Churchill's Bodyguard (2005, 2009)

Churchill’s Bodyguard is a documentary film (in 13 episodes) that was shown on television in 2005 and released on DVD in 2009. Each episode runs for ca. 46 minutes. The total running time is almost 600 minutes, i.e. ten hours. Here are some basic facts about it:

** Produced for the BBC and UK-TV-History
** Directed by Jonathan Martin and Philip Nugus
** Written by Jonathan Martin
** Narrated by Robert Powell

Walter H. Thompson (1890-1978) was Churchill’s bodyguard during two long periods: the first 1921-1932; the second 1939-1945; the total span was almost 18 years. At the end of World War Two, Thompson completed a detailed manuscript about his experience, but for reasons of security he was not allowed to publish it. A short, censored version appeared in 1951 under the title I Was Churchill’s Shadow.

An authorized biography written by Tom Hickman was published in 2005. It has the same title as the film: Churchill’s Bodyguard. Both the biography and the film are based on Thompson’s complete memoirs that were discovered in an attic several years after his death.

Excerpts from Walter Thompson’s memoirs are read by Dennis Waterman. Most of what we see on the screen is old footage (pictures and film). But not everything is original: some scenes are re-enacted. John Tradewell plays the role of Walter in these scenes. There are two consultants:

 

(1) Linda Stoker, who is Walter’s great-niece

(2) Harold Thompson, who is one of Walter’s sons

Each episode covers one topic. In addition, the thirteen episodes follow a more or less chronological line from 1911 until 1945. Here are the titles of the thirteen episodes:

# 01. Walter meets Winston

# 02. Lawrence and Walter save the day

# 03. Nearly killed in New York

# 04. Indian nationalist assassin

# 05. Nazi sniper plan

# 06. Dangerous travels

# 07. Surviving the blitz

# 08. Attack at the flying boat bock

# 09. Winston’s double

# 10. Suicide attack in Tehran

# 11. The kiss of life?

# 12. The sewer bomb

# 13. Love him to death

PART ONE

Numerous books and documentary films have been written and produced about World War Two. Important topics, events, and persons - such as Churchill and Hitler - have been described, analyzed and interpreted several times. It is not easy to come up with something that is new, something that has not already been done several times over.

This project seems to have a new and interesting angle, because the focus is not on the leader, but on his bodyguard. It sounds good. And it works quite well, because Churchill had the same bodyguard for almost 18 years and because this man wrote a detailed manuscript which the producers could use.

Thompson was literally closer to Churchill than anybody else, while he was his bodyguard. Whenever Churchill went from A to B, Thompson would follow him. Whenever Churchill attended a ceremony or a meeting, Thompson would be there, standing right behind him.

The two men had very different backgrounds and personalities, but soon they came to like and respect each other. It was not always easy for Thompson to protect Churchill, because he did not care much about his safety; he was an adventurous type, who wanted to get as close to the action as possible, while Thompson would try to persuade him to stay back and not take any unnecessary risks.

Based on the complete memoirs of Thompson, this film offers a personal portrait of Churchill. It is not an objective account. It does not pretend to be. It is Thompson’s impression of his boss. Whether we agree with Churchill or not, it is an undeniable fact that he played an important role in the history of the UK, of Europe, and of the world for several decades of the 20th century.

PART TWO

Churchill’s Bodyguard is a fascinating, gripping, and interesting film because of the special angle that is employed here. Having said this, I have to add that it is not perfect in every way. There are some flaws. In the following I will mention the flaws I noticed while watching the film.

# 1. There are many repetitions. Each episode opens with the same introduction which runs for more than 2 minutes. With 13 episodes, the introductions take up more than 26 minutes, almost half an hour.

Some photos and some clips are used over and over again. Some of the clips which are used many times are not even old footage, they are re-enacted: whenever we hear about Thompson and his memoirs, we see a clip of a person who is writing with an old-fashioned fountain pen. Whenever Churchill and Thompson have to get from A to B, we see a clip of two persons who are walking along a footpath.

# 2. The film is a bit heavy on the audio side. The narrator Robert Powell has a lot to say; and when he does not talk, Dennis Waterman takes over, reading excerpts from Thompson’s memoirs. Both of them talk and talk.

# 3. Episode # 2 is about the Cairo Conference of 1921, which re-designed the map of the Middle East. Since Churchill was in charge of this event, it is fair to say that he re-designed the map of the Middle East. Summing up the results, the narrator claims the conference was considered a success. Perhaps it was considered a success back in 1921, although I think it depends on who you are asking. You will get different evaluations from different groups of people.

