TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/010989/01098900.001

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 24.1 KB | 452 lines

                                                                                SHOW BUSINESS, Page 56

COVER STORY:  Fire This Time


With incendiary drama and a lightning pace, Mississippi Burning
illuminates an ugly chapter in American history -- and stokes
a bitter debate

By Richard Corliss


    A visitor to our community finds an old-fashioned welcome
and a degree of friendliness that exists in no other place . .
. Numerous lakes and ponds offer fine year-around fishing, and
for the hunter Neshoba County is a paradise.    -- Chamber of
Commerce brochure, Neshoba County, Miss., 1964

    Wasn't that a time? Each year of the early 1960s brought
new images of heroism and horror as the civil rights movement
spread through the South like kudzu. 1960: four Negro students
sit in at a Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter. 1961: the Congress
of Racial Equality inaugurates its Freedom Rides to integrate
Southern bus terminals. 1962: in Oxford, Miss., James Meredith
enters Ole Miss, its first black student since Reconstruction.

    And then, in 1963, the white arm of racism strikes back.
May: Birmingham public-safety commissioner "Bull" Connor turns
his dogs and his fire hoses on demonstrators. June: in Jackson,
Miss., Medgar Evers is murdered. September: four black children
are killed in a Birmingham church bombing. The following summer
promised the climax to a melodrama that would be scored to
either We Shall Overcome or Mississippi Goddam.

    Or both. In 1964 Arthur Ashe won the U.S. Open, Martin
Luther King Jr. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And on June
19 the U.S. Senate passed its landmark Civil Rights Bill. But
two days later, three civil rights workers -- two Northern
whites, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, and a Southern
black, James Chaney -- were arrested for speeding in
Philadelphia, Miss., then jailed and later released into the
night. They were never again seen alive.

    For the next six weeks, FBI agents blanketed the area,
quizzing the friendly folks of Neshoba County. Reporters from
all over tested the residents' hospitality. Navy frogmen fished
the lakes and ponds, searching for evidence of the local
hunters' blood sport. In August, thanks to a $30,000 payoff to
an informant, the FBI discovered the bodies in a new earth dam.
Four months later, the Philadelphia sheriff, his deputy and 17
others were arrested, and in 1967 seven of the 19 (including the
deputy but not his boss) were convicted of conspiracy to murder.

    Triumph and heartbreak abound in this story, but it has
taken Hollywood nearly a quarter-century to put it on the big
screen. Now it is here with a bang. Mississippi Burning, Orion
Pictures' $15 million drama about the FBI's search for the
murderers of Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney, has arrived with
critical trumpets leading the way and bitter controversy in its
wake. It has already won National Board of Review citations for
best picture, best actor (Gene Hackman) and best supporting
actress (Frances McDormand) -- prizes the film may duplicate on
Academy Award night. For Mississippi Burning is made to Oscar's
order: a white-heat yarn that illuminates, with fiery rhetoric
at a lightning pace, one crucial chapter in American history.

    Next week, when Mississippi Burning expands from nine
theaters to more than 500, moviegoers will get to see what all
the shouting is about. For more than two hours, director Alan
Parker splatters grotesque and gorgeous images on his large
canvas. Indomitable black preachers lead services in the charred
husks of their churches. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan mass for
a venomous camp meeting. And everywhere there is the blaze of
torch-song tragedy as black schools and shacks crumble in the
embers of the Klan's fury.

    As the leader of the FBI team, Willem Dafoe (who played the
martyred sergeant in Platoon and the humanist Jesus in The Last
Temptation of Christ) is a stick of righteousness waiting to
explode. But the movie also finds recesses where human dignity
and compassion wait to be summoned. It is alert to the shifting
emotional weight and moral responsibilities in any
relationship, especially in the quiet interplay of Hackman and
McDormand, two ordinary middle-aged people searching awkwardly
to be of use to each other.  Hackman caps a brilliant career
here as an FBI agent that both J. Edgar Hoover and Martin Luther
King Jr. could love. He takes the measure of this film: a
watchmaker's craftsmanship, a marathoner's doggedness. With
every confident frame, Mississippi Burning announces itself as
a big, bold bolt of rabble-rousin', rebel-razin' movie
journalism.

    Or is it just movie fantasy, and meretricious to boot? That
is the source of a debate over the film's veracity and verism
-- a controversy echoing the rumpus over The Last Temptation of
Christ, but with politics, not theology, as the sticking point.
Mississippi Burning is a fiction based on fact; it invents
characters and bends the real-life plot; it colors in the
silhouette of events with its own fanciful strokes and
highlights. In focusing on the agents, Parker and screenwriter
Chris Gerolmo italicize the gumshoe heroism of white officials
while downplaying the roles of black and white visionaries who
risked, and sometimes lost, their lives to help fashion a free
America.

    Thus the film has drawn accusations that it falsifies an
era. "The film treats some of the most heroic people in black
history as mere props in a morality play," says Vernon Jarrett,
the only black on the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board. James
Chaney's younger brother Ben, who was eleven in 1964 and is
portrayed in the movie, finds the Mississippi mirror distorting:
"The movie makes the FBI too good to be true. It is a dangerous
movie because it could lead to complacency. Things haven't
changed that much." Says David Halberstam, who covered the 1964
Freedom Summer for the New York Times: "Parker has taken a
terribly moving and haunting story and he has betrayed it,
turned it into a Martin-and-Lewis slapstick between the two
cops. It's a bad movie: `Mississippi False.' "

    Parker dismisses all indictments: "Our film isn't about the
civil rights movement. It's about why there was a need for a
civil rights movement. And because it's a movie, I felt it had
to be fictionalized. The two heroes in the story had to be
white. That is a reflection of our society as much as of the
film industry. At this point in time, it could not have been
made any other way."

    The charges are not trivial, and neither is the challenge.
At issue is the freedom of a filmmaker -- or any artist -- to
twist the facts as they are recalled, to shape the truth as it
is perceived. May a movie libel the historical past? And has
Mississippi Burning done so? Artistic liberty vs. social
responsibility: the stakes are high. The memories are
indelible. The battle lines are drawn.

    Another battle film helped Mississippi Burning come to
life. Two years ago Orion's Platoon ripped the scabs off the
wound of Viet Nam, copped lots of Oscars and grossed close to
$300 million worldwide. Any successful movie creates a new
market, and studios -- especially Orion, which has a rep for
taking chances on political pictures -- were soon scrambling for
the next Platoon. Cynicism is served with a twist in Hollywood,
and Mississippi Burning has taken its licks as a ready-made Big
Issue blockbuster. Before its release, even Hackman gibed that
its producers "looked at how much Platoon made and they went,
`Yeah! What other causes can we make some money on?' "

    Platoon was lucky. It dodged the bullets that Mississippi
Burning has walked into. Nobody mistook it for a documentary.
Few criticized it for ignoring or caricaturing the Vietnamese.
Instead, Americans recognized and responded to the grandeur of
its hallucinogenic fever. Platoon was crazy from the inside, a
surrealist's scribbled message from hell. Parker's film is
quite another thing: an outsider's report, not autobiography
but psychodrama, with a texture as real as newsreel. And yet
its plot skeleton bears similarities to Platoon. In both films,
two strong men fight to establish American values in a hostile
country, and to claim the soul of an innocent. In both films,
the local nonwhites -- yellow or black -- are less a group of
dramatic characters than a plot device, a shadow, a chorus, a
landscape, an idea.

    As Mississippi Burning opens, three civil rights workers
ride through Jessup (Neshoba) County, avid to get out of town.
Their station wagon is overtaken by some good ole boys in a
pickup truck. Blam! Blam! Blam! Officially, the three are
"missing." FBI agents Ward (Dafoe) and Anderson (Hackman) know
otherwise. They might be from two different colleges -- say,
Harvard and Hard Knocks. But they are both feds in a bad town,
and they know what smells. The sheriff, for one. "You down here
to help us solve our nigger problem?" he asks agreeably. No.
They are there to wash some soiled linen: the bloodstained
sheets of the local Klansmen, who almost certainly executed the
young men for the crime of idealism.

