I'm gonna talk about women again. This movie, with its clear emphasis on women, is a good representation of how they (namely the black working women) handled the bus boycott. Miriam, however, feels more like an apology than a historical player in the movie. She is a very morally conscious white woman, apparently due to a trip she took to Oregon during which she realized that racism was not a thing everywhere. Now she's woke and ready to help her black brothers and sisters with their righteous struggle (and also to spite her racist husband). So there's a few general problems with that situation, not necessarily in specific degrees but in Miriam's character overall. Racism was still prominent outside of the South, and while it was not in a strict caste system, it still appeared in its de facto form. I'm not sure what Oregon looked like at the time, but the situation Miriam experienced would have been rare. Additionally, Miriam emenates white guilt and doesn't get much further than that, even as she joins the line of singing women at the very end. She's in tears (as is Odessa), but her grief does not hold behind it the strength that the black women have. She seems to be weeping for the white racism she just literally stepped away from. Why do we see her mourning her own people, as opposed to proudly standing with the ones she wanted to help? Her activism seems to be borne out of resentment of her husband, not exactly because she wants to help the cause. In the end, she finally realizes why her husband was wrong, and she mourns his weakness in the battle against racism. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/16 12:34

Lindsey raises a good point about how Miriam is the moral guide for white people and how that plays an error in the movie. However, this is nothing new. This error in fact plays a role in a lot of modern day movies about slavery and the Civil Rights Movement. If any of you have seen 12 Years a Slave or Lee Daniels: The Butler you know it is a movie about the struggles of black people during slavery and the Civil Rights Movement. Those same movies have been praised for bringing awareness to a different side of history. However, there is a problem because in the end, it is the white moral guide that saves them. If you have watched those movies and did not pick up on that, I challenge you to watch them again. The white moral guide is a continuously error in many movies and Hollywood has done next to nothing to fix it. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/16 14:39

One thing I found unlikely in the movie was the fact that the Mrs. Thompson would drive across the city to pick up Mrs. Cotter. Although it is certainly possible, in class we learned that Montgomery was the “cradle of the confederacy” in class. The racism was overt, so it seemed doubtful that a white person who was against racism would remain in the heart of the south. — Trout, Christian C. 2016/11/16 21:27

Some details that are truly minor that the movie got slightly wrong was some of the clothing and set designs were too much like the 90s. At times I kept seeing that this was about boycotts of the 90s not the 50s. This also shows how the treatment is still relevant in the 90s as it was when the movie was set. It shocked me that I could believe that at times the plot was taking place in the 90s. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/11/16 22:16

Similar to how everyone else has been harping on Miriam Thompson's characterization, it seemed to me that she was there to act as sort of the sole white character meant to show that not all white people were bad. Almost as though they just had to throw in a token good white character so as to not completely demonize all white people during the 1950's, despite this being a film that is explicitly NOT about white people in the south. Meanwhile, Mr. Thompson's brother seems downright sadistic in his racism during his eerie monologue about how Odessa and how “they” keep asking for more while doing less. I have no idea how accurate that was outside of Klansmen, but it was disturbing nonetheless. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/11/16 23:40

There were the obvious things the movie got right right off the bat, such as Odessa having to put in her coin in the front of the bus, then exit to enter through the back door so as not to pass through the white section and the way in which Odessa trudged home once she started foregoing using the bus at all (can I just say, Whoopi Goldberg totally had that trudge down?! #swag).There were also many lines that totally hit home while being accurate to the time; when Norman's brother said “If you give in, what will happen to your city, your family?” very much related to Montgomery citizens' desires to “uphold the Southern way of life”. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/11/15 18:08

The sheer level of racism in the film is certainly accurate. Mr. Thompson and his brother are accurate representations of how white men in the south, and white man in Alabama reacted and felt about the bus boycott. While their interactions can be hard to watch they show the shades of how people reacted to the bus boycott. Mr. Thompson’s original reaction was upset but not overly interested in looking into it while his brother feels the need to take action. As the film progresses we see the shift of Mr. Thompson to objectively more racist as he thinks the boycott effects him more and moves him to join the society. His shift in character is a common change that occurred in Montgomery and it is an important one to remember when thinking about how whites began to increasingly become violent. Remembering and understanding that violence is important and this film does a good job of addressing it. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/11/15 18:34

I think the film depicting carpools were accurate. During the strike, there were white women who drove their maids to their house or carpooled other African Americans to where they needed to go. The film accurately shows the backlash the drivers faced such as the police following and harassing them in order to stop the boycotts. It does not try to underestimate the pure terror these strikers faced in order to receive the justice they deserved. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/15 19:52

