Irmo Branch Library - Multimedia Book Club discussion

We are nearing the end of our discussion everyone!

We hope you have enjoyed taking a deep dive into the Loving case that changed American law and the American family forever. Finally, we are going to discuss the film dramatizations of the lives of this trailblazing couple.
If you have not seen a particular film, that is fine! Feel free to answer any of the questions based on whichever film you've seen or any other medium of which you may have used to learn about the Lovings.

1. How were Richard and Mildred portrayed in the dramatization? How were their family and friends portrayed?

2. What were the most important aspects of the Loving's lives shown in the 2016 dramatization, "Loving," (or 1996 film, "Mr. and Mrs. Loving,") that you feel help us to understand Richard and Mildred as individuals and as a couple? What, if anything, was left out from the story that you feel should have remained?

3. How does the film, "Loving," (and/or, "Mr. and Mrs. Loving,") compare to the photo-essay and documentary film? What aspect of each medium adds to your knowledge and opinion of the Loving case?

4. Is there any piece of knowledge, wisdom or information that you feel you can apply to your life going forward after learning about the Lovings?

1) I watched both the 2016 version "Loving" and the 1996 made-for-TV-movie version "Mr. and Mrs. Loving." Between the two, the 2016 theatrical release is far superior, the TV version being almost unrecognizable from the real events as depicted in the documentary and photo essay. The 2016 film took great pains to recreate, with often startling accuracy, archival footage of the couple during the events. Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton are not only dressed and styled to look like Mildred and Richard but capture their reserved mannerisms as well. The 1996 version, on the other hand, seemed crafted more to suit the imagination of the filmmakers, with Timothy Hutton in both appearance and character a far cry from resembling the real Richard Loving. He is boisterous with Mildred, strong and heroic in the face of his many challengers, and I kid you not, he leads the police on a high-speed chase to evade arrest. Having spent time with the documentary and photo essay and the carefully crafted 2016 film, the 1996 portrayal was awkward to watch. Who are these people? I kept wondering... certainly not the real Lovings, as Mildred herself is quoted as saying: "not much of it was very true. The only part of it right was I had three children" (cited here from the original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._and...). The rest of the family seemed plucked out of fiction, too. While the 2016 film showed Richard's mom in her work as a midwife, for example, the 1996 adaptation cast his parents as cookie-cutter folks of the time, stock characters with no personalities. Mildred's mom and siblings, however, were fleshed out a bit more, though I doubt their character traits were taken from historic record as much as a writer's sensibilities to make a more entertaining show.

2) I'm not one for a courthouse drama, but this is one area where the 2016 film "Loving" excels. The difficulty of reopening the case, the danger to their freedom if they contested their suspended prison sentences, the long tedious process--all the steps are explained (if simplified somewhat) and plotted out in a way that is easy to follow and comprehend. What made for an interesting and compelling element of the 2016 film is all but omitted from the 1996 movie. (Here is an article from the time "Mr. and Mrs. Loving" came out that talks about why the director felt it necessary to leave out the court proceedings and why the lawyer Bernard Cohen thought this left out an important part of the overall story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archiv... to quote: '"It makes a nice drama. But it didn't emphasize what a legal challenge it was to get the case back in court, and I was disappointed. The difficulty of getting it back into the state court occupied more time than going to the Supreme Court. It's a convoluted legal process." Which, Friedenberg [the director] said, is why he did not devote time to it.')
I think the legal proceedings, while convoluted, are important because we need to understand how consuming this whole process would have been for those involved! While they could have just lived out their lives in DC, Mildred and Richard Loving actually took on a great burden to submit their case to be reopened and considered before the Supreme Court. These quiet people opened their lives to public consideration, knowing that it would change their situation but also that of many others. I feel the 2016 film did OK and the 1996 film did poorly at capturing the fact that Mildred and Richard were not particularly engaged with the Civil Rights movement at the time. Unlike other figures of the time, like Rosa Parks, they were not trained activists and entered into the process with some hesitation. The 1996 version portrays Mildred as being heavily involved with the movement, even considering attending the 1963 March on Washington with a handful of activist friends! My assumption is here again the 1996 film chose stylized fiction over facts, but it did make me wonder if Mildred wasn't more interested in Civil Rights (at the time, or perhaps later in life) than the 2016 film portrays. I would have liked to see this side of her and Richard explored more. (For example, in 2007 Mildred Loving weighed in on whether same-sex couples should be legally granted the right to marry: https://web.archive.org/web/200805140...)

3) As I watched the documentary, it was clear that some of the events in the film "Loving" were simplified and/or dramatized. Some of the events described in the documentary and in the photo essay happened on a slightly different timeline than the film depicts. I was unclear exactly when the children were born and when the second arrest happened. While differences can be distracting, the 2016 film stays true to the facts for the most part, simplifying only as necessary to make the events easier to follow. Taken together with the photo essay and the documentary, I feel the 2016 film provides a fairly clear idea of the story and players. In fact, the 2016 film is easier to follow than the documentary, which at points shows photos of the family at the secret house in Virginia while the narration describes an entirely different time in the family's life. Pinpoint accuracy is only one element of good storytelling, and one thing the 2016 does remarkably well is give the viewer a sense of who Mildred and Richard Loving were as people. It is this understanding of them as a couple and individuals that makes the story itself so compelling. I knew what I thought were the facts of the case from history class, but seeing them interact in the film helped me to connect with the facts of their story in a new way.

4) My biggest takeaway from this month's selection will be an understanding of Richard and Mildred Loving as real and whole people who went through this experience. I've mentioned in an earlier thread how much I had not understood about the case besides a cursory knowledge. (As some Supreme Court cases change names to protect the plaintiff's identity, I had even wondered if name "Loving" was a pithy pseudonym for one or more different couples involved in the suit. It seems fitting that one of my first misconceptions to go.) With that in mind, another takeaway is that it's so important for stories like this to be told in great detail, inside and outside of history class. I am going to share this story with my children so they will know how precious it is to choose freely whom to marry.