Selma & The Civil Rights Movement From The Sixties

An awe-inspiring film that has a brilliant star cast and plenty of African-American history, in it.

The Academy Award winning bucket list this year did not contain the epic movie, “Selma” – for the most part, it was one of the biggest snubs in the history of fine cinema. The film is about the civil rights movement during the sixties and the hardships endured by black people in America. Selma is not about a politically correct film – it is about a film that showcases how far America as a nation has gone for the subject of civil rights.

African-Americans have had to “tolerate” injustices inflicted upon by the most disgusting and distorted ills of society, have had prejudices heaped upon them, that only progressed as leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr., moved forward. They have made sacrifices, and although these leaders come with their own set of ‘difficulties’, there is no denying that they were all inspirational figures, with a hugely emotional and tragic fate.

The budget of the film has been low so the film fails to excite with the march in places, like it is supposed to. David Oyelowo is remarkable in the film – the movie is not a biography of Martin Luther King Jr., it is more about his role in the civil rights movement and the movement itself. You learn more about Martin Luther King Jr. from the point of his infamous “I have a dream” speech but you do not get to witness the horrific assassination attempt in Memphis in 1968, that eventually resulted in King’s death.

King was a man with that rare oratory skills that could command crowds but he was also an easily breakable, fragile human being. His role in the civil rights movement – charted to end discrimination and remove racial segregation from American society, has been interesting to learn of cinematically. The initiative was politically and financially led by labour unions and also because of contributions from politicians, such as Lyndon B. Johnson.

Embed from Getty Images

Addressing The Pay Gap In Hollywood

In Hollywood, there is a lot of difference inbetween what an actor earns and what an actress settles for. Often what you will notice that this industry isn’t like other industries: you have to worry about your carbohydrates, you have to worry about what you wear to parties, where you will be photographed in the latest fashions, you have to badger a lot. It is hard enough of an experience to go through for women – badgering, let alone want to include it in the fold of their profession.

Embed from Getty Images

An actress is a glamorous role – you appear on television or in films, and walk a mile in some other woman’s shoes. It’s rewarding to wake up from bed and imagine you will play a role that is so different from you. But not everyone has this perspective because an “actress” is a sympathy-absorber for many. It absorbs it and leaves it high-and-dry. In the 21st Century, an actor and an actress should not have to battle over their paycheck differences. A man should not be paid more money to do similar roles than a woman: the best friend of the protagonist.

But that is what it is often like. There are always causes for concern, when such roles get less preferential treatment than that of men, despite their rarity, so top it all off with “the money equation” means that this is now spurning into an inequality debate. Many male stars start at the same time as female stars but jump over them in the career ladder, and get a higher salary. A lot of actresses are not happy with this attitude because they hoped that in time, their paycheck would not see a downsize, simply because of their gender. I agree with them on this, because the downsize should only come based on talent and a particular role, not because of a person’s sex.

Embed from Getty Images

Only 12percent of the roles that come in annually in Hollywood are for the “top actresses” so any kind of inequality breeding means that women are left in a tight spot, when it comes to demanding a higher salary. This is because when life gives you slim pickings, others can often see it: studios can opt to drop them like a hot potato and easily pass off the role to another actress that is satisfied with that income bracket. Actresses like Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence still earn much less than their male counterparts, but Charlize Theron recently took a stand when signing on to do The Huntsman, and after worded negotiations demanded a bigger paycheck than her male costars.

The tide rarely ever turns in the opposite direction, so finding an exemplary attitude there is hard but gossip down the grapevine reveals that Sandra Bullock actually manages to pull off earning much more than her male counterparts, of the likes of George Clooney. On some days it seems that actors are so lost in their world, they do not have to deal with problems like the rest of us – no worries over food, term paper printing, rent and books, and how to afford it.

Sparsely, is an incorrect attitude to have when you are working so, advising actresses to work sparsely until what you deem as the “next best opportunity” or “your big financial break that will determine your future paychecks” is not the right way to go – paying women to do a job that appreciates their talent and level of contribution, much like a man, in Hollywood is the better, sweeter, prettier door to choose.