Life in Action

[Kyland]

Hello Everyone,

At this time, we are going to move forward with questions on the documentary film of the story of the Lovings. MMBC would also like to welcome Laura back to the group discussion! The next part will cover dramatizations!

1. How did you feel hearing thoughts and feelings about the trial coming directly from Mildred and Richard Loving in the documentary? Did it change the way you viewed them?

2. What sentiments from critics or supporters of interracial marriage featured in the documentary struck you the most? How would Grey Villet's photos (which were also featured in the documentary) support or refute those sentiments?

3. Did you learn anything new about the attorneys, judge or Supreme Court members working on this case through the documentary?

4. What did you learn about the environment, culture, family and friends that surrounded the Lovings from this documentary? How did their environment influence them and their decisions?

5. Do you feel that the documentary shows positive or negative bias towards the Lovings, or do you feel it is mostly unbiased? What leads you to this conclusion?

[Laura]

1) When I was preparing for this book club, the first thing I did was watch the 2016 film. Usually I go in the opposite order (book first), but this time I went theatrical movie, book, documentary. Coming into the documentary, therefore, I had been exposed to a lot of imagery and scenes of the Lovings already. What struck me most about the documentary was how close the movie had stuck to the actual events, even recreating some of what was captured in the archival footage used in the documentary! Ruth Negga really does capture Mildred Loving's tone of voice in answering the questions of the reporters, but seeing the actual Mildred and Richard on film again made them so absolutely real to me and made me aware of how much was hanging in the balance. I think before seeing the archival footage, seeing them both so anxious about the outcome, I took for granted that the Supreme Court would of course overrule the state's interracial marriage law. Seeing them speak about it in footage created before they knew the outcome made me sit with their reality at the time, when they didn't know what would happen.

2) Watching the documentary brought it home for me that the result of this court case was not necessarily a sure thing in the eyes of many people. The documentary shows footage of people who did disapprove of interracial marriage and integration, as Brown vs. Board of Education had only recently passed. A few people they interview are very forthcoming about not liking or approving of integration. I specifically remember the elderly couple who stand outside a meeting about school integration, saying how they like things "the way they are." A lot of push back seems to be couched in this sentiment: things have been fine the way they are, so why change the culture? I think the point the photos help get across is that this idea of the status quo is not necessarily true. Villet captures the Lovings in all the mundane normality of married life. As the Lovings themselves talk about, they know other people in who have interracial relationships. Contrasting with the sentiments of those opposed to integration and interracial marriage, the photographs show the truth about "the way things are." Whether legally recognized or not, this is already a real family, living a normal life together.

3) The footage of the lawyers was among the most interesting, including the tape of Cohen explaining the legal proceedings but especially the candid tape of the lawyers debriefing with the Lovings after a court appearance. This again is where the film and documentary taught me something new: these lawyers were new and this case was tricky. They had a lot to learn in the process and were taking on a monumental court battle. I was heartened to see them speaking so earnestly about the matter, sparing nobody's feelings to say how "evil" the existing law was. It was also very interesting to see how they lawyers were able to use the judge from the original case's written decision to chart a course to the bring the case to the Supreme Court. His biased and moralistic language in defending his ruling, if it could be said to have accomplished anything good (better would have been for this judge to have done the right thing) would be that it laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court to unanimously rule that the law was unconstitutional (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395). I also didn't know that the Supreme Court made the decision unanimously. More on that in the next answer...

4) Given the culture at the time, as portrayed with the archival footage of people voicing their support for ongoing segregation, the documentary made me realize that so much was at stake in this court case! While in hindsight it seems like it was just a matter of time, or perhaps even a foregone conclusion, that eventually the culture would come around to interracial marriage, the documentary shows that it was not a sure thing to those who were involved and they had many opponents. Even Richard's own mother, who I would have to believe was ultimately in favor of the marriage given the images of her loving her grandchildren, seemed hesitant to voice any absolute support when asked by reporters if she approved of Richard's marriage to Mildred. To me it seemed like she was afraid of what might happen if she was too forthcoming about her real feelings on the record. With a culture where people could openly voice their disapproval but not their support, it would have been hard to know whom they could trust as they secretly lived in Virginia. This made me realize that this case must have been hard on the whole family, even their parents and close network of siblings and friends.

5) I feel that the documentary does show bias in favor of the Lovings, but not unfairly so. While the Lovings are the more compelling and sympathetic figures of the documentary, I think the bias in their favor is organic and earned. The filmmakers also depict their opponents (including interviews that provide more insight on the Sherriff and footage of the original judge in the case against the Lovings) and I believe the depictions are fair and accurate about those on the other side. Perhaps the documentary could give more time to the arguments of the opposing side, but would it really be beneficial to anyone? For me, this raises the question of whether bias is a bad thing in a case like this... Can one understand someone's reasoning and place it within the context of their time and still think they were wrong? I agree with the opinion given the lawyers that the opposing side's argument was itself immoral, as they cast the children as "victims" of their parents' marriage. There is a logical fallacy in certain schools of thought that opposing sides should be given equal weight when presented, but giving a specious argument much weight at all would be irresponsible of the filmmakers. So in this case, I feel bias is warranted and appropriate.