The Long Walk Home works as a secondary source about the past by providing a general history of the Montgomery bus boycott, including the catalyst with Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat and the role of MLK Jr. as a leader. With the focus on Odessa, the movie is also correct about how Black women were greatly affected as they were the majority of bus riders in Montgomery (since many worked as domestic service workers). Throughout The Long Walk Home, it depicts the use of Black gatherings within churches and the organization of carpooling, which played an essential role for community planning and keeping the boycott strong throughout the year it lasted. Another aspect that the movie gets right about this history is how it ends by stating that this was not the end of the civil rights movement—and that this boycott helped provide fuel for other activists. —Aaliyah A.

The movie gets a lot of aspects about the bus boycotts correct. One, that a lot of black women worked in White homes and faced a lot of racism from their employers. Two, the amount of people that relied on the buses to get around. And three, the effects the boycott had on both black communities. black women were a major part of the bus boycott, and this film centered a black woman’s story. I did not learn a lot about women’s involvement in the Civil rights movement in my history class. The effort required to make the boycott work was clearly displayed, and following someone’s story humanized the issue a lot. The reaction of white people in the film to this boycott was clear too, openly displaying the prejudices they had. I appreciated the centering of women in this story, as most of the films we’ve watched in this class disregard women characters. -Katie

The film is quite accurate about the nature of the Montgomery Bus Boycotts. It includes information such as bus drivers going beyond what the law provided regarding segregation, the willingness of police to follow those thought to be boycotters, and the general attitudes of people towards the boycotts. Black characters in the film often make excuses about not taking the bus when talking to white people rather than admit they are participating in the boycott, which is accurate to accounts of the boycotts. The film also shows examples of white women who aided in carpooling, primarily through Sissy Spacek’s character. It also shows the sharp increase in membership of white citizens’ councils after the boycotts began. Overall, while the characters in the film are fictional, their actions are based on those of people in Montgomery at the time, and the nature of the boycotts is also accurate. Ultimately, The Long Walk Home is quite an accurate film. - Hunter M.

I think The Long Walk Home works as a secondary source because it shows what life was like for Black Americans during the Civil Rights Movement, especially during the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955–1956. The movie gets a lot right about how difficult the boycott was for everyday people, including having to walk long distances to work, organize carpools, and deal with threats and harassment from white people who wanted segregation to continue. It also shows how the boycott affected people’s jobs and families, because participating meant risking losing their income or being targeted by the community. I think the movie does a good job showing that the boycott was not just about refusing to ride the bus, but about people coming together and making sacrifices for equal rights. The boycott really did last over a year, and Black residents relied on walking and carpools until the buses were finally desegregated in December 1956. Overall, I think the movie is useful for understanding the everyday experiences behind the Civil Rights Movement, even though it is a fictional story and not a documentary.—Cait Edwards

Long Walk Home is fairly accurate to the Montgomery Bus Boycotts. While the characters are entirely fictional, there are accuracies in their depictions. Odessa represents the many maids who still had to work, but chose to walk instead of taking the bus even if the walk was long and painful. And Miriam giving rides to Odessa was accurate as there was a carpool system for those who relied on the bus for work and school. It is also accurate to her being white, as there were white people who believed in the bus boycotts and helped out. The other depiction of white people was accurate as well. Many believed that black people were “lazy” and “asking for too much”. So while the depiction of racism and violence was deeply uncomfortable to watch, it is sadly all too accurate. -Ellie Irwin

This movie was released in 1990, a time of increased cognizance of multiculturalism in the United States. Two years later would come the Rodney King riots — protests that occurred after a video of a brutal beating of a Black man at the hands of Los Angeles police came to light. This movie, however, leans into that idea of hopeful multiculturalism — the singing stops the white men from approaching, Odessa gets a gift for Mary Katherine, Odessa’s children aren’t killed when they are attacked by white teenagers, etc. The 1990s are an interesting crossroads in race relations in the United States; the Civil Rights movement was about 25 years earlier and there were more Black Americans being elected to political office, however a “war on crime” was still occurring that targeted Black Americans and significant wealth inequalities still existed. It is interesting to see this time in America when many are trying to reckon with the past but still trying to emphasize this idea that not all white people are bad. I have been struggling to come to a conclusion on if this movie still plays into that white savior trope. While Miriam’s decision to drive Odessa and support the boycott is ultimately the climax of the movie, she must struggle with what it will cost her and she does go back in forth between what her husband wants and what the community around her believes with what she believes is right. What to me still has elements of the idea of the good white people saving the day is how Mary Katherine narrates part of the movie (a white kid narrating the experiences of a Black woman, instead of hearing it from Odessa herself), we are given Miriam’s backstory (being raised by a Black maid, seeing the Black kids swimming alongside white kids in Oregon, etc.) as a reason to why she is not racist, and how Miriam swings fully to support the boycotts by allowing Odessa to sit up front in the car and starts carpooling anyone who needs a ride by the end. Similarly, Odessa's character really isn't animated, maybe that is done on purpose to show the restraint that Black Americans had to have in a Jim Crow society and to ultimately be successful with civil disobedience. However, by making her character almost silent at times, it allows Miriam's character to take the spotlight with her speeches and powerful lines. – Nora M.