With the benefit of hindsight we can see that the results of the conference were not exactly a success. A critical evaluation of the conference can be found in the book Winston’s Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq by Christopher Catherwood (2004, 2005).

# 4. The title of episode # 3 is “Nearly Killed in New York.” It is true that Winston was nearly killed during a visit to New York in 1931. But not because there was an attempt on his life. He was in a traffic accident, and he himself was to blame for it. When we see the title of episode # 3, we might think that someone in New York tried to kill him and almost succeeded, but this is not true at all. The title of this episode is misleading.

# 5. The Amritsar massacre of 13 April 1919 is mentioned in episode # 4. Troops under the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on unarmed civilians. According to the narrator, the number of people killed was 379. This is the official figure. We can be sure this is a minimum. Most Indian observers offer higher figures. I think the narrator should have said “at least 379 were killed.”

For more information about this event, see The Butcher of Amritsar by Nigel Collett (2005, 2006).

# 6. In several episodes we hear about Churchill’s long distance travels, for instance his journey to Cairo and to Moscow and back again (in 1942). Churchill and his team travelled in an unarmed plane. The journey was long and dangerous, but nothing bad happened to them. One reason for this is that the pilot and his crew were highly qualified.

In the film we do not hear anything about them. You can find more information about the pilot and his crew in a documentary film called Flying the Secret Sky: The Story of the RAF Ferry Command that was shown on US television (PBS) and released on DVD in 2008.

# 7. Episode # 10 is about the Teheran Conference that was held from 28 November to 1 December 1943. In the film we are told that German agents planned to kill the big three – Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin – during the conference. The German plan is known as Operation Long Jump.

This claim is controversial. Scholars do not agree on this. It seems the story of the German plot comes from Soviet intelligence sources. But it cannot be confirmed by western sources.

CONCLUSION

The team behind the film – Jonathan Martin and Philip Nugus - went on to make another film using the same angle: Hitler’s Bodyguard (shown on television in 2008 and released on DVD in 2009). Unfortunately, the result was a disappointment, because they did not have the same kind of evidence that they had for the film about Churchill and Walter Thompson.

Churchill’s Bodyguard is about Churchill and his bodyguard. It is about the safety and security of Churchill from 1921 to 1945. The producers had a unique kind of evidence and they used it to explore a new and interesting angle. This is why the result is quite good.

Watching this film we get really close to Churchill. But it is not perfect. As you can see, there are some flaws. And I cannot ignore them. While the film is quite successful, I have to remove one star because of the flaws mentioned above. Therefore I think this film deserves a rating of four stars.

PS. The following article is available online: David Smith, “Fresh light on Churchill’s shadow,” the Guardian, 13 November 2005.

***

Churchill’s Bodyguard,

Shown on television in 2005,

Released on DVD in 2009,

13 episodes

***

 

 

Hitler's Bodyguard (2008, 2009)

 

Hitler’s Bodyguard is a documentary film (in 13 episodes) that was shown on television in 2008 and released on DVD in 2009. Each episode runs for ca. 46 minutes. The total running time is almost 600 minutes, i.e. ten hours. Here is some basic information about it:

** Produced by UK-TV-History

** Directed by Jonathan Martin and Philip Nugus

** Written by Jonathan Martin and Tim Newark

** Research by Jonathan Page

** Narrated by Robert Powell

Each episode covers one topic. In addition, the thirteen episodes follow a more or less chronological line from ca. 1920 until 1945. Here are the titles of the thirteen episodes:

# 01. How Hitler’s bodyguard worked

# 02. Early attempts on Hitler’s life

# 03. Kill the new chancellor

# 04. Night of the long knives

 

# 05. Jewish and émigré attempts to kill Hitler

# 06. Kill Hitler before war starts

# 07. Bombs and paranoia

# 08. Dangerous car journeys

 

# 09. Flights into danger

# 10. Hitler’s dangerous train journeys

# 11. Attempts to kill Hitler at Wolf’s Lair

 

# 12. Nearly assassinated at the Berghof

# 13. Poison gas plot in the bunker

Numerous books and documentary films have been written and produced about Germany and World War Two. Important topics, events, and persons have been described, analysed and interpreted several times. It is not easy to come up with something that is new, something that has not already been done several times over.

This project seems to have a new and interesting angle, because the focus is not on the leader, but on his bodyguard. It sounds good. Unfortunately, the result is a disappointment. There are many problems with this film. In the following I will try to explain what is wrong with it.

