The Rise and Fall of Roger Ailes

 

*****

 

In this post I will present and compare three items which cover the rise and fall of Roger Ailes (1940-2017); the American media consultant who founded Fox News and who was in charge of the network for many years.

 

Item # 1

Divide and Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes (2018)

 

Item # 2

The Loudest Voice (2019)

 

Item # 3

Bombshell (2019)

 

 

 

Item # 1

Divide and Conquer: The story of Roger Ailes is a documentary film which premiered in 2018.

** Director: Alexis Bloom

** Executive producer: Alex Gibney and others

** Run time: 103 minutes

 

Here are some ratings:

70 percent = IMDb

71 percent = Meta

76 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

90 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

 

 

Item # 2

The Loudest Voice is a docudrama which premiered on US television (Showtime) in 2019

** Directors: Kari Skogland, Jeremy Podeswa, Scott Z. Burns and Stephen Frears

** Based on the book The Loudest Voice in the Room by Gabriel Sherman (2014)

** This docudrama is a miniseries in seven parts

 

Here are some ratings:

55 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics) 

(there is no audience score)

79 percent = IMDb

 

 

 

Item # 3

Bombshell is a docudrama which premiered in 2019.

** Director: Jay Roach

** Writer: Charles Randolph

** Run time: 108 minutes

 

Here are some ratings:

64 percent = Meta

68 percent = IMDb

69 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

84 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

 

As you can see, item # 3 has the lowest ratings. Many reviewers are so fascinated by the title of this item that they have to make a pun about it based on the word “bombshell.”

 

Here are some examples:

 

“BOMBSHELL Bombs at the Box Office,” FTV Live, 23 December 2019

 

“BOMBSHELL Bombing at Box Office Isn’t Exactly a Shock,” The Hill, 31 December 2019

 

“Me-Too Film BOMBSHELL Bombs at Box office,” Washington Examiner, 2 January 2020

 

“BOMBSHELL is Bombing,” Daily Wire, 4 January 2020

 

“BOMBSHELL Bombs with too much Hollywood, too little Real Life,” Independent Blog, 13 January 2020

 

“BOMBSHELL Bombs,” The Lawrentian, 17 January 2020

 

“Oscars 2020: Why BOMBSHELL never blew up,” Now Magazine, 5 February 2020

 

“BOMBSHELL (and similar movies) Bombed,” Cracked, 28 February 2020

 

When we look at items # 2 and 3, we can see that the professional critics are not so happy with them. They tend to go low, while the general audience tends to go high.

 

When we look at item # 1, we get the opposite response: now the critics want to go up, while the audience wants to go down. In this case, I have to side with the critics.

 

Here is my ranking of the three items:

 

5 stars = item # 1 = Divide and Conquer

4 stars = item # 2 = The Loudest Voice

3 stars = item # 3 = Bombshell

 

*****

 

 

Roger Ailes (1940-2017)

(a picture from 2013)

*****

Driving While Black (PBS) (2020)

 

 

 

 

Driving While Black: Race, Space and Mobility in America is a documentary film which premiered on US television (PBS) in October 2020.

 

Driving While Black is a relatively new concept which was coined in the 1990s, but the essence of the concept can be traced further back; all the way to the early decades of the 20th century when ordinary people in the US were able to buy a car. White people from the 1920s and black people from the 1930s.

 

In this film, this concept is placed in a political, economic, cultural and social context.

 

The subtitle - Race, Space and Mobility in America - is significant. In this film, the three keywords - Race, Space and Mobility - are placed in a historical context, going all the way back to the founding of the United States in 1776.

 

Here is some basic information about this film:

 

** Directors: Gretchen Sorin and Ric Burns

** Executive producer: Margaret Munzer Loeb

** Original music composed by Brian Keane

** Run time: 115 minutes

 

Many persons are interviewed in the film. Most of them belong to one of the following three categories:

 

(1) Experts who study and write about the topic.

(2) People who are or were active in the hospitality business.

(3) Travellers who visit and use restaurants and hotels.

 

I am going to mention all names, even though the list is quite long. Here are the names, in alphabetical order:

 

** Vernell Allen – a hairdresser

** Eric Avila – historian – author of The Folklore of the Freeway: Race and Revolt in the Modernist City (2014)

** Tamara Banks – a journalist

 

** Herb Boyd – historian – author of Black Detroit: A People’s History of Self-Determination (2017)

** Leah Chase – owner of Dooky Chase’s Restaurant

** Spencer Crew – interim director of the National Museum of African-American History & Culture

 

** Valerie Cunningham – preservationist – founder of “The Black Heritage Trail”

** Walter Edwards – chairman of the Harlem Business Alliance

** Lolis Elie – a writer and a filmmaker

 

