Chronicles the Mississippi voter registration drive from 1961- 64.Chronicles the Mississippi voter registration drive from 1961- 64.Chronicles the Mississippi voter registration drive from 1961- 64.
- Nominated for 1 Oscar
- 5 wins & 1 nomination total
- Directors
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThis film has a 100% rating based on 5 critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.
- Goofs(at around 17 mins) The narrator refers to 1960, when the Democratic party 'became a house divided' with 'John Kennedy occupying the White House.' Although Kennedy was elected in 1960, he did not 'occupy' the White House until after his swearing in ceremony on January 20, 1961.
- Quotes
Curtis Hayes: You knew couldn't look at white women - look at them in the eye - without gettin' in trouble.
L.C. Dorsey: 'Cause you could be lynched for eye rape, which was really something that people believed in - that you were looking at a woman in a way that indicated that you had bad intentions toward her.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The 67th Annual Academy Awards (1995)
Featured review
A remarkable movie that avoids the pitfalls of too many documentaries on social issues
I find it hard to believe that there are only five previous reviews of this documentary here on the IMDB. I don't find it hard to believe that they are all very positive. This is one remarkable movie.
I've watched a LOT of documentaries in my life. In fact, I've been making documentaries myself - on World War II - for some time now. So I have some definite views on what helps and hurts a documentary that deals with contemporary issues. (A documentary on France's King Louis XIV could be fascinating, of course, but that's a different animal.) These are the things that struck me as making this movie particularly powerful, in no particular order:
1. We see excerpts from interviews with a fair number of people who actually participated in the campaign for voter rights in Mississippi in the 1950s and 60s. They all speak with the authenticity of lived experience. We do NOT see talking heads, academics, or other scholars/"authorities" who have simply studied or reported on this era. While such individuals' books might be very interesting, they would make this documentary seem less immediate. Instead, it seems very immediate. You can't do that with a documentary about non-contemporary subjects, of course. But in this case, the talking heads approach would have been much less effective.
2. I was astounded/very impressed by the iconography. It's already great to have photos of the things being talked about. But very often, this movie uses archival film of the people and events being presented. Again, that makes it that much more immediate.
3. The principal interviewees are interviewed in natural settings, rather than in some studio. Again, that reinforces the realness of their stories.
My one suggestion: the people we see - and we see a LOT of people in this movie - should be identified with a caption every time we see them. It would be simple to add that to a new edition of this movie.
Kudos to everyone involved. This is one very impressive achievement that deserves to be much more widely seen.
I've watched a LOT of documentaries in my life. In fact, I've been making documentaries myself - on World War II - for some time now. So I have some definite views on what helps and hurts a documentary that deals with contemporary issues. (A documentary on France's King Louis XIV could be fascinating, of course, but that's a different animal.) These are the things that struck me as making this movie particularly powerful, in no particular order:
1. We see excerpts from interviews with a fair number of people who actually participated in the campaign for voter rights in Mississippi in the 1950s and 60s. They all speak with the authenticity of lived experience. We do NOT see talking heads, academics, or other scholars/"authorities" who have simply studied or reported on this era. While such individuals' books might be very interesting, they would make this documentary seem less immediate. Instead, it seems very immediate. You can't do that with a documentary about non-contemporary subjects, of course. But in this case, the talking heads approach would have been much less effective.
2. I was astounded/very impressed by the iconography. It's already great to have photos of the things being talked about. But very often, this movie uses archival film of the people and events being presented. Again, that makes it that much more immediate.
3. The principal interviewees are interviewed in natural settings, rather than in some studio. Again, that reinforces the realness of their stories.
My one suggestion: the people we see - and we see a LOT of people in this movie - should be identified with a caption every time we see them. It would be simple to add that to a new edition of this movie.
Kudos to everyone involved. This is one very impressive achievement that deserves to be much more widely seen.
helpful•20
- richard-1787
- May 28, 2021
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $71,176
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $4,272
- Jun 26, 1994
- Gross worldwide
- $71,176
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content