PART ONE

# 1. The producers fail to focus on the main topic. They digress so often that the main topic sometimes disappears completely. To give one example: episode # 4 is not really relevant for the topic. It seems the producers did not have enough material to fill thirteen episodes, so they decided to fill up the film with general information about Germany and World War Two.

# 2. There are numerous repetitions. A photo or a film clip will be shown several times. A piece of information or an anecdote will be told several times. One example: a scene (a re-enactment) shows a man sitting at a desk while reading a document. A magnifying glass is on the desk. He picks it up and looks closely at the document. This clip, which does not really mean anything, is shown several times. Another example: the conflict between Bruno Gesche and Heinrich Himmler is mentioned several times.

# 3. The image on the screen does not always relate to what the narrator says. As a viewer, I get the impression that the producers had a selection of images; sometimes they would pick one; at other times they would pick another, almost at random.

# 4. The narrative is emotional and moralising. The narrator keeps telling us that Hitler was a bad person. We already know that. It is not necessary to mention this fact every five or ten minutes. Repeating statements like this is counter-productive. Even if they are true, they become annoying.

# 5. Each episode opens with the same lengthy introduction where we are told that Hitler caused the death of 50 million people. The figure 50 million people is the number of casualties during World War Two, but a part of this war took place in Asia where Japan attacked many other countries. While Germany and Japan were allies, Hitler was hardly responsible for the war in Asia. In other words: the figure of 50 million is an exaggeration.

PART TWO

# 6. This film is not about Hitler’s bodyguard. It is about the life and times of Hitler with a special focus on the security forces and intelligence agencies that were close to Hitler. The producers cover the SA (the brown shirts), the SS (the black shirts), and the SD (the security service). We do not hear much about attempts on Hitler’s life. But there is a lot of information about the infighting between the different agencies that were close to Hitler. While much of what is said and shown may be true, it is not really relevant for the main topic.

# 7. A few old witnesses were interviewed for the film. Apparently, the producers were not sure how to deal with their testimonies, so they used three different methods when they appear.

A. The witness speaks German. But after a few seconds the original voice is muted and an English translation is heard instead.

B. The witness speaks English. But since the witness is old, pronunciation is not clear, and since the witness does not speak English very well, it is not always easy to understand what the witness says.

C. The witness speaks German and the statement is covered by English subtitles.

The third method is the right way to go. It is best for everyone. Best for the witness, because he is allowed to speak his own language. And best for the viewer, because we can hear the original German statement and in addition we can read it in English on the screen. This method should have been used in every case. Not only once in a while.

# 8. In episode # 5, the producers cover Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine and German assistance to the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. While these topics may be interesting, they are not relevant for a film about Hitler’s bodyguard. These examples demonstrate how far the producers allow themselves to get side-tracked.

# 9. In episode # 5, the producers mention David Frankfurter and his attack on Wilhelm Gustloff in 1936. But this attack took place in Davos in Switzerland, so how is it relevant in a film about Hitler’s bodyguard?

In the same episode, the producers also mention Herschel Grynszpan and his attack on Ernst vom Rath in 1938. But this attack took place in Paris in France, so how is it relevant in a film about Hitler’s bodyguard?

# 10. Hitler is sometimes quoted in the film. But these quotes are translated into English and read with a pompous voice and a strong German accent. I think it is supposed to sound like Hitler, but the result is awful.

As far as I know, these quotes are read by Stephan Grothar. This method is not a good idea. I wonder who decided to quote Hitler in this way. If the producers wanted to quote Hitler, the words should have been spoken in German and covered with English subtitles.

PART THREE

The team behind this film – Jonathan Martin and Philip Nugus – had already made another film using the same angle: Churchill’s Bodyguard (shown on television in 2005). This project was quite successful, because the team had the necessary evidence to build a film:

Churchill had the same bodyguard for many years (1921-1932 and 1939-1945), and this man wrote a detailed manuscript about his experience which they could use.
 
Since the series about Churchill and his bodyguard has 13 episodes, the series about Hitler and his bodyguards must also have 13 episodes, even though the team did not have the same kind of evidence for this case. Hitler did not have one bodyguard; he had many; over the years they changed, and they did not write detailed manuscripts about their experience.

The story about Hitler’s bodyguard does not need 13 episodes. It could have been told in five or six episodes, but since the story about Churchill and his bodyguard had been covered in 13 episodes, the producers had to make sure the story about Hitler’s bodyguard had the same length. Even if it meant they would have to digress and get side-tracked time and again.