    Ward was in Oxford with James Meredith; he was shot in the
shoulder for his protective pains. Yet he seems criminally
naive about race relations in the South. In a luncheonette he
quizzes a young black; that night the youth is tortured. Ward's
way is to send his agents wading solemnly through a Jessup swamp
in their dark gray suits, looking for all the world like a lost
patrol of Blues Brothers. The result is only frustration and
conflagration, as Negro churches, schools, shacks go up in
flames. Anderson, a native Mississippian, knows how to talk to
the natives: threaten the men, seduce the women. He will take
a razor to the neck of Deputy Sheriff Pell (Brad Dourif). He
will take flowers to Mrs. Pell (McDormand), who functions as
the town's guilty conscience. Her husband ignores and abuses
her; now she has the chance to shackle him in the handcuffs of
her hatred.

    This is one of Mississippi Burning's two main fictional
conceits: that the FBI broke the case in part by locating not
the fear and greed of a Klan informant, but the flinty,
vindictive soul of Southern integrity. The other conceit is as
low-road as the plot twist in a kung fu scuzzathon. The film
imagines that the FBI imported a free-lance black operative to
terrorize the town's mayor into revealing the murderers' names.
Taken (like much else in the picture) from a report in William
Bradford Huie's 1965 casebook, Three Lives for Mississippi, the
scene invariably gooses a cheer out of its audience -- almost
a rebel yell. But its grizzly machismo represents an '80s-movie
solution to a '60s for-real enigma: Dirty Harry beats dirty
laundry.

    That is not so far from screenwriter Gerolmo's original
conception, more than four years ago, of Mississippi Burning:
a political parable with western overtones, perhaps to star
William Hurt and Clint Eastwood. "Hurt would represent the
idealistic approach, and Eastwood the violent response," says
Gerolmo, 35. "The film would be similar to John Ford's 1962
western, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. It's a movie that
asks some serious questions about using violence in the name of
the law." Initially then, Gerolmo might have meant the FBI's
terrorist tactics to be seen critically, or at least
ambivalently. But he must have known that American movie
audiences want the thrill without the filigree. He must also
remember the famous advice from a newspaperman in Liberty
Valance, which sums up the approach Mississippi Burning would
take to Mississippi history: "When the legend becomes fact,
print the legend."

    Gerolmo took the idea to his friend Frederick Zollo, an
off-Broadway producer-director, who sold it to Orion. Several
directors were proposed -- Milos Forman, John Schlesinger --
before Orion suggested Alan Parker, 44. His films (Midnight
Express, Fame, Birdy) resist classification by content, but in
style they are as easy to spot as a fist in your face. Bang on!
That is both Parker's strength and limitation, which has the
dervish precision of the ace London commercials director he once
was. But he had never made a film with such daunting logistics
as this one.

    "I knew the moment I read it," he says, "that it was a
powerful story. What I did was to strengthen the social and
political point of view, strengthen the characters, strengthen
the overall quality of the film." And once shooting started,
Parker took over, as a director will. The Writers Guild strike
required that Gerolmo absent himself from the set; Parker
apparently concurred in that ruling. Gerolmo's final
arbitration: "The screenplay is mine, but the movie is Alan's.
That's the way the world works out here."

    Parker's great challenge was making the world of his movie
work in Mississippi. He and co-producer Robert Colesberry
stalked 300 towns as likely locations, with the director
impishly yelling, "Alabama Burning?" "Georgia Burning?"
"Arkansas Burning?" But he selected Mississippi -- to the
delight of the state film commission, which was willing to
display its old racist scowl in implicit contrast to its fresh
new face of many colors.

    The director's previous movie, Angel Heart, was set in the
Louisiana '50s and boasted a gallery of fine black faces. Now
he was moving forward a decade and north a few hundred miles;
the demands for local color were just as stringent. "Alan
wanted real Southern black faces," recalls location casting
director Shari Rhodes, "or a British director's idea of what a
Southern face looks like. Pretty people need not apply." Rhodes
was looking for dark skin, strong bone structure, "dignity."
She visited nursing homes, prowled the streets of black
neighborhoods and hired homeless men for walk-ons. She had
studied photographs of civil rights marchers and wanted similar
faces -- "people who had been dragged off bar stools. All their
faces said, `I have been through some pain.' "

    One Sunday Rhodes and Colesberry went to a small church in
Jackson. "We were the only white faces in the whole church,"
she recalls. "At the end of the service, the deacon stood up
and said, `We have some politicians who would like to say a few
words to you.' Everybody looked at us, and we shook our heads.
`You mean you're not politicians? Then praise the Lord!' And the
whole church started laughing." The choir and its soloist,
Lannie Spann McBride, perform the film's final funeral anthem.

