Black Like Me

The person who claimed this is a movie about "reverse racism" must be so young that he can't remember those times. I grew up in the 50's and 60's in the south. The movie portrays the prevailing attitude of whites toward blacks in an accurate manner. I can remember the separate waiting rooms, water fountains, "white only," etc. Thankfully, I grew up in a home where racial prejudice was not tolerated, and I'm sure there were a lot of homes like this.

In the book, Griffin passes through the same area as a black and then a white. The difference in his treatment was appalling. What the movie shows is that racial prejudice makes no sense. All people are simply people and deserve to be treated with respect.

Obviously hampered by a small "independent" budget and the casting of James Whitmore (a fine stage actor who, unlike the original author of the book, John Howard Griffin, simply cannot believably pass for a black man) in the lead, director Carl Lerner's screenplay (co-written with Gerda Lerner and an uncredited Paul Green) shuns Griffin's chronological story telling through dated diary entries and rearranges the events Griffin told so well to surprisingly LESS dramatic effect, but it gives a movingly honest portrayal of life in the South near the start of the long over-due civil rights movement.

The year this film was released my (white) family was transferred to a suburb of Atlanta, Ga. from a Virginia suburb of Washington D.C., and enroute we were stunned to see Klansmen in full regalia out on the interstate in North Carolina inspecting cars coming down from the north. It was just one of those things one had to live with at the time - like civil rights workers being murdered and their killers, when caught, being acquitted by all white juries - but this film manages, despite honestly showing the unremitting low grade caution every black person had to live with, and the blatant racism of a few Southern whites, to also be fair to the majority which was merely oblivious to - and sometimes even quietly disapproving of the evil around them - who wouldn't intentionally hurt a black person.

This well meaning majority,unintentionally perpetuating what they saw as "something they couldn't do anything about," eventually came around - and the book helped, even if the movie went largely unseen.

One of the most effecting - but at the same time least persuasive - sections of the film comes late, when Whitmore/Griffin's character tries to justify his actions to a rising young black activist (excellently played to type by Al Freeman Jr.). As it turned out, Griffin's book actually did help in the long struggle for equality, bringing the reality of a shame to the attention of the rest of the nation which needed the reminder as it demanded and helped the South come into the 20th Century, but the film only touches on the screams of outrage from the South at the mirror being held up so honestly to something they did not wish to see.

This was only a few years after the "Stars and Bars" (the old Confederate Battle Flag alluded to so effectively in the opening credits of this film) was pointedly added to the Georgia state flag in protest to Federal Civil Rights legislation. Bigots (self identifying and otherwise) called it an emblem of "local pride and heritage" - realists saw it for what it was in the modern usage and timing: a symbol of hate, rebellion and intimidation.

Times really have changed radically in the 40+ years since this film was made, and today the movie is chiefly valuable as a document of what life was like in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia during Griffin's all too brief (one month) sojourn on the other side of the color barrier. The street scenes and home details are perfectly observed. As one who lived through the period, I can testify the film is not over stated politically or socially.

The movie BLACK LIKE ME does not portray "every white person as a bigot" (though in my years growing up in the South, I never met a bigot who self-identified as one), but it does show how a rotten few can intimidate a complacent majority on any issue. As we let some politicians play "the terror card" to suspend out liberties in the 21st Century, or the pseudo-"religious" and "guilt by association cards" to deny the right to marriage to significant parts of the population at a time when stable relationships are in society's best interest, it is perhaps a lesson worth remembering. The sad thing is that for the most part, the only people who will bother to watch this flawed but decent film are for the most part the ones who already know.

Griffin's book, which I highly recommend reading, is not well reflected in this movie. The book is an important one- the movie failed to portray the events deeply and meaningfully. While the book draws one into the experience and emotion of one living as an Arfican-American in the South during this time, the film leaves one feeling little more than a disconnected witness of a poor narration.

Poorly directed, poorly cast, abysmally lit and acted, often to the extent that Griffin's message is lost in the morass. At times the director has taken such creative license as to change Griffin's character, adding nothing, distracting from the premise and in so doing disconnects the viewer from the protagonists world.This movie screams to be remade as the important bridge in cultural understanding that the book remains.

This movie mostly follows the book closely, but Whitmore's performance gives it an altogether different tone. Instead of portraying Griffin's experience realistically, he's just angry throughout the film. As Griffin himself noted, that kind of behavior would never have been tolerated by the Southerners. Yet Whitmore blusters along, talking back and actually threatening at times. I found that this really detracted from the message of the book, and the film fails to convey the despondence that overcame Griffin after the full realization of his experiment. Whitmore also makes Griffin look naive, uneducated, and speaks in a grating northern accent. In conclusion, the film is okay, and relatively true to the book, if you ignore Whitmore's out-of-place angry delivery.

John Howard Griffin was a white reporter who darken his skin to experience life as a black man in the deep South. This is based on his book. John Finley Horton (James Whitmore) from Texas wants to write a series of articles on integration for Eli Carr (Clifton James) but he's afraid of the repercussions. He gets treatments of pills and tanning lamps to darken his skin. Along the way, he reveals the truth to shoeshine Burt Wilson (Richard Ward) and gets his help to pass.

"I changed the color of my skin... now I know what it feels like to be BLACK!" They couldn't get away with that tagline today. No matter how well the disguise, the color doesn't come off of a black man at the end of the day. Its heart is in the right place, but James Whitmore looks like a darkened white man. The eyes are one problem and he needs a good pair of sunglasses. The other problem is that it isn't always a compelling movie. There are scenes of eye opening racism. There are also weird little scenes about race relations. It's put together like a series of disconnected vignettes. As a movie, it doesn't really flow and the acting sometimes fall into melodrama territories. It's still interesting to watch.