Mississippi Burning

Mississippi Burning provides a challenge to review. While it is inspired by actual events, it is not a direct retelling of them; it is, instead, a story loosely inspired by them. Director Alan Parker was up front in that regard, saying that the soul and the message are more important than an accurate, but civil rights leaders and members of the AA community decried the movie for fudging the details, misrepresenting the FBI, and not having a strong AA character. So ... how does one judge a movie like Mississippi Burning? By its historical fidelity, of which it admits it has only a little? By its representation of the AA community, which has them as perpetual victims, but keeping in mind that in the deep south in 1964, the world the movie portrays was fairly regular? Or by the soul and the intent of the message, about how America was changing but a pocket resisted and did so with abhorrent violence? By touching on all three, I guess. On the representation factor, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I don't think I'm the right person to comment on this. I will say I'm not sure I understand how there could've been a lead black character without making the entire story feel fraudulent, especially since authenticity was one of the issues the AA and civil rights community has with it. But I can also agree that the lack of any prominent black characters AT ALL is a bit weird for a story where violence against them is the driving force. The most prominent black character in the movie is the one whose murder triggers the story. The other black characters are walk-ons and characters who help push the plot along by either providing testimony, scowling at the FBI, or getting attacked by racists. So ... yeah, there's that. Not great, but asking it to change either makes it unrealistic (if it stays mostly fictional) or inauthentic (if historical), so I don't see the fix here. As a movie depicting actual history, yeah, it doesn't do a good job. It gets aspects of the case correct -- three people murdered (two white Jewish young men and one black young man), and that it was done and covered up by the local police, which had members of the KKK on staff, and that instead of being tried for murder (which is a state crime and would face roadblocks) they were jailed for federal civil rights violations -- but the in-between stuff is largely suspect. The bickering FBI agents, Gene Hackman's affair with the wife of one of the chief suspects ... would it have been preferable to just, you know, TELL THE STORY AS IT HAPPENED? Yes, of course. There's poetic license, and there's whole-cloth invention, and Burning crosses into the latter and sets up camp. There was no reason to fictionalize what happened, and this will always be a perplexing unforced error the movie can't shake off. But, for me, these aspects don't stop Mississippi Burning from being a powerful movie about a time that is shamefully not too far off in America's rear view (some might say it isn't at all, and I won't fight it) with a timeless message. It doesn't change that Willem Dafoe and Hackman are a great pairing, with Dafoe being younger (but not a whippersnapper) and wanting to do things by the book to get justice. Hackman, meanwhile, is the salty veteran and former resident of the state; he knows how small towns work and how to maneuver the personalities, and knows that getting justice may take getting their hands dirty. So if you come in and just enjoy it for what it is, it is a hell of a watch. Great acting, and a movie designed to make you feel uncomfortable and perhaps a little ashamed, something a lot of people could use these days. If you're looking for more historical accuracy, though, or you don't like how the fictionalized version focuses on the agents solving the crime instead of the people affected by it, then those may end up being barriers to entry.