The main goal of this movie is to inform about the background and internal Supreme Court argumentation in the "Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas" case. It is a dramatized interpretation and, given that, I was left wondering just what was fact and what was speculation. Given the importance of the case, I assume that the major courtroom arguments were taken from court transcripts, but clearly there is a fair amount of speculation. For example, who really knows what conversations went on among the Supreme Court justices in their arriving at a unanimous decision? Be that as it may, I found that part of the movie most interesting, particularly at this time when Obergefell v. Hodges (the case for gay marriage) is before the Supreme Court, with a decision to come this month. The Obergefell case has many similarities to the Brown case in that it devolves into a morally right vs. strict interpretation of the law case. There clearly isn't anything in the U.S. Constitution specifically addressing the gay marriage issue (I doubt that homosexuality was even ever discussed when the U.S. Constitution was written). Also, the social repercussions would be major if Obergefell were decided in favor of the plaintiffs. If he were so inclined, I doubt that Chief Justice Roberts would ever get a unanimous decision out of the current court--Justice Scalia would never vote in favor of it, as Justice Reed (of a similar mindset to Scalia) was finally persuaded to in the Brown case.
Back to the movie. The first part of the movie details how horribly blacks were treated at the time (early 1950s). Reverend Delaine, a minister and school teacher in Clarendon County, South Carolina, asks his Superintendent of Schools for bus service for his students so that they don't have to walk miles to school. Several times we are shown school buses transporting white kids that buzz right past a black kid walking to school. Delaine's request is denied with the promise that things will get better. Delaine gets some of the parents to file a lawsuit and Thurgood Marshall (Sidney Poitier), an NAACP attorney at the time, takes the case on. The movie speculates about arguments among the NAACP staff as to the wisdom of taking the case on, again some very similar considerations are considered as would apply in the Obergefell case: is the case strong enough, is it too soon to try such a case, etc. Also, as in Obergefell, the Brown case was the merging of several cases and this is how the Kansas label came to be on the case, instead of South Carolina. Of course Delaine was a persona non grata among most of the locals for his daring to bring the case; ultimately his house was burned to the ground.
Sidney Poitier was an obvious choice to Play Marshall, but I found that he overacted. His pregnant pauses, serious looks, and verbal modulations would be more appropriate for a Shakespearean play. Maybe Poitier was overcome with the seriousness of the event. As John Davis, a lawyer called by the defense to represent the state, Burt Lancaster gives a believable and relaxed performance. The movie gives a good presentation of both sides of the argument.
I have seen Brown vs. Board of Education referenced several times but my knowledge stopped at just knowing that it overturned the sanctioned "separate but equal" doctrine dating to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896. It was good to get some idea of the background of the Brown case and some insight into how the Supreme Court operates. I wish the DVD had had documentary extras.
Back to the movie. The first part of the movie details how horribly blacks were treated at the time (early 1950s). Reverend Delaine, a minister and school teacher in Clarendon County, South Carolina, asks his Superintendent of Schools for bus service for his students so that they don't have to walk miles to school. Several times we are shown school buses transporting white kids that buzz right past a black kid walking to school. Delaine's request is denied with the promise that things will get better. Delaine gets some of the parents to file a lawsuit and Thurgood Marshall (Sidney Poitier), an NAACP attorney at the time, takes the case on. The movie speculates about arguments among the NAACP staff as to the wisdom of taking the case on, again some very similar considerations are considered as would apply in the Obergefell case: is the case strong enough, is it too soon to try such a case, etc. Also, as in Obergefell, the Brown case was the merging of several cases and this is how the Kansas label came to be on the case, instead of South Carolina. Of course Delaine was a persona non grata among most of the locals for his daring to bring the case; ultimately his house was burned to the ground.
Sidney Poitier was an obvious choice to Play Marshall, but I found that he overacted. His pregnant pauses, serious looks, and verbal modulations would be more appropriate for a Shakespearean play. Maybe Poitier was overcome with the seriousness of the event. As John Davis, a lawyer called by the defense to represent the state, Burt Lancaster gives a believable and relaxed performance. The movie gives a good presentation of both sides of the argument.
I have seen Brown vs. Board of Education referenced several times but my knowledge stopped at just knowing that it overturned the sanctioned "separate but equal" doctrine dating to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896. It was good to get some idea of the background of the Brown case and some insight into how the Supreme Court operates. I wish the DVD had had documentary extras.