home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=91TT0755>
- <title>
- Apr. 08, 1991: Go Slow, Mr. Marshall
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
- Apr. 08, 1991 The Simple Life
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- VIDEO, Page 68
- Go Slow, Mr. Marshall
- </hdr><body>
- <p>By Richard Zoglin
- </p>
- <qt>
- <l>SEPARATE BUT EQUAL</l>
- <l>ABC, April 7-8, 9 p.m. EDT</l>
- </qt>
- <p> Remember the network mini-series? It used to roam the TV
- plains: a big, lumbering beast that would show up two or three
- times a year, sprawl across nights and nights of prime time and
- attract (at least sometimes) hordes of viewers. Mounting costs
- and sagging ratings have pretty much forced the networks to
- abandon these extravaganzas. Instead, we get tidy two-parters,
- most of them either tacky soap operas (Danielle Steel's
- Kaleidoscope and Fine Things) or sensationalistic true-life
- crime stories (Love, Lies and Murder).
- </p>
- <p> Occasionally, however, one comes along that recalls the
- heroic scope and seriousness, if not the air time, of a
- vanishing breed. Separate but Equal, a two-part ABC movie,
- portrays the events leading up to the Supreme Court's landmark
- 1954 decision outlawing segregation in public schools. Sidney
- Poitier, in his first TV appearance since 1955, stars as future
- Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who headed the
- N.A.A.C.P.'s legal effort. Burt Lancaster, another rare bird in
- television land, plays Marshall's courtroom adversary, John W.
- Davis. George Stevens Jr., whose father created some of
- Hollywood's great epics, was writer and director.
- </p>
- <p> Separate but Equal has some inspiring moments and
- relatively few cheap, melodramatic ones. The defenders of
- segregation are not, for the most part, snarling bigots but
- honorable folks concerned about states' rights and
- constitutional precedents. The script humanizes the problem but
- does not shy away from the tough legal issues involved. Still,
- it is the sort of dutiful effort that demonstrates why the
- "quality" mini-series has hit hard times.
- </p>
- <p> The problem is too much reverence for the subject, not
- enough respect for the audience. The higher one climbs on the
- power-and-influence ladder, the more ponderously didactic the
- drama becomes. The opening scenes, set in a poor black school
- district in South Carolina's Clarendon County, are affecting
- because they are grounded in hardscrabble reality. The injustice
- here is that black children must walk miles to their one-room
- schoolhouse because county officials claim there's no money for
- a school bus. The white school district, meanwhile, has 30 of
- them.
- </p>
- <p> When the N.A.A.C.P. takes up the case, however, the
- dialogue is gradually replaced by oratory. "Mr. Marshall, a lot
- of us who support the N.A.A.C.P. hope you don't reach too far
- too fast," says a reporter who encounters Marshall and his wife
- in a restaurant, causing indigestion all around. Once the
- action reaches the Supreme Court (as it does for most of the
- second half), the scenes get even more stilted. "I agree with
- Reed," says one Justice, discussing the case with his
- colleagues. "We were not appointed to this court to make the
- law. We're here to interpret it." Yet the decisive moment for
- Chief Justice Earl Warren (Richard Kiley) is rendered in
- simplistic human terms: an inspirational trip to Gettysburg and
- the sight of his black chauffeur sleeping in the car because he
- can't get a motel room. What was all that legal mumbo jumbo
- anyway?
- </p>
- <p> Just about the only spark of life is Poitier's flamboyant
- performance. Not that the spark is always warming. Though
- Poitier, 64, is still a magnetic screen presence, his precise
- diction, darting gestures and eccentric pauses have become so
- mannered that any resemblance to flesh-and-blood conversation
- seems merely coincidental. In his big courtroom speeches, one
- can hardly find the legal arguments amid the actorish
- flourishes. No real judge would be swayed, but the Emmy jury
- will undoubtedly be bowled over.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-