The film definitely got the details right in how black people were expected to board the bus, as well as the racism of the white people, in particular the wealthier families. The Thompsons were certainly middle class, but they seemed to be a bit higher within that section, seeing as how they hosted parties, and had other maids aside from Odessa. Tunker along with his mother was definitely the all-out racist, and I appreciated how they showed that people like Norman had their beliefs because that's how they were raised within the town they lived in all their life, but still made it clear that his way of thinking was still wrong. I also really appreciated that Odessa and Claudia were able to vent their (extremely justified) frustrations to each other following the Christmas dinner party. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/16 11:02

This film was very successful in including many of the details that we learned about in class on Tuesday. I appreciated that the film included the Citizen's Council and referenced the KKK. I also appreciated that they included the importance of the black ministers in Montgomery during the Bus Boycott. It also showed at the beginning the segregated parks and the police enforcement of that law when Odessa and the girls were kicked out. — Callie Morgan 2016/11/16 13:15

During the riot scene where the white men invade the carpool area did a good job showing that race did not protect you from the hate and anger. Miriam faced this during this scene by having her car destroyed and being slapped in the face. It didn’t matter that she was white; all that mattered was that she was helping with the boycott. We learn about how white people faced the hatred in the Civil Rights movement, but we usually only learn of the white men involved, not so much the white women. This movie did a good job showing that it was a problem for everyone not just for men and Rosa Parks. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/16 15:02

One of the things that I really enjoyed about the movie was how it showed just how much women were involved in the movement. We talked in class about how women were extremely involved, so it was a nice change to actually see it in the movie compared to some of the other movies we watched where we knew of women’s involvement but never saw it. I thought the movie really hit the nail on the head during that final scene were the only African American people that were there and being yelled at were the women, and how they were the ones to stand against the mob. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/11/16 18:12

Right off from the start of the movie the audience gets an incredible amount of detail that is true to history. From the house party and Mr. Sandman playing in the background that was #18 on the charts in 1955 to the narration saying “it all started one December day” (paraphrase), to the hand out of the pamphlets to all ages i.e. the kids, and the father to the crowd out side of the church that first night all trying to listen to the words of MLK. The movie reveals all this accurate history in an interesting — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/11/16 19:38 story line none the less.

The race relations were spot on in this movie. I obviously mean that the race relations were terrible because it was the South in the 1950s and most white people were outwardly racist. That being said, I also found the gender roles to be spot on as well. Miriam's husband was overbearing and overly masculine like men were expected to be in the 1950s. Odessa being a maid was accurate because most black women at the time worked in the private sector. Also, how the cotter's were religious and non violent which played on Dr. King's protest strategies. — Houff, Nicholas T. 2016/11/16 21:06

At the dinner table, Tunker talks about how people in favor of desegregation were communists. This is accurate and the accusations of communism continued into the 60s. The Civil Rights movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s was mostly focused on church communities and led by churches.The SCLC was a major group led by MLK and others. It's also accurate that police in cities like Montgomery either helped or ignored violence and intimidation of blacks. — Carey Megan A. 2016/11/16 21:52

A sad reality of the times was that the education standards at the Black Only schools were lacking, evidenced by the Cotter boys having some difficulty reading. Now, I will freely admit that this might just because of my southern upbringing completely clouding reality, but the manner that the Thompson children and even Mrs. Thompson treated Odessa seemed relatively accurate from what I know of some middle class families. Oftentimes in families such as that, the mother would be busy with social events and community work during the day, so the bulk of child rearing may fall to their maids meaning that the mothers might be somewhat out of touch with their children (as evidenced by how Mrs. Thompson had no idea what her eldest daughter's favorite meal was). Meanwhile, the maids often saw the children they cared for as an extension of their own family, hence Odessa's small gift for Mary Katherine on Christmas. And while some called out Miriam's driving across Montgomery to pick up Odessa as unrealistic, I know that some employers did in fact do this simply because it was more practical than forcing your maid to walk miles and miles for hours and hours when you could pick them up in maybe 15-20 minutes.— Cooney, Corey R. 2016/11/16 23:34

Let's talk about how powerful the Christmastime scene was. Because DANG. That moved me so much. The comparison between between the size and amounts of presents said enough in itself, but then for the transitional scene from the Thompson household to the Cotter household to be a shot of the manger scene with Baby Jesus's arms outstretched? I think there was definite purpose behind those nuanced choices. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/11/15 18:24

An interesting point in the film is that of all the white characters in the film only the white women are the ones sympathetic to the bus boycott. Of course this is not all the women only Miriam and some of the briefly mentioned military wives but it is still an interesting. Since this film has the underlying message of female friendship this felt like a direct choice that was made. To potentially emphasize at least some women coming together. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/11/16 09:30