CONCLUSION

The Martin-Nugus team has a new and interesting angle, but the result is a disappointment. It worked quite well with Churchill and his bodyguard, but this was no guarantee that it would work well with Hitler and his bodyguards.

The topic of this film is the life and times of Hitler. This story has been told many times before. There could and should have been something new here, but the new angle does not really work. This film is a disappointment. That is why it cannot get more than two stars.

PS # 1. Among Hitler’s bodyguards, the following names can be mentioned:

** Julius Schreck, 1898-1936

** Ulrik Graf, 1878-1950

** Erich Kempka, 1910-1975

** Bruno Gesche, 1905-1980

** Rochus Misch, 1917-2013

PS # 2. For more information, see the following books:

** Guarding Hitler: The Secret World of the Führer by Mark Felton (2014)

** Hitler’s Personal Security: Protecting the Führer, 1921-1945 by Peter Hoffmann (1979, 2000)

** Hitler’s Last Witness: The Memoirs of Hitler’s Bodyguard by Rochus Misch (2014) (a French version of this book was published in 2006)

** I was Hitler’s Chauffeur by Erich Kempka (with an introduction by Roger Moorehouse) (2012) (the first version of this book was published with another title in 1951)

** Killing Hitler by Roger Moorehouse (2007)

PS # 3. After the end of World war two, Walter H. Thompson (1890-1978) completed a detailed manuscript about his experience, but for reasons of security he was not allowed to publish it. A short, censored version appeared in 1951 under the title I Was Churchill’s Shadow.

An authorized biography written by Tom Hickman was published in 2005. It has the same title as the film: Churchill’s Bodyguard. Both the biography and the film are based on Thompson’s complete memoirs that were discovered in an attic several years after his death.

***

Hitler’s Bodyguard,

Shown on television in 2008,

Released on DVD in 2009,

13 episodes

***

 

 

 

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

 

***

 

 

The Loving Story (2011, 2012)

The Loving Story is a documentary film that was completed in 2011 and shown on US television (Showtime) in 2012. It is the story of a white man and a coloured woman from Virginia who were not allowed to live there as husband and wife, because the laws of this state did not allow interracial marriage. Here is some basic information about it:

** Produced by Nancy Buirski and Elisabeth Haviland James

** Written by Nancy Buirski and Susie Ruth Powell

** Run time: 77 minutes

The story of Richard Loving (1933-1975) and Mildred Jeter Loving (1939-2008) begins in 1958. When the young couple realised they were not allowed to get married in Virginia, they travelled to Washington, DC, where interracial marriage was allowed.

Once they were married, they returned to their home state, thinking this would be in order. They were wrong. When the authorities discovered what was going on, they raided their home in the middle of the night, arrested them and put them in prison.

They appeared before Judge Leon M. Bazile, who 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. That same day they left for Washington, DC, where they tried to settle down.

Over the next few years they had three children, but they were not happy in their new surroundings. They wanted to go home, and they tried sneaking back, but it was risky. If they were caught together in Virginia, they might both be sent to prison for one year.

PART ONE

The Civil Rights Movement in the US began in the 1950s and continued into the 1960s, but Richard and Mildred were not into politics. Richard was a bricklayer who wanted to provide for his family, while Mildred was a homemaker who took care of the children. They just wanted to live in Virginia, which the state would not allow.

Gradually, Mildred became aware of the Civil Rights Movement. In 1963 she wrote a letter to Robert “Bobby” Kennedy, the Attorney General, in which she explained their situation. She asked him to help them. The Attorney general replied. He said he could not do anything, but he understood their problem and referred them to the ACLU.

Mildred followed his advice, and this was how she and Richard came to meet two young lawyers who were prepared to take their case and do it for free: Bernard S. Cohen (born 1934) and Philip J. Hirschkop (born 1936).

Cohen and Hirschkop took this case all the way to the US Supreme Court. It was a long journey. But on 10 April 1967, the court was ready to hear the case. Once the presentation was over, they had to wait for a while.

Two months later, on 12 June 1967, the court ruled unanimously that the mixed couple had won: the state of Virginia would have to repeal the laws which forbade interracial marriage, and so would several other states. This was a slow process: Alabama was the last, repealing the obsolete law in the year 2000, more than thirty years after the ruling of the Supreme Court.

Finally, after nine years of exile in Washington, DC, Richard and Mildred could go home and they could stay there without having to worry if the police would raid their home in the middle of the night.

