>1. It's not a mini-series. As AO Scott pointed out in his
>review, you could give nearly everyone at the march his or her
>own film. This movie focuses on King. And it does a damn good
>job at giving other important figures their own moments
>considering the run-time restrictions. It's a hundred times
>better than other biopics in that sense.

Right. It's a movie about King. There are so many figures involved in that movement there's no way they can all get shine in a movie about King.


>
>2. What white savior are you talking about? The preacher who
>dies, which is a historically accurate moment? Surely that's
>not what you mean. That can't be what you mean.

Yeah. I don't know what White Savior he's talking about. Yes these historical Black movies tend to have white saviors, but this one didn't.



>
>3. This movie doesn't ignore women in the slightest. Again,
>considering it is focused on one particular figure, it does a
>beautiful job of developing a number of female characters
>within the restrictions of a cinematic runtime. Some of my
>favorite supporting female scenes/performances of the year
>were in this film.

This movie actually portrayed the women as being integral to the movement.

Coretta: She held down the home while King was out there risking his life and cheating on her. She had to deal with fearing for the safety of her family and living a "modest" life as prescribed by King.

Tessa Thompson's character: The organization brought the movement to Selma on her recommendation. She laid the ground work in communicating with some of the locals.

Niecy Nash's character: Provided housing and support for the activists.

Oprah as Annie Lee Cooper: Her story was used to show viewers the struggles Blacks had to endure just to vote.

Lorraine Toussaint's character: Helped in organizing the march.


IMO, they did a decent job of including women in the story.