Why no MLK biopic?

[Steak Snabler]

Thought of this while watching "Mississippi Burning" and "Ghosts of Mississippi" back-to-back on MLK Day ...

Why has there never been a major Hollywood treatment of Martin Luther King? I know there was a TV miniseries several years ago (with Paul Winfield as MLK), but you'd think someone would get around to doing a blockbuster biopic.

We've had films on just about every other aspect/figure from the Civil Rights Movement, but never one on arguably the most influential American of the 20th Century. Seems strange to me.

Anybody got ideas/guesses as to why this hasn't happened?

 

[slappy4428]

Because you'd have to show the bad with the good and that's not the kind of image his supporters want to see or will back. They'll say the philandering will portray him in a bad light and raise a fuss.

 

[black dude with pompano]

Because you'd have to show the bad with the good and that's not the kind of image his supporters want to see or will back. They'll say the philandering will portray him in a bad light and raise a fuss.

I think there's a lot of truth to that.

MLK is revered to the point of being a Christ figure in a lot of homes.

Any film that portrayed him as a human with human flaws would be inherently controversial, and it would take a brave studio to go forward with it.

EDIT: I would also add that an authentic movie might shatter the myth in white America that MLK was a meek "moderate" who just wanted everybody to get along (unlike like the loud modern civil rights leaders that we have today.) In truth, MLK was increasingly left-wing and radicalized in the years before his death.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Found this Anne Hornaday WaPo column while surfing after my original post. Interesting stuff ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070901476.html?referrer=emailarticle

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I remeber awhile back Spike Lee (surprise) was interested, but the project got shelved when Denzel wasn't interested...

I'm guessing nobody wants any part of making the film that would have to have a lot of info on his philandering and his combative relationship with the FBI...

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

"His combative relationship with the FBI"?
That's the best euphemism of the week.

 

[Bob Cook]

In school yesterday, my 8-year-old daughter watched an MLK-related film in which two children, one black and one white, were able to go back in time to witness MLK in action. Learning he would be shot, the kids brought him back, as a child, to modern-day America so he could live. And by doing that, it turned out that with no MLK, the black kid ended up drinking from the colored water fountain today, and the white kid and the black kid were no longer friends. It sounded very Twilight Zone-ish.

 

[heyabbott]

There was actually a very cool play, and I think it was also a movie, about a fictional meeting between MLK and Malcolm X.

 

[mike311gd]

I remeber awhile back Spike Lee (surprise) was interested, but the project got shelved when Denzel wasn't interested...

I'm guessing nobody wants any part of making the film that would have to have a lot of info on his philandering and his combative relationship with the FBI...

I'd be willing to play the part. But Spike Lee would probably give me the boot, citing "artistic differences."

Racist *******. ...

 

[novelist_wannabe]

Terence Howard for the role of Marty?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

"His combative relationship with the FBI"?
That's the best euphemism of the week.

The Philanderer versus the Perv.

Film at 11.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Because we need pictures about Eminem and loosely-based bios like Carey's "Glitter."

 

[NoOneLikesUs]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0255851/

This was pretty good.

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

Terence Howard for the role of Marty?

That could work, but I think Denzel would play a better King.

 

[DanOregon]

Doing the movie would require the family's approval, and from what I've read Coretta was a saint, but the kids are more interested on cashing in on their dad's legacy.
Terence Howard would be fantastic in the role me thinks.

 

[Ace]

It would require the family's approval for PR purposes?

 

[Bob Cook]

It would require the family's approval for PR purposes?

Even that would be no guarantee. David Michaelis got the approval and cooperation of the Schulz family for his Peanuts/Charles Schulz bio, and since they saw the final galleys, they (particularly Monte Schulz) have been all over the place ripping Michaelis and his book.

EDIT: To be fair, the family wasn't expecting a hagiography, but they were shocked at what they saw as rafts of inaccuracies and Michaelis portraying Schulz as mostly emotionally distant.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I actually think if they made this, Jamie Foxx would be the first person they should call...

It will never happen... As someone else mentioned, no A-list star/director would have anything to do with a true account of his life and nobody wants to star in one that skips over those parts either...

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

What makes the story so different in making a MLK Jr movie and a Malcolm X?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

What makes the story so different in making a MLK Jr movie and a Malcolm X?

Malcolm X is widely viewed as a controversial figure. MLK is seen by many as almost Christ-like. It's a lot easier to point out Malcolm X's flaws than it would be Martin Luther King...

Also, for the most part, historical bio pics cost a lot to make and don't make much money... That may be the biggest problem...