PART TWO

In this film we follow the case all the way from the marriage in 1958 to the victory in 1967. Many types of evidence are used to document the case. There are photos and film. Some are in black-and-white, while others are in colour.

Some clips are public, for instance a news report by CBS reporter Robert Pierpoint (1925-2011). Other clips are private recordings which were made in the home of the family or in the office of the lawyers.

In 1965 the famous photographer Grey Villet (1927-2000) took several pictures of the family which were used in an article that was published in LIFE Magazine in March 1966. These pictures are used in the film.

Several witnesses were interviewed for the film:

** Raymond Green, friend of Richard

** Ruthie Holliday, classmate of Richard

** Ken Edwards, deputy sheriff, Caroline County, 1967-1980

** Robert Pratt, friend of the family, historian, University of Georgia

** Edward Ayers, historian, president, University of Richmond

** Peggy Loving Fortune, daughter

The lawyers Cohen and Hirschkop appear several times. Some clips from the 1960s are in black-and-white, while other clips are recent interviews in colour. In other words, we see them when they were young and we see what they look like today!

As the case became known to the public, Richard and Mildred became heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, but they were reluctant heroes. They did not seek out the reporters. Both of them were camera-shy; they did not have much to say to the numerous reporters who wanted them to deliver a "sound-bite" for the evening news.

When we listen to them in the film, we can see that Mildred is the more articulate of them. She was the one who wrote to Bobby Kennedy. Her letter is quoted in the film. It is well-written: short and to the point.

When the case was going to be heard by the US Supreme Court, the lawyers invited the couple to attend. It was, after all, about their lives. But Richard did not want to go, and Mildred did not want to go without him. Richard did, however, have 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.”

This was not a lawyer talking, but it was a message from the heart.

Richard and Mildred went back to Virginia. In 1975, as they were driving in their car, it was hit by a drunk driver. Sadly, Richard was killed. Mildred was injured: she lost the sight on one eye, but she survived. She 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 2008, she was 68.

CONCLUSION

The Loving Story is an important film about an important case. It is the story of a couple who stayed together even though the authorities tried to make it difficult for them. It is about the conflict between state rights and individual rights. It is a story that deserves to be told, and this film does it very well.

If you are interested in the history of the modern world – in particular the Civil Rights Movement – this film is something for you.

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. Mr. & Mrs. Loving is a drama-documentary that was shown on US television in 1996 and released on DVD in 2005. Timothy Hutton plays Richard and Lela Rochon plays Mildred in this dramatization of the case.

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

***

 

The Loving Story,
Written and produced by Nancy Buirski,

Completed 2011, released 2012; run time: 77 minutes

 

 

***

 

 

 

 

 

The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till (2005)

The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till is a documentary film that was released on DVD in 2005. Produced and directed by American filmmaker Keith A. Beauchamp, it runs for 68 minutes.

Emmett Louis Till was born in Chicago in July 1941. In August 1955, shortly after his 14th birthday, he took the train to Mississippi to stay with one of his relatives. What was supposed to be an adventure turned into a horrible nightmare: Emmett was kidnapped, tortured, and killed by two white men, who dumped his body in the Tallahatchie River. What had he done? It seems he had whistled at a woman in a grocery store, and since he was black and the woman was white, he had committed a sin which could not be ignored; a crime which called for revenge.

When his body was discovered and the perpetrators were arrested, they confessed to kidnapping him, but denied everything else. When they were charged with murder, they were acquitted by an all-white jury. In January 1956, the national magazine LOOK published an article in which the killers confessed to the murder. The legal rule that is known as “double jeopardy” prevented them from being accused of the same crime one more time.

In the white community in Mississippi, the verdict was greeted as a triumph, but in the black community, it was seen in a totally different light. The murder of Emmett Till and the acquittal of his killers was one of the sparks, which ignited the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. This film covers the life and death of Emmett Till and explains the importance of his case.

PART ONE
Several witnesses were interviewed for the film. Here are the names in the order of appearance:

** Mamie Till-Mobley, mother

** Reverend Wheeler Parker, cousin

** Simeon Wright, cousin

** Ruthie Mae Crawford, cousin

** Reverend Al Sharpton, president, National Action Network
** Charles Evers, brother of Medgar Evers, slain civil rights leader
** Dr Raymond Lockett, historian, Southern University of Baton Rouge, LA
** Roosevelt Crawford, friend

** John Crawford, friend
** Willie Reed, witness at the trial
** Mary Johnson, neighbour of J. W. Milam
** Dan Wakefield, reporter for the Nation

Several old clips, recorded in black-and-white in 1955, are also used in the film, including the following:

** Moses Wright, uncle

** Mamie Till, mother

** Charles Hayes, UPWA-CIO

** Roy Wilkins, executive director, NAACP

** Sheriff George Smith, Greenwood, Mississippi

** Sheriff H. C. Strider, Tallahatchie County

There is no narrator in this film. Instead the story is carried forward by on-screen messages, which appear whenever a new chapter is about to begin.