** Carolyn Finney – cultural geographer – author of Black Faces, White Spaces (2014)

** Kathleen Franz – historian, Smithsonian Museum of American History

** Howard Glener – a real estate salesperson

 

** Alvin Hall – creator and host of the podcast “Driving the Green Book”

** Allison Hobbs – historian, Stanford University

** Gary Jackson – a Denver County Court Judge

 

** Ken Jackson – owner of the Dew Drop Inn

** Kenneth Jackson – historian, Columbia University

** Nancelia Jackson – a Lincoln Hills Resident

 

** Allison Rose Jefferson – historian – author of Living the California Dream: African-American Leisure Sites during the Jim Crow Era (2020)

** Ellis Marsalis – a musician

** Yvette Marsalis – daughter of Ellis Marsalis

 

** Stella Chase Reese – manager of Dooky Chase’s Restaurant

** Jennifer Reut – historian – founder of “Mapping the Green Book”

** Fath Ruffins – historian, Smithsonian Museum of American

History

 

** Gretchen Sorin – historian – co-director of this film - author of Driving While Black: African-American Travel and the Road to Civil Rights (2020)

** Mae Stiger – a Five Points business owner

** Thomas Sugrue – historian, New York University

 

** Candacy Taylor – cultural documentarian – author of Overground Railroad: The Green Book and the Roots of Black Travel in America (2020)

** Christopher West – historian, Pasadena City College

** Craig Steven Wilder – historian

 

Archive footage (clips and photos) is used between the talking heads. Archive footage is used to illustrate the statements given in the interviews.

 

In the US, a white man (or a white woman) can buy a car. A white family who have a car, can go everywhere they want in the US.

 

When they need gas, they can stop at a gas station. They will get service. No problem. They can use the restroom (the bathroom, the toilet). When they are hungry, they can stop at a restaurant. They will get service. No problem. At the end of the day, they can stop at a hotel. They can check in. They will get a room. No problem. It has been this way for one hundred years.

 

In the US, a black man (or a black woman) can buy a car. A black family who have a car can go (almost) everywhere they want in the US.

 

When they need gas, they can stop at a gas station, but maybe they will have a problem. Maybe there is no service! Can they use the restroom? Maybe not! When they are hungry, they can stop at a restaurant, but maybe they will have a problem. Maybe there is no service! At the end of the day, they can stop at a hotel. Can they check in? Maybe not! Maybe no room! It was this way for decades.

 

Several guidebooks were published to help and assist black families who were on the road, hoping to enjoy the freedom that comes with having a car. The freedom which was always given to a white man but not always given to a black man.

 

The Negro Motorist Green Book (colloquially known as the Green Book) was the most famous of them all. It was produced annually for 30 years, from 1936 to 1966.

 

The book is named after the founder and editor Victor Hugo Green (1892-1960), a postal worker who lived in Harlem, New York City.

 

Green realized that black travellers faced a number of serious problems when they wanted to travel in the US. Therefore, he decided to list establishments where people of colour were welcome; where they would be served and not be chased away with angry words.

 

His book was vital for black travellers. Without the information found in this book, they might not have survived the trip!

 

Obviously, the Green Book is mentioned and praised many times by the people who are interviewed in this film. But this film is not only about the Green Book and its significance. It is much more than that. In fact, the book is not even mentioned during the first 30 or 40 minutes when the historical background of the topic is being presented. But once it has been introduced, the book features heavily in the remaining part of the film.

 

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) is illegal. It is a violation of the law. A driver who is guilty of DUI must be stopped and must be punished, because he is a danger to himself and to others. This is fair and just.

 

Driving While Black is a pun, based on the real term DUI. Driving While Black is not illegal. It is not a violation of the law. But according to many white police officers in the US, it is a violation of an unwritten law.

 

The unwritten law says a white man may buy a car and enjoy the freedom of having a car. A black man may also buy a car, but he is not allowed to enjoy the same freedom as the white man. The black man must be stopped. He must be put in his place. To do this we can use a traffic stop.

 

We need probable cause to stop him. Maybe he has a broken tail light; maybe he failed to signal when changing lanes. Once he is stopped, the show can begin. The black man must be humiliated and intimidated.

 

We will search his car. Maybe we will find something illegal. If not, we may plant an illegal item in his car and when we discover this, we will use it against him. If the situation escalates, he may be beaten up or even killed.

 

This is the reality of Driving While Black in America.

 

What do reviewers say about this film? 

 

On IMDb it has a rating of 49 percent, which corresponds to 2 and a half stars on Amazon.

 

I cannot understand why the rating is so low. It is far too low. This film covers a serious problem in American history and American society and the issue is covered in great detail.