    In a way, the filmmakers were politicians: they would be
using the new Mississippi to depict the old. Mostly, the
shooting proceeded without incident. Sometimes, though, old
images must have haunted the older townsfolk. One day Colesberry
spotted one of the crew's pickup trucks toting a huge Klan cross
through town and had the driver cover it up. During the ten-week
shoot, derelict churches and other structures were set ablaze;
production paused while the ashes cooled down. One evening the
company assembled to film the burning of a local black church,
which had been bought and would be rebuilt to the congregation's
specifications. "It was freezing that night," recalls Bob Penny,
who played the role of one of the white conspirators, "and it
was frightening. As the church burned, you could literally hear
the silence of the people. At one point Parker shouted out his
usual `Don't act! Stop acting!,' and I said, `I ain't acting --
I'm scared!'"

    Hackman and Dafoe kept a respectful distance, as befit
their roles. Dafoe snuggled into his character, "an idealist
who changes in the face of violence. One of the things that
attracted me to Ward was that I believed him. I believe there
were idealists like him in politics, the FBI and the Justice
Department. The film is in part a meditation on what's happened
to that kind of idealism." Hackman stayed busy tapping memories
of Danville, Ill. "Growing up in a Midwestern small town," he
explains, "helped me identify with Anderson. I felt as if I'd
seen enough of those kinds of guys. I knew the territory -- the
way a small-town sheriff operates."

    Maybe, though, things have changed since Hackman's boyhood
-- at least in the South. Not long ago, Mississippians were
killed for showing their faces and speaking up. Last spring,
though, Mississippians were paid to do the same things for
Burning. For some viewers, the film's most moving line will be
found in the closing credits: "We would especially like to thank
Governor Ray Mabus . . . and the people of Mississippi . . . for
their kind cooperation in the making of this film."

    Once every 20 years or so, Hollywood sets a film in
Mississippi and explores the race problem in a big way: Intruder
in the Dust (1949),  In the Heat of the Night (1967),
Mississippi Burning now. At other times it is content to play
Rip van Winkle. If Parker's film is taking so much heat now, the
reason is partly that U.S. filmmakers have stayed away in droves
from the front lines of racial controversy. Ironically, the few
Hollywood films that do investigate a smoldering political issue
tend to be directed by foreigners. "American filmmakers love
making escapist films," Parker says. "They never worry that they
should be trying something else. So they haven't fought to make
serious films, and the studios haven't made them, and American
audiences have been educated to avoid them. It's not that these
directors are seduced by the system. They are the system."

    It has ever been thus. During the 1964 freedom marches and
race murders, America could be seen tearing itself apart at the
soul -- on TV, that is. On the big screen, Edwardian England was
all the rage, in 1964's top hit (Mary Poppins) and top Oscar
winner (My Fair Lady). While whites killed blacks in the South,
and blacks torched their ghettos in the North, moviemakers
wrangled with knottier dilemmas. Had Elvis finally run out of
resort locations for his musical travelogues?  Would Doris Day
ever lose her virginity?

    So Hollywood's few significant forays into the Magnolia
State are worth a peek. The first look should be the longest.
Intruder in the Dust, based on William Faulkner's novel and
filmed in Oxford, dared to elicit the white viewer's admiration
for a defiantly dignified -- in those days the word was uppity
-- black man named Lucas (Juano Hernandez) accused of killing
a white. Like Mississippi Burning, Intruder ends with a
finger-pointing speech: "Lucas wasn't in trouble," says a white
lawyer. "We were." But its lasting touch is in its portrayal of
a black who refuses to play either martyr or Tom; in the war
between the races, Lucas is a very conscientious objector. "He's
got to admit he's a nigger," a townsman truculently insists.
"Then maybe we will accept him as he seems to intend to be
accepted."

    One turbulent generation later, in In the Heat of the
Night, a black detective showed up in Mississippi (stunt-doubled
by Illinois) and refused to admit that he was anything but
Sidney Poitier. This Oscar-winning film prefigured the
antagonistic-buddy configuration of Mississippi Burning and a
quillion other cop movies: a blustering Southern lawman (Rod
Steiger) learns to respect, and win the respect of, a wily
straight arrow from the North. The difference, though, is
telling. Three years after Philadelphia, a movie could send a
black man to Mississippi to solve a white crime. But not 24
years after.

