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.