 

If you ask me, this film deserves a much better rating. To support my case, I will mention two reviewers who understand this point:

 

** S. James Wegg, “Angry, tired and numb,” JWR Articles, 15 October 2020. This review offers four and a half stars, which corresponds to a rating of 92 percent.

 

** Tambay Obenson, “Driving While Black Review: Skip Green Book and Watch This Instead,” IndieWire, 13 October 2020. The title of the review says it all.

 

If this film must be criticized, I would say that the number of people who are interviewed is too high. 

 

The filmmakers could have conveyed their message just as well - or perhaps even better - if they had reduced the number of people interviewed to 20 or 15.

 

Watching 30 people being interviewed in short clips is a bit overwhelming. 

 

It is not necessary to show as many witnesses as possible. A lower number can do the job just as well – and sometimes even better - because it is easier to remember who is who.

 

Be that as it may, I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars (100 percent).

 

If you are interested in the conditions of the modern world – in particular the question of human rights – this film is definitely something for you.

 

PS # 1. Ric Burns (born 1955) is the younger brother of the famous filmmaker Ken Burns (born 1953).

 

PS # 2. The following book is highly relevant for the topic: Traveling Black: A Story of Race and Resistance by Mia Bay (2021)

 

PS # 3. Green Book is a historical drama which premiered in 2018. It is about a road trip to the south of the US in the 1960s. While the drama is named after the Green Book, the book itself is almost never mentioned and its significance for black travellers is not really explained.

 

For details about the controversy connected with this drama, see the following item: 

 

Elena Nicolaou, “The Backlash to Green Book, Explained,” Refinery29, 25 February 2019.

 

*****

 

 

 

The cover of the book on which the film is based:

Driving While Black

by Gretchen Sorin (2020)

 

*****

The Vote (PBS) (2020)

 

 

 

The Vote is a documentary film in two parts which premiered on US television (PBS) in July 2020. We are talking about two feature-length episodes of the long-running program American Experience (season 32, episodes 9 & 10).

 

The topic is the campaign for women’s right to vote (and to run for public office) in the US; a campaign which lasted for more than seven decades: from 1848 to 1920.

 

Here is some basic information about this film:

 

** Writer and director: Michelle Ferrari

** Narrator: Kate Burton

** Run time: 2 x 112 minutes = 224 minutes

 

Several experts are interviewed in the film. Here are the names (listed in alphabetical order):

 

** Jad Adams - writer

** Beth Behn - historian

** Tina Cassidy - writer

** Marcia Chatelain – historian, Georgetown University

** Ellen Carol Dubois - historian, author of Suffrage: Women's Long Battle for the Vote (2020)

 

** Paula Giddings – historian, professor emerita, author of Ida, A Sword Among Lions: Ida B. Wells and the Campaign against Lynching (2008)

** Susan Godier - historian

** Martha Jones - historian

** Alexander Keyssar – historian, author of The Right to Vote (2000)

** Eleanor Smeal – president of the Feminist Majority Foundation

 

** Michael Waldheim – attorney at law, author of The Fight to Vote (2017)

** Mary Walton - writer

** Susan Ware - historian, author of Why They Marched: Untold Stories of the Women Who Fought for the Right to Vote (2018)

** Elaine Weiss – writer

** J. D. Zahniser - writer

 

Between the talking heads, there is archive footage: old clips and old photographs. Archive footage is used to illustrate the story as it moves forward from 1848 to 1920.

 

These two episodes offer detailed information about the history of the women’s movement and the campaign for the female vote in the US. Topics covered include the following:

 

** Who are the leaders of the movement?

** Ways and means: how was the campaign conducted?

** Unity and division within the movement

** Successes and failures of the campaign

** How US society responded to the campaign

 

All women within the movement supported the demand for the female vote. But there were different ideas about how to get to the final goal. Many women within the movement were white middle-class women. What did these women think about women of colour? Some of them wanted to include all women regardless of their colour, but others hesitated. They were afraid this might cause some women to leave the movement and might cause some women to oppose the movement.

 

In the US, the right to vote has always been a difficult problem, a controversial issue. And it still is today.

 

The founding fathers did not have a very democratic mind. They felt that only white and rich men should have the vote. However, they realized that it was not a good idea to come out and say so. Therefore, they did not say anything about it when they wrote the declaration of independence in 1776.

 

A few years later, when the constitution of the US had to be written, the problem returned. What were they going to say about it now? They could not agree on a fitting formula, so the issue was avoided once more. What was the solution? It was decided that voting was a matter for the states. Each state could decide its own rules about voting.

 

The campaign for the female vote had two ways to go in order to reach its goal:

 

Option # 1

Win one state after another until all states offer the female vote. At first, this method was tried, but it turned out to be a long and slow process. This method did give some results, but they were few and far in between when compared to the total number of states.