I have never seen a depiction on film or TV of the Montgomery bus boycotts. While I learned about it in grade school and have read and seen video clips from the time about the boycotts, it was important to see a film interpretation. This movie highlighted the violence that was still experienced by Black Americans during a peaceful protest as well as the attack from institutions that were supposed to allow for peaceful protest. The extent of this casual violence can sometimes be missed in textbooks; the scene where Odessa’s daughter gets on the bus and then is harassed by a few white teenagers demonstrates how in the end the boycotts were not a choice but rather became a necessity for safety. The white population used the boycotts as an excuse to further intimidate Black Americans because they were seen as upending the racial hierarchy that was established through daily scenes such as a segregated bus. Similarly, the white police officers find any reason to give tickets to those carpooling, clearly targeting lawful actions. I also never knew about how white Americans, especially white women, played a role in the boycotts. Something too I find interesting about this movie are the gender dynamics. Miriam is a traditional southern housewife, but throughout the movie, she inserts her independence by deciding for herself what is right even if it costs her social standing. During the final scenes when they’re in the parking lot, Miriam and Odessa stand on the same line against the white men trying to harass the women — Odessa stands up against the racial discrimination she faces, Miriam is there in the face of two patriarchal figures in her family, confronting gender discrimination. I think this movie can start an interesting conversation about intersectionality. What really scared me about this movie was the underlying violence and how you never knew when it was coming — when Selma gets attacked and when Miriam gets slapped are two examples that have stayed with me. This movie keeps everyone on edge and even when you think everything is ok, it's not. That too is an interesting discussion point about what constant discrimination can do to someone and the PTSD from living in a society that demeans you. There are still issues to this movie, but I think it’s an important starting point. – Nora M.

The Long Walk Home’s version of history is important as it shows the systemic racism Black people endured in Alabama while also showing how a white woman and her family benefited from and/or fought the system—making it accessible towards a white audience who might not know much about the Civil Rights movement. As a Black viewer, it was also powerful and uncomfortable to watch the Black experience within this film, especially seeing the casual racism of the white characters. This film also adequately uses the juxtaposition of the Thompsons’ and Cotters’ lives, making it apparent for the audience how different Black and White lives were. I would also add that this movie doesn’t devolve into white saviorism and lets Odessa and Black women at the end stand up for themselves (as opposed to how often white people are historically and thematically depicted as the saviors). –Aaliyah A.

This film is important as it centers women's stories which not many films acknowledge. It clearly shows how white people are complicit with the system as it benefits them, internal struggle with how the system treats black people, how black people were treated in Alabama at the time, and the effects the boycott had on its participants. People were boycotting for very particular reasons and held the boycott for a long time, and suffered because of it. This film humanizes many people who had doubts about the system, and of the people suffering the most. Having the cast be made of notable actors draws in attention, which can spread the effect of the movie further. The date the movie was released was at a time where many stories of minorities and the Civil Rights Movement were not shared, so the novelty of this film elevates its importance. -Katie D.

The Long Walk Home and its version of history are important due to the film’s balance of accuracy and appeal. It was created as a result of Sissy Spacek and Whoopi Goldberg wanting to make the film, and their popularity as actors allowed for the film to reach a wider audience than it may have if it starred more obscure actors. It is also a rather palatable film for mass audiences compared to films that were rather violent in their pursuit of historical accuracy like Amistad. However, its ability to be marketed to wide audiences did not get in the way of the film’s historical accuracy; while it focuses on fictional characters, its protagonists represent the actions real people took in Montgomery. The film is therefore a strong secondary source regarding the Montgomery Bus Boycotts. For these reasons, The Long Walk Home and its version of history are important to understand. - Hunter M.

I think The Long Walk Home is important because it shows how the Montgomery Bus Boycott affected everyday people, not just the major leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. The movie focuses on a Black woman named Odessa who refuses to ride the segregated buses and has to walk to work, along with other members of the Black community. I think it is important because it shows the sacrifices people made to fight for equal rights, even when those sacrifices affected their jobs, families, and everyday lives. It also shows how white people responded to the boycott and how some struggled with deciding whether to support the movement or continue benefiting from segregation. The movie reminds us that the Civil Rights Movement was not just something that happened through famous speeches and protests, but also through ordinary people making difficult decisions and standing up for what they believed was right.— Cait Edwards.

We should care about this film because it challenges the dominant Great Man view of the Civil Rights Movement, forcing us to reckon with the reality that history is made by ordinary people rather than just iconic figureheads. Standard textbook history often reduces mass protests to speeches delivered from podiums by high-profile leaders. While those leaders played a strategic role, a movement cannot exist without the collective commitment of the community. Telling this story through film matters because the medium personalizes the high cost of collective action. Instead of abstract statistics about bus revenue drops, the audience intimately experiences the physical and emotional exhaustion of the boycott through Odessa. We see the private sacrifices required to sustain political change: blisters, aching joints, lost sleep, and the quiet heartbreak of having no energy left for one's own family after long shifts in white households miles across town. Ultimately, the film’s version of history matters because it restores historical credit to those who bore the heaviest daily burden, working-class Black domestic workers. Recognizing that systemic change depends on the daily courage and endurance of everyday citizens, rather than relying solely on charismatic leaders, is a crucial lesson for understanding past civil rights struggles and present-day grassroots movements alike. - Tyler J.