Love & Marriage: The Loving Story (Review)

richard mildred loving
In light of the recent news about President Obama and Vice-President Biden stating their support for gay marriage, the recent HBO documentary The Loving Story (2011) about a marriage law in the 1950s takes on an added significance.

In 1958, Richard Loving, who was white, and Mildred Jeter, who was black, traveled from their home in Virginia to Washington, D.C. to get married. After their wedding, they returned home to Virginia where after five weeks police roused them from their bed in their home at 2 a.m. and arrested them for violating a law that banned interracial marriages. At the time, twenty-four states had laws banning interracial marriages. In January 1969, a judge accepted their guilty plea for the crime and sentenced them to one year in jail but suspended the sentence if the two left Virginia for 25 years. The Lovings, who wanted to go home, challenged the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in Loving v. Virginia.

Although a unanimous Supreme Court eventually ruled for the Lovings in 1967 by finding that the Virginia law violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Lovings spent roughly nine years as criminals between the time they were arrested and the time they won the case in the Supreme Court. The documentary tells their story during this time.

One of the great things about the documentary is the amount of video footage that was taken of the Lovings and others at the time the events were happening. Among the many images, the film includes never-before-seen footage taken by filmmaker Hope Ryden while the case was pending before the Supreme Court. It is interesting to see the couple meeting with lawyers and hear Mildred Loving explain why they decided not to attend the Supreme Court argument. The documentary is a fascinating portrait about another time period that was not that long ago, and it brings to life the two human beings at the center of one of the great Civil Rights cases of the 1960s.

Nancy Buirski, who made the film, first had the idea to make the documentary after reading Mildred Loving’s obituary in the New York Times in May 2008. In the February 2012 ABA Journal, she explained, “Not only was this an overlooked story but also. . . you read about them . . but you don’t know very much about the people involved.”

Singer-songwriter Nanci Griffith had a similar reaction when she read Mildred Loving’s obituary in the newspaper. Her response was to sit down and write a song, “The Loving Kind,” which became the title track of an album she released in 2009.

They changed the heart of a nation,
With their wedding vows;
From the highest court in the land,
Their union would lawfully stand;
Simply Mildred and Richard,
That’s how they’d be remembered;
They proved that love is truly blind;
They were the loving kind
.

Richard and Mildred Loving stayed together until Richard was killed in a car crash in 1975. They had three children and they will forever be linked together. On the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Viginia decision in 2007, Mildred released a statement saying that all people, including gay men and lesbians, should be allowed to marry because, “That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.” Decades earlier, Richard summed up the Loving case too. When lawyers explained the various legal theories to the Lovings, Richard simplified the point, “[T]ell the court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can’t live with her in Virginia.”

Conclusion? Check out the film, which is on DVD and on HBO and online for subscribers. While the movie goes at a leisurely pace to let the story unfold in the participants’ own words and you know how the story comes out, it is still an interesting time capsule that reveals the human side of two regular people who quietly stood up to an injustice.

Buy from Amazon

  • Nanci Griffith’s Superstars on Letterman: “Desperados Waiting for a Train”
  • Although the Oscars Passed Over “Little Richard: I Am Everything,” You Shouldn’t
  • Trailer for Roger Ebert Documentary “Life Itself”
  • Watch “The Education of Gore Vidal”
  • Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (short review)
  • Missed Movies: Project Nim (short review)
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    Long Live Max: RIP Maurice Sendak

    Where the Wild Things Are German Chidren’s author Maurice Sendak passed away this morning at the age of 83. Sendak wrote more than a dozen books and illustrated more than one hundred, but he is most remembered for his book, Where the Wild Things Are (1963), which is published in many languages around the world.

    Like many others, I discovered the book as a kid and fell in love with it instantly. I remember it as one of the first books I picked out myself when I was attracted to the fascinating illustration on the cover. I liked that the “monsters” were both scary and cuddly at the same time. I eventually figured out that there was something unusual in the 10-sentence story too. In its simplicity and sparse use of words, it raised questions for me that I could not articulate and left me with some questions I still do not know the answer to today. At the time, I remember asking my mom, “Why was his food still hot?” and receiving an unsatisfying answer. The book somehow captures a complex aspect of childhood that adults cannot quite interpret. So I won’t do that here (although Sendak once described how he had to fight with his publisher to keep the word “hot” because his publisher wanted to change it to “warm”).

    Spike Jonze understood the complexity of the book when he made his 2009 film version of Where the Wild Things Are, which on Rotten Tomatoes has a 73% rating from critics and a disappointing 59% rating from audience members. Some noted that the movie was more for adults than children, and the movie did a good job of taking a book that takes a few minutes to read and turning it into a feature length film. It is not the same as the book, but for those who grew up with the book, it made a good effort at recapturing that initial bewilderment from encountering the book as a child. As Nick Deigman explains on Fan the Fire, the movie is “a beautiful and languid testament to the importance of remembering how powerful our childhoods really were.”

    That complexity in the film came directly from Sendak’s work. Today, the Washington Post explains that Sendak “transformed children’s literature from a gentle playscape into a medium to address the psychological intensity of growing up.” The dark tones of reality appeared in Sendak’s children’s books because he saw that side of life as a sickly and home-bound child who had relatives die in the Holocaust. He grew up in Brooklyn where his family kept him indoors much of the time because he suffered from bouts of measles, pneumonia and scarlet fever. He became fascinated with things like the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, which he later used as an inspiration for his book Outside Over There. Sendak based the Where the Wild Things monsters on his immigrant relatives who would visit when he was a child. They spoke a different language while engaging the children affectionately in ways that were terrifying to the children.

    In an interview with Bill Moyers, Maurice Sendak explained that he originally conceived of Where the Wild Things as “Where the Wild Horses Are” until he discovered he could not draw horses. When asked why he wrote children’s books, he responds, “I don’t know.” I don’t either, but I’m glad he did. I am also glad he could not draw horses. In this interview from Tell Them Anything You Want: A Portrait of Maurice Sendak, a documentary by Spike Jonze and Lance Bangs, Sendak talks about death and looks back on his work. RIP.

  • Joe Ely’s “She Never Spoke Spanish to Me” (Song of the Day)
  • Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)
  • Ned Miller: The Shy Man Behind “From a Jack to a King”
  • Merle Haggard: “Kern River”
  • Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog
  • B.B. King: “Why I Sing the Blues”
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    A View from the Rear Window

    rear window Filmmaker Jeff Desom recut the scenes from Alfred Hitchock’s Rear Window (1954) viewed out the apartment window into one video. In the original movie, L.B. “Jeff” Jefferies, played by James Stewart, is confined in a wheelchair with a broken leg and spends his time watching his neighbors through the window of his Greenwich Village apartment. Eventually, he begins to suspect that one of his neighbors murdered his wife. Jeff then convinces his girlfriend, played by Grace Kelly, to help him investigate. Did he see what he thinks he saw, or is he imagining things?

    Desom’s complete 20-minute recut of the window scenes from Rear Window, entitled Rear Window Loop, is not online. But a making-of video called Rear Window Timelapse contains three minutes of what Jimmy Stewart saw outside his window in the film. Check it out.

    Desom tells a little more about the process of creating the film in a recent interview. He completed the project by himself in six weeks for a Luxembourg club to show on a screen above the bar. Hopefully nobody gets so drunk they think they witnessed an actual murder.

    What do you think of the Rear Window recut? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • Christmas Don’t Be Late
  • The Circus Town’s Been Born
  • Gary Cooper’s Three Oscars
  • How Alfred Hitchcock made “Rope” With Only 10 Cuts
  • Charles Lindbergh: The Spirit of St. Louis
  • The Eyes of Alfred Hitchcock
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    Missed Movies: Project Nim (short review)

    project nim nim chomsky documentary

    Project Nim (2011) is a fascinating documentary that follows the life of Nim, a chimpanzee who was part of an experiment in teaching chimps to communicate. Nim Chimpsky, named with a humorous nod to linguist Noam Chomsky, became famous for his ability to use sign language as part of a study by Herbert Terrace, a Columbia University behavioral psychologist. The documentary shows the ups and downs of Nim’s life where he is repeatedly removed from his environment in the name of science. The film asks questions about the role of communication and our human relationships to animals.

    Although the movie shows Nim repeatedly abandoned, it also features several people who cared very much about the chimp. Ultimately, it’s the human stories in the film that make the movie compelling. While Nim’s behavior is interesting to the scientists because it tells us about chimps, the behavior of the people in Nim’s life is what makes the film interesting. Because it tells us more about us.



    Bonus Review (Because why should you trust me?)
    : Ethicist Peter Singer wrote an interesting essay about the film, the science about animals’ use of language, and the ethics of scientific experiments on primates in the New York Times Review of Books.

    What did you think of Project Nim? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • Stephen King’s “The Life of Chuck”: A Few Thoughts for Those Who Haven’t Seen the Film . . . and a Few for Those Who Have
  • Nicolas Cage Shines In Modest But Surprising “Pig” (Short Review)
  • Tommy Lee Jones and “The Homesman” (Missed Movies)
  • Missed Movies Roundup: Contrasting East vs. West Edition
  • Dear Zachary (Missed Movies)
  • The Tillman Story (Mad Movies)
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    Jimmy Kimmel’s “Movie: The Movie”

    movie the movie

    As the summer movie blockbuster season approaches, it is a good time to look at the trailer for the movie that incorporates the biggest actors and the biggest scenes. The Movie: The Movie trailer debuted on Jimmy Kimmel Live and features stars such as Tom Hanks, Charlize Theron, Martin Scorsese, George Clooney, Gabourey Sidibe (“Once you go black Hitler you never go back Hitler”), Chewbacca, and many more too numerous to mention.

    If you want more, there is also The Making of “Movie: The Movie.”

    Now go buy some Hank’s Franks.

  • Jimmy Kimmel’s All-Star Trailer for “Movie: The Movie 2V”
  • Jonah Hill “Doesn’t” Let Oscar Nom Go to His Head (SNL video)
  • Did Elvis Perform “If I Can Dream” Facing a Christmas Stage As In Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis” Move?
  • Dylan’s Inspiration: “Drifting Too Far From the Shore”
  • What Tarantino’s “Star Trek” Might Look Like
  • The Unsatisfying Ending of Scorsese’s “Silence” That Is Still Perfect
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)