The present that Odessa intended to give to Mary Catherine but didn't, likely because she thought the child wouldn't care about it with all the other big presents she'd gotten was found by Miriam, but she put it back in Odessa's apron pocket and it was never brought up again. Do you think the filmmakers intended to put another scene showing Mary Catherine opening the present, and why didn't they? — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/16 11:24

In the scene where Odessa’s son was beaten by the three peckerwoods in an attempt to defend his sister, or at least absorb some of the abuse, he continuously clinched his fists but then soon after, relaxed them while taking his punches. Initially I assumed his patience was an effort to avoid police intervention in where he would most likely be found at fault. My perception changed after the cab driver came to their aid and exclaimed, “You stood long enough.” I was curious if he meant that in a literal, or figurative sense…..or both. Now I wonder what, if any, metaphor the writer or director was trying to convey in this scene. If someone would like to share their interpretation of this, I’m curious how it was perceived by others. — Blount, David M. 2016/11/16 12:40

My biggest question is regarding the narration. The movie starts out with the little girl, Mary Catherine, talking about Odessa and introducing the film. Then we follow Odessa's story, with Mary Catherine only in the periphery and interjecting when it was time to indicate an important scene. I'm not sure why the movie would have such a minor character be the voice of the film. Was it to project memory? Why wasn't it one of Odessa's kids, or Odessa herself? Why the little white kid? — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/16 11:47

I think it is good that this film did not attempt to portray character versions of Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr. but just stuck to referencing them. That could have been harmful to the success of this film because there would be so much else that they could get wrong. The filmmakers played it safe by using fictional characters in a real event and it worked for them. Do you agree with me on this, or no? — Callie Morgan 2016/11/16 13:19

One issues that the movie addressed really well was the uneasiness of wanting to support of the boycott. It was clear in the movie that some knew that it was going to be difficult and something that really didn’t want to do.Another point that was portrayed well was closeted supporters. Miriam, during Christmas, knew that she had to keep her thoughts to herself. She tells Mary Catherine that she cannot tell her dad and she looks at Odessa pleading for her not to tell that she has been giving rides. Supporters who decided to stand with the cause only when it was convenient for them were as much the problem was those who were outright against desegregation. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/11/16 22:09

So this is pretty random, and I'm sure there were also TV dinners in the 50s, but that was totally reminiscent of my childhood; I started growing up in the last bit of the 90s, and even into the 2000s would give anything to watch Kim Possible or Jeopardy during dinner on a TV just as small, but a little more updated. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/11/15 18:38

I think the scene where Miriam stands up to her husband is reflective of the 1990s. In the 1950s, wives were expected to obey their husband’s will but Miriam defies her husband such as making threats of getting a job and not keeping up with the housework if she is not allowed to drive Odessa. The film celebrates Miriam position but if this film had been made in the 1950s, Miriam’s character would have been seen as too extreme going against the social norms and probably would have died like Professor McClurken says happens to this types of women in films. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/15 19:55 This film is likely being made in 1990 because of the rise of the Sun Belt during the 1980s along with a growth of liberalism. The Civil Rights Movement and the Montgomery Bus Boycott in particular both of these changes, with a major, liberal, social change occurring in the south. The film is likely capitalizing on the popularity of the Sun Belt and liberal ideas that occurred during the 80s. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/16 10:20

As Leah pointed out, we've seen what has happened to women in previous films who speak out, and we saw that Miriam, a woman in the fifties spoke out against her husband, whom she was required by her wedding vows to obey. I'm not going to lie, I was expecting much more to happen to her aside from getting slapped by her brother-in-law. On the same token, I'm glad that The Long Walk Home didn't buy into that particular movie trope. For one thing, as we've seen, it's been done to death (no pun intended), and for another, I feel a white woman dying for a black person's cause would have made Miriam the martyr and taken away from who the fight truly belonged to. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/16 11:08

The Long Walk Home depicts a major origin of the Civil Rights movement in Southern 1955. However, as a film made in 1990, it (in my opinion) reflects a later generation of women’s liberation, still struggling with gender equality without coming off as “overly feministic.” Because of the still existing issues faced by women at this time, I believe The Long Walk Home had great appeal to most women from a previous time where gender roles were primarily defined by men. Perhaps they even remember the civil rights movement and find themselves relatable to the youngest Thompson daughter and her narrative from the intro/outro of the film.

http://www.nwhp.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/ - 1987 Johnson v. Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 616 (1987): The U.S. Supreme Court rules that it is permissible to take sex and race into account in employment decisions even where there is no proven history of discrimination but when evidence of a manifest imbalance exists in the number of women or minorities holding the position in question. — Blount, David M. 2016/11/16 12:40

