Issue 3: Sensationalism and Excessive Violence

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

The charge: "Entire herds of African Americans must be burnt and clubbed so that the FBI-heroes have an ample background against which to exert their iron wills," claims Paul Arthur, "Rather than attempting to portray the institutionalized racism of everyday ingrained social interaction, Hollywood, as always, looks for the sucker punch." "Only a pile of bloody corpses makes a social injustice worth fighting." Moreover, the film shows the FBI resorting to extra-legal violence, which it did not use. "In the interests of mass-audience movie-making," says Vincent Canby, Parker "has betrayed the ideals of nonviolent resistance."

Parker: "I have to reach a big audience. . . . I'm trying to reach an entire generation who knows nothing of that historical event to cause them to react to it viscerally, emotionally, because of the racism that's around them now."

Responses: Jaeyong Shim, Edward Tabor (1), Edward Tabor (2), Patrick O’Brien, Sarah Ballan, Katherine Prosswimmer

Patrick O’Brien: While the level of violence may have been excessive and distracting, it is not, by itself, a cause for harsh criticism. Indeed, the film should not be lambasted because it portrayed an excessive amount of racist violence but because it only displayed extreme racist violence that the audience can easily dismiss as irrelevant for today's world. In other words, since the film fails to depict the “black” characters with any agency, emphasizes and distorts the role of the FBI, and fails to depict much institutional racism, the violence seems to bludgeon the viewer because there is no greater nuance to create balance and provoke anything more than an emotional response. As Jim Emerson has argued, “the film does to Southern blacks what Friday the 13th movies do to teenagers, presenting them as nothing more than meat for the grinder. . . . The movie soon conditions you to expect an eruption of violence every time you see a black face. Parker uses blacks only as victims -- ‘noble’ stick figures to be beaten, lynched or burned in orgiastic explosions of slickly packaged pyrotechnics” [italics added]. Unfortunately, Parker may have a point that audiences want to see something that will evoke an emotional response, but to claim that he must use only violence to do so is arguable. After all . . . who is the artist in a scenario where profit and marketability trumps all else?

Edward Tabor (1): Surely, Parker and Hollywood are underrating the taste of American movie-goers. Mississippi Burning did well at the box office, but it wasn’t one of the smashes of the year. It took in a mere $34,603,943, as compared with Rain Man which earned $354,825,435. Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, which shows both black and white violence, earned $37,295,445. One of the film’s failings is to make the violence one-sided. Never do the black characters fight back, not even with words. Overall, the audience fails to connect with the injured black community, and the black characters simply become players in the background. Kelly Madison argues suggestively that we are encouraged to feel sympathy rather than empathy for them. The film has a definite coldness, and the viewer has as much difficulty connecting with the suffering of black characters as Agent Ward has getting answers. It really does appear that the charges are correct; Parker sacrificed empathy for blood and fire.

Jaeyong Shim: Violence is essential to some films, and violence may in some cases be a faithful representation of reality. However, is all the violence in Mississippi Burning necessary? Some is, some not. Especially not the climactic violence the FBI uses against the Klan, which is simply a tool to attract audiences for profit. Nothing more. These scenes excite the audience, yet they are needed neither to develop the story nor portray historical truth -- and, in fact, they make some people uncomfortable. Parker defends the violence by saying that it is a way to reach the largest possible audience. However, it is arguable whether the purpose of that goal is simply greater profits or fulfilling his responsibility as a serious artist to inform the present generation of this landmark but all but forgotten episode in the history of the civil rights movement. If his purpose is the latter, however, it is perplexingly ironic that Parker distorted the truth and used excessive violence.

Sarah Ballan: Personally, I think the film is a little unnecessarily graphic. I cringed as I watched a Klan member forcefully kick the young black boy Aaron to the ground. Parker definitely gets the point across that white people in the South, especially Mississippi, were ignorant monsters. Every time a black person is shown on screen, some sort of violent act perpetrated by whites shortly follows. Parker rationalizes this use of violence by claiming that Mississippi Burning is meant to depict “why there was a need for a civil rights movement.” Although he succeeds in creating sympathy for the blacks and sending the message across that there is a need for a change, his use of violence is excessive and emphasizes the view that black people are helpless and they are constantly subject to abuse with no means to defend themselves. Parker “looks for the sucker punch” to evoke sympathy from the audience for the “helpless” black people. His intense focus on violence is misleading, and he does not even hint at the potential of black fighters.

Edward Tabor (2): Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing poses the question of racial violence on both sides of the color line. Violence exists in that film, but the audience is encouraged to identify and empathize with white and black. Mississippi Burning lacks the evenhandedness of Lee’s film and sometimes borders on shock and awe rather than purposeful depictions of violence. Pauline Kael, incensed at Parker’s technique, calls him "a director who presumes that the audience needs a whomp in the gut every two minutes . . . unaware that this could be thought morally repugnant.” Presumably, all movie goers only attend films to be shocked, beaten, and shoved into violent reactions. The trouble is when, in the second half of the movie, the FBI agents start to play rough, it is the audience's turn to revel in bloodlust -- and the movie becomes a celebration of vengeance.

Katherine Prosswimmer: I do not object to the heavy depiction of violence in Mississippi Burning; in fact, I think it is important for people to understand the truly horrible things racism can drive a person to do. What I do object to is the use of violence to resolve the invented morality struggle between Ward and Anderson. Parker attempts to add another layer to the conventional good guys v. bad guys conflict between the FBI and the Klan by showing Ward and Anderson descending into retaliatory violence. As Rita Kempley says, “Our own agitated hearts invite us to go along when Ward reluctantly gives in to Anderson's pragmatics. But he warns, ‘Don't drag me down to your gutter, Anderson.’ Hackman parries with, ‘These people crawled out of the sewers, Mr. Ward. Maybe the gutter is the place we have to be.’” It is difficult to watch the brutal violence exacted on the black population in this movie, to witness the beating, the bashing, and the burning, and not cheer on Anderson and Ward as they also descend into violence and break protocol to “get the bad guys.” While Anderson and Ward’s actions certainly raise the issue of whether violence is ever just, the foundational complexity of the civil rights movement did not lie in the actions of a team of FBI agents.