Emmett Till’s mother was Mamie Carthan (1921-2003). His father was Louis Till (1922-1945). When they were married in 1940, she took his family name and became Mamie Till. When she re-married later in life, she became Mamie Till-Mobley.

The woman, whose honour was insulted by a whistle, was Carolyn Bryant (born 1934). The killers were her husband Roy Bryant (1931-1994) and Roy’s half-brother J. W. Milam (1919-1981).

No one ever did time for the murder or the kidnapping of Emmett Till.

PART TWO
American Experience, a television program produced by PBS, produced an episode about this case, which was aired in 2003 and released on DVD in 2004. The title is The Murder of Emmett Till. It is obvious to compare the two films, because they cover the same topic and were released at almost the same time: the one from PBS in 2003, the other one in 2005.

# 1. The first difference is that the PBS film employs a narrator to move the story forward, while Beauchamp does not have a narrator.

# 2. The second difference is that the PBS film only talks about two perpetrators. If the two white men had help, they never mentioned anyone else. Beauchamp believes the two white men asked some black men to assist them while the crime was being carried out, but as far as I can see, he is not able to prove this assumption.

# 3. A third difference concerns the material used in the film. Most of the PBS film is filled with recent interviews in colour; only a few old clips recorded during the trial are included. Beauchamp spends less time with recent interviews in colour, which allows him to use more clips that were recorded back in 1955.

Unfortunately, the technical quality of the old recordings is rather poor; sometimes it is difficult or impossible to understand what is being said. It is interesting to see these old clips, but the quality varies a lot. Some of them are quite good, while others should not have been included, because the technical quality is too low.

Some overlapping between the two films is unavoidable, indeed several witnesses appear in both films. I do not wish to recommend one over the other, because I think they both are very powerful.

TWO MINOR QUIBBLES
Beauchamp has produced an important film about an important case, but I have to mention two minor quibbles:

# 1. The New York City Council discussed the Emmett Till case in a meeting that was held on 21 April 2004. At the end of the film there is a section about this meeting in which several members of the council talk about the case. Not a single member of the council is identified by name. This is a strange omission, given that this is a public forum and every statement is part of the public record. Why not add the names of the speakers?

# 2. The title of Beauchamp's film is misleading, because the case of Emmett Till is not "untold." Several books and articles have been written about it (for some examples, see the PS below); many of them were published before Beauchamp's film was released in 2005. As mentioned above, the PBS series American Experience devoted an episode to the case which was aired in 2003, i.e. two years before Beauchamp's film was released.

CONCLUSION
Beauchamp’s film covers the murder of Emmett Till and the subsequent trial in great detail. Since it is a horrible story, I cannot say you will enjoy it, but I do think you can appreciate it. The story deserves to be told and this film does it very well.

The case of Emmett Till is a dark chapter in the history of the United States. Keith Beauchamp, the man behind the film, deserves praise for making sure the case is not forgotten.

If you are interested in the history of the modern world - in particular the civil rights movement in the US - this film is something for you.

PS # 1. For more information, see the following books:

** A Death in the Delta: The Story of Emmett Till by Stephen J. Whitfield (1988, 1991)

** The Lynching of Emmett Till: A Documentary Narrative edited by Christopher Metress (2002)

** Emmett Till: The Sacrificial Lamb of the Civil Rights Movement by Cleonora Hudson-Weems (1994, 2006)

** Death of Innocence: The Story of the Hate Crime that Changed America by Christopher Benson & Mamie Till-Mobley (2003, 2004)

** Who Killed Emmett Till? by Susan Klopfer (2010)

** Emmett Till: The Murder that Shocked the World and Propelled the Civil Rights Movement by Devery S. Anderson (2015)

PS # 2. The Murder of Emmett Till is the title of a documentary film that was aired on PBS in 2003 and released on DVD in 2004. It is an episode in the series American Experience. Produced and directed by Stanley Nelson, it runs for 54 minutes.

***

The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till,

Produced and directed by Keith A. Beauchamp,

Released 2005, run time: 68 minutes

 

***