I've seen this film three times. First during its original 1978 telecast, secondly about 10 years later, and the third time today.
It includes some outstanding performances. Winfield is superb as MLK, portraying his heroic qualities while reminding us that King was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us:). From all I've read about MLK Senior, Ossie Davis captured him completely, conveying the forceful personality that was tempered by Daddy's love and concern for his son. Howard Rollins is a much more dynamic Andrew Young than Young himself:). Art Evans and Roger Robinson are excellent, respectively, as A.D. King and Fred Shutttlesworth. Ernie Lee Banks fully embodies Ralph Abernathy.
But Cicely Tyson, a GREAT actress, gives one of her few less-than- first-rate performances as Coretta King. She's OK, no more than that. Throughout the film, you get the sense that Tyson is trying to embody the character, but can't quite find her. I blame that on the script, which doesn't flesh Coretta out.
Bobby and Jack Kennedy are NOT well-played by Cliff DeYoung and William Jordan. Each struggles with the Baaston accent, for example. DeYoung suggests RFK's drive; Jordan suggests none of JFK's charm. But to cut them some slack, only two actors have stepped completely into the Kennedy brothers' cinematic (or telegenic?) shoes. The only exceptions are William Devane's JFK in "The Missiles of October" and Cotter Smith's RFK in "Blood Feud."
My main problem with "King" concerns the nods toward conspiracy theories. Now there is no doubt that J.Edgar Hoover used his FBI to harass King. But orders from above to get the black security officers off the King detail in Memphis, the FBI paying young black guys to disrupt the march there, etc? Not so sure.
Much King scholarship has taken place since 1978. I've read much of it, including the work of David Garrow and Taylor Branch, and don't recall these theories having been established therein as fact.
Having said that, I acknowledge my imperfect memory. I'll reread Garrow and Branch's books. If I am wrong, I will come back and say so. As an honest critic, I can hardly do otherwise:).
Those possible reservations aside, "King" is well worth seeing. But I do wish some far-sighted producer/director will bring MLK's story -- expressing both high and low points -- to the big screen eventually.
It includes some outstanding performances. Winfield is superb as MLK, portraying his heroic qualities while reminding us that King was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us:). From all I've read about MLK Senior, Ossie Davis captured him completely, conveying the forceful personality that was tempered by Daddy's love and concern for his son. Howard Rollins is a much more dynamic Andrew Young than Young himself:). Art Evans and Roger Robinson are excellent, respectively, as A.D. King and Fred Shutttlesworth. Ernie Lee Banks fully embodies Ralph Abernathy.
But Cicely Tyson, a GREAT actress, gives one of her few less-than- first-rate performances as Coretta King. She's OK, no more than that. Throughout the film, you get the sense that Tyson is trying to embody the character, but can't quite find her. I blame that on the script, which doesn't flesh Coretta out.
Bobby and Jack Kennedy are NOT well-played by Cliff DeYoung and William Jordan. Each struggles with the Baaston accent, for example. DeYoung suggests RFK's drive; Jordan suggests none of JFK's charm. But to cut them some slack, only two actors have stepped completely into the Kennedy brothers' cinematic (or telegenic?) shoes. The only exceptions are William Devane's JFK in "The Missiles of October" and Cotter Smith's RFK in "Blood Feud."
My main problem with "King" concerns the nods toward conspiracy theories. Now there is no doubt that J.Edgar Hoover used his FBI to harass King. But orders from above to get the black security officers off the King detail in Memphis, the FBI paying young black guys to disrupt the march there, etc? Not so sure.
Much King scholarship has taken place since 1978. I've read much of it, including the work of David Garrow and Taylor Branch, and don't recall these theories having been established therein as fact.
Having said that, I acknowledge my imperfect memory. I'll reread Garrow and Branch's books. If I am wrong, I will come back and say so. As an honest critic, I can hardly do otherwise:).
Those possible reservations aside, "King" is well worth seeing. But I do wish some far-sighted producer/director will bring MLK's story -- expressing both high and low points -- to the big screen eventually.