Relata a campanha de registro de eleitores no Mississippi de 1961 a 1964.Relata a campanha de registro de eleitores no Mississippi de 1961 a 1964.Relata a campanha de registro de eleitores no Mississippi de 1961 a 1964.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Indicado a 1 Oscar
- 5 vitórias e 1 indicação no total
Ella Baker
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Fred Berger
- Self - Delegate, Mississippi
- (cenas de arquivo)
John Chancellor
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Henry E. Garrett
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Robert Goralski
- Self - NBC News White House
- (cenas de arquivo)
Fannie Lou Hamer
- Self - Freedom Democratic Party
- (cenas de arquivo)
Aaron Henry
- Self - Freedom Democratic Party
- (cenas de arquivo)
Hubert H. Humphrey
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Avaliações em destaque
I'm not going to pull any punches here: this documentary, made when I was in my early 30s, about the Mississippi voter rights demonstrations has always been difficult for me to watch. (And I'm white and grew up in the South, so I can only imagine the difficulty it presents to the BIPOC communities.) The sheer brutality of the raw violence and the unrelenting psychological terrorism wrought by segregation and racism in the late '50s and early '60s never ceases to bring tears to my eyes, as it has for at least 50 years since I was a small child. But the most disturbing aspect of the film is how much systemic inequality remains, with many similar arguments still being spouted by the ignorant and frightened. Voting rights are *still* under attack in what were the "Dixiecrat" dominated states, like Georgia and Texas, now GOP dominated. The "Black Lives Matter" movement and its most fierce detractors (All Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, etc.) directly echo the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s and it's staunch opponents. As with "hate crimes legislation," the notion that respecting and protecting certain groups of people who have been historically and typically targeted or are especially vulnerable to oppression is in some way granting them "special rights" over and above the majority of people is highly insulting and positively ludicrous. It's 2021, 55-60 years later, yet we're arguing with those same people and trying to fight the same battles. That's why the story, the footage, and the 1st-hand testimony of the people involved are still able to move me to tears. 9/10.
So many documentaries are stiff and academic or so obviously manipulative... this is none of those things. It is so HUMAN, so REAL... and is such a powerful story of a fundamentally important period in the history of the USA, every bit as important as the Boston Tea Party or the "shot heard 'round the world" or that moment when "our flag was still there." These are perfectly ordinary people doing absolutely extraordinary things. Particular kudos to those in charge of research, who put together the archival footage - it absolutely immerses you in the time. As a Southerner, I heard things I still hear today... but I also was so inspired by the hard work and tenaciousness of the people who lead this movement - and the people who lead this movement were so imperfect, it makes it all the more glorious. Geesh but I loved this documentary!
Activists look back on the Mississippi voter registration drive from 1961- 64. It's a documentary. It's the story of a revolution. For 2020, there is new resonance. The world has changed but much has not. While some in the black and white footage are saying words that civil society does not today, so much of this looks very similar to what's happening right now. The world has come a long way but in some ways, there is so much further to go.
"Freedom on My Mind" is a documentary about the efforts in the early to mid 1960s to get the state of Mississippi to move into the modern age. Up until then, the state deliberately did all it could to prevent black people from registering to vote...either by intimidation or violence. The story starts in 1961 and continues up through the DNC convention in 1964 when it tried (rightfully so) to seat its own delegates instead of the ones imposed on blacks in Mississippi.
If you watch this expertly crafted and very compelling film, please watch the credits to see where many of the interviewees are today. I was so proud to see that one of the black people who had been molested later went on to become a professor...and it made me tear up a bit. Well worth seeing and a great history lesson. It's a shame, however, that most Americans today don't even realize all this happened...and I taught US history, so I know that we have so quickly forgotten our past.
If you watch this expertly crafted and very compelling film, please watch the credits to see where many of the interviewees are today. I was so proud to see that one of the black people who had been molested later went on to become a professor...and it made me tear up a bit. Well worth seeing and a great history lesson. It's a shame, however, that most Americans today don't even realize all this happened...and I taught US history, so I know that we have so quickly forgotten our past.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThis film has a 100% rating based on 5 critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.
- Erros de gravação(at around 17 mins) The narrator refers to 1960, when the Democratic party 'became a house divided' with 'John Kennedy occupying the White House.' Although Kennedy was elected in 1960, he did not 'occupy' the White House until after his swearing in ceremony on January 20, 1961.
- Citações
L.C. Dorsey: The straw boss, the agent, the guy who was hired to run the operation, like a business manager, was opposed to us going to school when there was work to be done. And he had a rule. He would go around and say that these kids are too big to be in school, any way, and they need to be in the field. And my father so so adamant about going to school until - he would walk us to the bus stop with this gun every morning.
- ConexõesFeatured in The 67th Annual Academy Awards (1995)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 71.176
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 4.272
- 26 de jun. de 1994
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 71.176
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente