Mr. & Mrs. Loving (1996, 2005)

Mr. & Mrs. Loving is a romantic film that is based on a true story. Here are some basic facts about it:

** Written and produced by Richard Friedenberg

** Shown on US television: 1996

** Released on DVD: 2005

** Run time: 100 minutes

This is the story of a white man and a coloured woman – Richard and Mildred Loving – who were not allowed to live as husband and wife in Virginia, because the laws of the state made interracial marriage a crime.

Richard Loving is played by Timothy Hutton, while his wife Mildred Jeter Loving is played by Lela Rochon. In additional roles we see Ruby Dee as Sophia and Corey Parker as Bernard Cohen.

[Please note: there may be some spoilers ahead, because I have to explain what is true and false, what is right and wrong in this film, but all facts mentioned in this review are part of the public record, and therefore they can hardly be described as spoilers.]

As stated above, this film is based on a true story, and much of what we see and hear is true, but this does not mean that everything in it is historically correct. There are several cases where historical truth has been violated.

PART ONE
Let me begin by pointing out what is true in the film:

Richard and Mildred grew up in Virginia. Richard was fond of drag racing. When they young couple realised they could not get married in Virginia, they travelled to Washington, DC, where interracial marriage was legal. Once they were married, they returned to their home state, thinking this would be in order. They were wrong.

Shortly after their return, they were arrested by the police in the middle of the night and put in prison. When they were brought before a judge, he sentenced them to one year in prison. However, the sentence was suspended for 25 years, if they agreed to leave the state at once and never return together again. The judge explained his ruling with the following words:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

They left the state and moved to Washington, DC, where they tried to settle in, but they were not really happy there. In 1963, Mildred wrote a letter to Robert “Bobby” Kennedy, the Attorney general, asking for his help. A few months later they were contacted by Bernard Cohen, a lawyer from ACLU, who wanted to help them.

[Corey Parker, who plays Bernard Cohen, is well-chosen for this role: he looks exactly like the real Bernard Cohen.]

The lawyer took their case all the way to the US Supreme Court. Richard and Mildred were invited to attend the hearing in the court, but they declined. They did not want any publicity. However, Richard had a message for the court:

“Mr. Cohen, tell the court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can’t live with her in Virginia.”

In June 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in their favour. They won. After years of exile in Washington, DC, they were finally allowed to go home without having to worry about the police.

PART TWO
Now I will explain what is wrong with the film:

# 1. An on-screen message at the beginning of the film explains that this story begins in Virginia in 1960. While the location is correct, they year is not. Richard and Mildred did not start dating in 1960; they started dating in 1950, when she was 11 and he was 17. They were married in 1958, when she was 19 and he was 25. In 1960, Richard and Mildred had already been married for two years. Why do the producers of the film start out with a wrong chronology?

# 2. Timothy Hutton does not look or act like Richard Loving. The hair is completely wrong. Richard Loving had short hair, he had a crew cut, while Timothy Hutton has long hair. There is also something wrong with his manner: Timothy Hutton is able to express himself quite well, but Richard Loving was not an articulate person. In short: Timothy Hutton is not well-chosen for this role and the character that he gives us is not true to life.

This picture of Mildred and Richard Loving was taken in 1967.

# 3. In the film, there is only one lawyer, Bernard Cohen. When he knocks on their door, Richard and Mildred are surprised. They are not expecting him. In the real world, the situation was somewhat different.

Bobby Kennedy replied to Mildred’s letter. He said he could not help them, but he understood their problem and referred them to ACLU. Mildred contacted this organisation, which found two lawyers who were ready to take their case: Bernard Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop.

In the film we only see the former, while the latter has been deleted from history. Perhaps the producers wanted to keep things simple, but why reduce two lawyers to one? Having two lawyers would not make the film too complicated to follow and it would have the advantage that it was the truth.