As we have said when discussing previous films, the 90s were when films tried to be more diverse, which The Long Walk Home does. It’s also reflective of it’s time because as was said in class Tuesday, the company that made it was independent and from the other independent/small budget movies we have seen, they tend to be more diverse. As others had said before, Miriam speaking up against her husband is definitely more 90s than 50s. I think instead of following the times, it was more of a foreshadowing of Second Wave Feminism that came from the 60s, much like the bus boycott was foreshadowing the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/11/16 18:23

I believe this film is a great primary source for the 1990s. In the 1990s movies we’ve seen in the past, revived attention toward people of color’s stories serves as a large theme. American progress serves as a theme throughout the 1990s films. By showing how far the United States has come, from the Montgomery bus Boycott to the 1990s, film makers aimed to show the racial progress the United States has made. While the movie aims to show the black experience, largely it falls into the same trap many movies do in the 1990s: it focuses more on white characters' redemption. — James, Emily B. 2016/11/16 20:15

The movie is a good primary source on the 1990’s because the movie focused on African Americans during Civil Rights but did so through the eyes of a white girl. The film was progressive enough to show the African American side of things, but still rooted in the past enough that it had to so by focusing on the white characters. — Trout, Christian C. 2016/11/16 21:44

People who were born in the late 1940s would have been about the same age as Mary Catherine. They would have been able to relate to her experience seeing the South change and this would have been very different from movies produced during their parents' time that depicted life in the South such as Gone With the Wind. By the 1990s, filmmakers were more willing to show unpleasant parts of history as it really happened. — Carey Megan A. 2016/11/16 22:02

“In the normal course of living, people of every race in the United States have need to travel. As an American citizen, it is imperative that one should be as secure in his person as he travels, as he is from illegal search and seizure in his home by virtue of the fourth and fifth amendments of our Constitution.” This quote really stood out for me because I think that film does a really great job at putting a visual to this statement. The boycotts didn't just affect the african american community but also affected the economy– the individual bus businesses themselves, almost putting them out of business, although the film ay not show this aspect, the film does a nice job of showing the physical and emotional strain the black community went through during the boycotts. — Natalie Sciadini 2016/11/09 19:25

The article about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr shows that white women did care for the Civil Rights Movement and did everything they could to keep the boycott going. Although in the film, Miriam's husband is against her helping Odessa, Virginia Durr's husband is very much involved in helping Rosa Parks and Nixon. Despite this difference, the message remains the same; some white people did find segregation wrong and did what they could to help against the overwhelming amount of racism and discrimination they faced. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/16 10:32

This film does a fabulous job of creating characters and situations that fit right into the time period. To dramatize the movement, the film recreates the nightly church meetings that many African Americans attended at that time. One of the scenes includes a speech from Dr. King. The film recreates the hundreds of people pouring out of the church as they listen to hear him speak.this film is also a good work of historical fiction that explores all elements of the boycott whilst showing the friendship shared between Miriam and Odessa. — Natalie Sciadini 2016/11/09 19:00

So what, the movie referenced MLK and Rosa Parks, but didn't have specific roles for them? So what, the white woman was still the center of attention and the victim as the white men attempted to break up the bus boycott? — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/11/15 18:41

I really liked how this film had more of a bitter sweet ending rather than a triumphant one. Odessa and the others stood their ground, yes, but the majority of the white racist men were standing their ground too, and continuing with that horrible chant. From what I could tell, the ending of the film took place in January of 1956, possibly February, so not even close to the point in which the boycott had been proven to be a success (and even when the boycott did succeed, racist people responded by bombing four churches and homes). — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/16 11:17

I thought that this film did a really great job at portraying this important moment in U.S. history. I feel like Miriam played too big of a role though. The Thompson family was successful in showing the contrast between the lives of white and black families compared to Odessa's family. But, I don't think that Miriam's character should have been as central as Odessa's in a film with a focus such as this. — Callie Morgan 2016/11/16 13:13

I think this movie did a good job of bringing to light race relations during the 1950s and in Montgomery during the bus boycott. I think if people did not lear about this and watched this movie it might open their eyes a little bit to just how terrible things were and how it is important for us to learn from our mistakes. I think the movie could have done a little bit better of a job of focusing more on the black family (the Cotters) than the white family (the Thompsons). However, I think this movie was a good step in the right direction and was relatively progressive for the time period. So what, I think it did more good than bad and I enjoyed it. — Houff, Nicholas T. 2016/11/16 21:21

I think the film got right Southern white womens’ place, subordinate to her husband. While I can definitely see the ‘90s intermingling with the plot, mainly the hint of feminism without being directly overt about it. However, I think Miriam’s fear of her husband was very real. Her husband served as the provider of her house and therefore she had to conform to him. She was supposed to be seen as pristine because she’s white and when they raid the carpool place, they equate her as black. — James, Emily B. 2016/11/16 23:32