 

In the year 1900, some fifty years after beginning of the campaign, only a few western states had granted the female vote. Eastern states and southern states still resisted. It seemed they were not going to be moved any time soon.

 

Eastern states resisted, because the campaign for the female vote was connected with the temperance movement, which wanted to introduce prohibition (no alcohol).

 

Southern states resisted, because they did not want women of colour to get the vote. Southern states had introduced a number of rules to exclude black men from voting. Obviously, they were not going to give the vote to black women.

 

Option # 2

Go for an amendment to the constitution. A federal amendment to the constitution covers all states in one stroke. This sounds like a smart way. But there is a problem: getting an amendment to the constitution is a difficult and time-consuming process.

 

When option # 1 seemed to fail, option # 2 was tried, and after a long and hard struggle there was a successful conclusion, but it was a narrow victory: the difference between victory and defeat was very small.

 

The amendment was finally accepted by the US Congress: the House of Representatives in January 1918 and the Senate in June 1919. This was a difficult hurdle, but it was overcome.

 

Next, the amendment had to be ratified by three quarters of all states. In 1919, the number of states was 48, so the amendment had to be ratified by 36 states before a given deadline.

 

Getting the first 30 states was easy. After that, they got five additional states. But then there was trouble ahead. Which state was going to be state # 36? Could they find a state that might be willing to play this role? If they found the state, was the state parliament actually going to ratify the amendment?

 

As we know, the 19th amendment to the constitution was ratified by 36 states in 1920, before the deadline expired, but it is important and necessary to notice that even in 1920 there was still a significant opposition to the female vote in the US. Not only from reactionary men, but also from reactionary women who supported the reactionary men.

 

What do reviewers say about this film? On IMDb, part one has a rating of 83 percent, while part two has a rating of 82 percent, which corresponds to a rating of four stars on Amazon.

 

As you can see, the ratings are good. But if you ask me, they are not good enough. I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars.

 

PS # 1. American Experience and PBS have established a special website with the following title:

 

She Resisted: Strategies of Suffrage

 

Visit this website to find more information about the campaign for the female vote.

 

Topics covered are: street speaking; propaganda; parades; pageants; women’s clubs; conventions; pickets; imprisonment; and the legacy of the movement.

 

PS # 2. For more information about the campaign for the female vote in the US, see the following items:

 

** One Woman, One Vote, a documentary film which premiered on US television (PBS) in 1995. Director: Ruth Pollak. Run time: 108 minutes. Released on DVD in 2005.

 

** Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony, a documentary film in two parts which premiered on US television (PBS) in 1999. Director: Ken Burns. Run time: 184 minutes. Released on DVD in 2010.

 

For details about both films, visit my blog:

Teacher and Traveller, December 2016

 

PS # 3. Unladylike: The Change Makers is a documentary film which premiered on US television (PBS) in 2020. 

 

It is an episode of the long-running program American Masters (season 34 episode 04). 

 

The purpose of this film is to mark the centennial of the female vote with stories of five pioneers who are described as change makers.

 

PS # 4. In 1970, fifty years after the female vote was granted, a new constitutional amendment was introduced in Congress: the Equal Rights Amendment, aka ERA. The first version of the ERA had been introduced back in 1923, but for years nothing had happened to the proposal. Now it was revived and now something began to happen:

 

The ERA was accepted by the House of Representatives in October 1971 and by the Senate in March 1972. Next, it had to be ratified by a certain number of states before a given deadline. In 1972, the number of states was 50. Therefore, it had to be ratified by 38 states before the deadline of March 1979.

 

At first, things were going well. After only one year, it had been ratified by 30 states, but then the movement ran into trouble: Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative activist and author who was married to a lawyer, did not like the ERA; she started a grassroots movement to stop it, and she was very efficient!

 

During the next five years only five more states ratified the proposal. In addition, five states which had previously ratified the proposal wanted to cancel their ratification (which was something quite unusual).

 

In 1978, Congress extended the deadline until June 1982, but no more states ratified the proposal, so the extension did not really matter one way or the other. By 1982, when the new deadline expired, only 35 states had ratified the proposal, and (as stated above) five states wanted to cancel their previous ratification. The proposal had failed to reach the necessary number of states, and therefore it had effectively run out of steam.

 

In recent years, however, the ERA has been revived. But it is not clear what this means. Is the amendment dead or alive? I am not quite sure what the answer is.

 

TWO REFERENCES ABOUT THE ERA

** Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade by Donald T. Critchlow (2005)

** Mrs. America, a miniseries in nine parts which premiered on US television (Hulu) in 2020. The topic is the rise and fall of the ERA during the 1970s.

 

*****

 

 

 A women's parade in New York City in 1917

*****

Washington, DC, 1917: female activists form a picket line outside the White House, urging president Woodrow Wilson to support the female right to vote.

*****