# 4. The structure of the film is unfortunate. More than two-thirds of the film are used to cover events from their marriage and arrest (wrongly placed in 1960) to the moment when Mildred sends her letter to Bobby Kennedy in 1963.

When Bernard Cohen knocks on their door, we are already 79 minutes into the film. There are less than 20 minutes left. The long and complicated court case is compressed to a few short scenes, even though this was the key to solving their problem.

If you ask me, the producers should have devoted more time to the court case from 1964 to 1967 and less time to events from 1958 to 1963.

# 5. An on-screen message at the end of the film states:

“On June 12, 1967 – eight years after the Lovings were arrested – the Supreme Court finally voted 9-0 to strike down Virginia’s laws as well as statutes in 17 other states that still forbade interracial marriages.”

While the date of the ruling (12 June 1967) is correct, there is a problem with the chronology. Since the Lovings were married and arrested in 1958, the ruling came nine years after the arrest, not eight years.

As you can see, the internal chronology of the film is also wrong: according to the on-screen message placed at the beginning of the film, they were married and arrested in 1960. If this were true, the ruling came seven years after their arrest. It seems the producers are totally confused with regard to the chronology of this case.

At the time of the ruling, interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states including Virginia. The statement about “17 other states” is wrong. The correct figure is 15 other states.

PART THREE
The film ends with the Supreme Court ruling in 1967. There is no information about what happened to Richard and Mildred after that.

Richard died in 1975. He was killed in a tragic accident when a drunk driver hit his car. Mildred lived the rest of her life in Virginia, close to her family and friends, in the house that Richard had built for them. She never re-married. When she died in May 2008, she was 68 years old.

During her final years she did not give many interviews, but she made an exception in 2007. It was the forty-year-anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling. Reporters asked her to look back at her life. When one reporter mentioned the film from 1996, she said:

“Not much of it was very true. The only part of it right was that I had three children.”

CONCLUSION
I guess there are two ways to look at this film. One way is to say it is a romantic drama. If you take this approach, you will probably think it is a good film, because there is romance, drama, and a happy ending. In addition, the actors play their roles quite well.

Another way is to say it is based on a true story. If you take this approach, you will probably be more critical of the film, because there are several cases where historical truth has been violated. In addition, Timothy Hutton does not look or act like Richard Loving.

I cannot take the former approach. I have to take the latter approach. I think the producers should have followed the truth as much as possible. Historical accuracy should have been a high priority for them. Unfortunately, it was not. The producers changed the story in several ways without any obvious reason, and the final result was not a better film.

What does this mean for an evaluation? I think it is too harsh to focus only on the flaws and give it one or two stars. On the other hand, I think it is too generous to ignore the flaws and give it four or five stars. For this reason I think I have to give it a rating of three stars.

** Richard Loving, 1933-1975 **

** Mildred Loving, 1939-2008 **

PS # 1. There is a book about the case: Virginia hasn’t always been for Lovers by Phyl Newbeck (2004, 2008)

PS # 2. The following book is for young readers: The Case for Loving with text by Selina Alko and illustrations by Sean Qualls (2015)

PS # 3. The Loving Story is the title of a documentary film that was completed in 2011 and aired on US television (Showtime) in 2012. Directed by Nancy Buirski, it runs for 77 minutes.

PS # 4. The following articles are available online:

** Dionne Walker (AP), “Pioneer of interracial marriage looks back,” USA Today, 10 June 2007

** Douglas Martin, “Mildred Loving, who battled ban on mixed-race marriage, dies at 68,” New York Times, 6 May 2008

** Kate Sheppard, “The Loving Story,” Mother Jones, 13 February 2012

** Lily Rothman, “Richard and Mildred Loving: Reluctant Civil Rights Heroes,” Time Magazine, 13 February 2012

***

Mr. & Mrs. Loving,

Written and produced by Richard Friedenberg,

Shown on US television 1996; released on DVD 2005,

Run time: 100 minutes

 

***