideas of white supremacy by excluding the involvement of the black upstanders altogether? Even the opening scene was altered to focus on the white persons’ participation. The white Goodman and Schwerner are in the front seat, and the black Chaney is in the back. This conscious positioning gives the distinct impression that it is the whites that are in charge; the black man simply follows. In reality Chaney was driving. Blacks and whites were not only equally involved in this episode in the civil rights movement, the black was leading.