    Which is not to force old molds, noble or otherwise, on
Mississippi Burning. It is simply to agree with Parker that the
film is as much a reflection of attitudes in today's Hollywood,
and in the rest of America, as it is a window on the 1964 South.
In last year's presidential campaign, blacks were once again
America's invisible men. Faced with the electorate's comfortable
cynicism, Democrats chose not to evoke sympathy for the poor
black (hence the virtual disappearance of Jesse Jackson), while
Republicans chose to exploit fear of the rapacious black (hence
the toxic stardom of Willie Horton). Why should Hollywood be
more progressive than Peoria? Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy are
two of the past decade's biggest stars, but they are still only
comic relief.  In serious films the minority presence is fainter
than it was two and three decades ago, when Poitier was the only
black king in the pack.

    Hollywood is not a place but a state of mind. A filmmaker
need not shop on Rodeo Drive to be influenced by the current
social conservatism. Two recent British films, Cry Freedom and
A World Apart, took deadly aim at South Africa's apartheid; yet
their heroes were white. In Mississippi Burning too, the drama
arises from a white's discovery of injustice toward black
people. The hero is someone with whom the white audience can
identify, someone with something to lose, someone who suffers
only by his compassion for the afflicted. By this rule, every
picture about blacks becomes a metaphor for the white man's
burden. And the black man's burden is to be a supplicant to
Superman, or Bleeding-Heartman. Or, this time around, Hackman.

    Unhappy the movie industry that needs to invent white
heroes and suppress black ones. Unhappier still the people who
demand that one film -- in this case, Mississippi Burning -- be
every film. Their anger is understandable. A lot of people have
lived this tale as if it were the novel of their own lives. They
have waited a long time for the movie version. And like the
readers of any novel, each claimant has already "filmed" his own
ideal version of the Philadelphia story. But a movie is not a
hologram; its images and meaning cannot change as they are
viewed from various angles and special interests.

    This movie is full of enough facts to make the viewer
suspicious, and enough distortions to be the truth. Maybe it is
every bit as unfair to the FBI, which pursued the case
vigorously and effectively, as it is to Freedom Riders. But
whose truth is it anyway? Every film -- or every biography or
news report or memory -- is distorted, if only by one's
perceptions. To create art is to pour fact into form; and
sometimes the form shapes the facts. William Randolph Hearst
never said "Rosebud," and Evita Peron didn't sing pop, and
Richard III was probably a swell guy, no matter how Shakespeare
libeled him. This is what artists do: shape ideas and grudges
and emotions into words and sounds and pictures. They see
"historical accuracy" as a creature of ideological fashion.
Artists take the long view; they figure their visions can
outlast political revisionism.

    Mississippi Burning is rooted as firmly in film history as
it is in social history. It takes its cue not so much from the
buddy films as from Warner Bros. melodramas of the '30s, like
Black Legion and They Won't Forget, which seized some
social-issue headlines and fit them into brisk, dynamic fiction.
It is movie journalism: tabloid with a master touch. And the
master, the suave manipulator, is Alan Parker. By avocation he
is a caricaturist, and by vocation too. He chooses gross faces,
grand subjects, base motives, all for immediate impact. The
redneck conspirators are drawn as goofy genetic trash: there's
not a three-digit IQ in the lot, not a chin in a carload. These
are not bad men -- they're baaaad guys. And the blacks are
better than good; their faces reveal them as martyrs, sanctified
by centuries of suffering. Caricature is a fine dramatic
tradition, when you have two hours to tell a story and a million
things to say and show.

    What Parker hopes to show moviegoers of 1989 is a fable
about 1964 -- perhaps the very last historical moment when most
American whites could see Southern blacks purely as righteous
rebels for a just cause. The picture may hold even truer today.
Reactionary whites may not want blacks in their schools,
neighborhoods or jobs, but they can feel empathy for the film's
heroic Negroes. For Parker, that Mississippi summer represented
"the beginning of political consciousness, not just in the South
or in America, but in the whole world." Can Mississippi Burning
help raise that consciousness once again, even as it has already
raised old hackles? Perhaps not. But even that frail hope makes
Parker's determination to go hunting and fishing in Neshoba
County worth the trip.