Separate But Equal

Rating:
Summary: First rate docudrama on Brown v. Board of Education
Review: "Separate But Equal" puts three names about the credits: Sidney Portier as Thurgood Marshall, Burt Lancaster as John W. Davis, and Richard Kiley as Earl Warren. This is significant because it helps to personify the three sides in the monumental Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education. Marshall headed the NAACP lawyers who challenged the legal doctrine that legitimized segregation in the South. Davis represented the interests of the states, not out of a sense of bigotry but out of legal principle; after all, it was the Supreme Court that had established the separate but equal doctrine. This becomes a key part of the dilemma that Chief Justice Warren faced because the law was obviously legal--it just also happened to be wrong.

This excellent 1991 docudrama was aired in two parts. The first part looks at the segregated school system in Claredon County, South Carolina, one of the four cases that comprised the ruling, and the harm of segregation is captured in a memorable sequence in which young black children always pick the white doll rather than the black doll to describe who is smarter, better, etc. The second part of the film deals with the lengthy process by which the high court deliberated the case, doing a better job of capturing the process than any drama I have ever seen.

Portier provides Marshall with all the dignity appropriate to the role, and it is a treat to see the actor play a lawyer arguing before the high court. Lancaster, in his final role, performs a key function: he is earnest and likeable, which means that in the context of this story our opposition has to be to his position and not to him personally. In other words, this is a legal matter that has to be determined on the point of law and not on our feelings about bigots and racism. However, writer/director George Stevens, Jr. has set us up, because for Kiley's Earl Warren it is a question of justice rather than the law, especially after the former Governor of California visits the battlefield at Gettysburg and discovers his driver had to sleep in the car because no local hotel would accept a black.

For me this is Kiley's film and the most fascinating part of "Separate But Equal" is watching him rally the Court to make its landmark ruling. This is a long, hard, effort for Kiley, who insists that a unanimous ruling is important to make it clear to the nation that there is no longer two sides to this issue. I appreciated that Stevens simply has Kiley read the actual ruling at the film's climax. Again, Stevens using a simple image to bring home the significance of the ruling as the preacher and father who were at the heart of the case we watched in the first part hear the news on the radio, pull over their car, get out and kneel by the side of the road to give thanks.

At 193 minutes this docudrama would consume a week of class, but it could be well worth the effort. Certainly screening it for students would produce some interesting questions and discussions. Final comment: Stevens uses irony throughout "Separate but Equal" (e.g., Marshall and the NAACP lawyers cannot get a cab to take them to the Supreme Court to hear the decision), but there is one delightful use of humor, when a young white lawyer who is helping with the appeal explains to the NAACP lawyers why he is there working with them.

Rating:
Summary: First rate docudrama on Brown v. Board of Education
Review: "Separate But Equal" puts three names about the credits: Sidney Portier as Thurgood Marshall, Burt Lancaster as John W. Davis, and Richard Kiley as Earl Warren. This is significant because it helps to personify the three sides in the monumental Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education. Marshall headed the NAACP lawyers who challenged the legal doctrine that legitimized segregation in the South. Davis represented the interests of the states, not out of a sense of bigotry but out of legal principle; after all, it was the Supreme Court that had established the separate but equal doctrine. This becomes a key part of the dilemma that Chief Justice Warren faced because the law was obviously legal--it just also happened to be wrong.

This excellent 1991 docudrama was aired in two parts. The first part looks at the segregated school system in Claredon County, South Carolina, one of the four cases that comprised the ruling, and the harm of segregation is captured in a memorable sequence in which young black children always pick the white doll rather than the black doll to describe who is smarter, better, etc. The second part of the film deals with the lengthy process by which the high court deliberated the case, doing a better job of capturing the process than any drama I have ever seen.

Portier provides Marshall with all the dignity appropriate to the role, and it is a treat to see the actor play a lawyer arguing before the high court. Lancaster, in his final role, performs a key function: he is earnest and likeable, which means that in the context of this story our opposition has to be to his position and not to him personally. In other words, this is a legal matter that has to be determined on the point of law and not on our feelings about bigots and racism. However, writer/director George Stevens, Jr. has set us up, because for Kiley's Earl Warren it is a question of justice rather than the law, especially after the former Governor of California visits the battlefield at Gettysburg and discovers his driver had to sleep in the car because no local hotel would accept a black.

For me this is Kiley's film and the most fascinating part of "Separate But Equal" is watching him rally the Court to make its landmark ruling. This is a long, hard, effort for Kiley, who insists that a unanimous ruling is important to make it clear to the nation that there is no longer two sides to this issue. I appreciated that Stevens simply has Kiley read the actual ruling at the film's climax. Again, Stevens using a simple image to bring home the significance of the ruling as the preacher and father who were at the heart of the case we watched in the first part hear the news on the radio, pull over their car, get out and kneel by the side of the road to give thanks.

At 193 minutes this docudrama would consume a week of class, but it could be well worth the effort. Certainly screening it for students would produce some interesting questions and discussions. Final comment: Stevens uses irony throughout "Separate but Equal" (e.g., Marshall and the NAACP lawyers cannot get a cab to take them to the Supreme Court to hear the decision), but there is one delightful use of humor, when a young white lawyer who is helping with the appeal explains to the NAACP lawyers why he is there working with them.

Rating:
Summary: First rate docudrama on Brown v. Board of Education
Review: "Separate But Equal" puts three names about the credits: Sidney Portier as Thurgood Marshall, Burt Lancaster as John W. Davis, and Richard Kiley as Earl Warren. This is significant because it helps to personify the three sides in the monumental Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education. Marshall headed the NAACP lawyers who challenged the legal doctrine that legitimized segregation in the South. Davis represented the interests of the states, not out of a sense of bigotry but out of legal principle; after all, it was the Supreme Court that had established the separate but equal doctrine. This becomes a key part of the dilemma that Chief Justice Warren faced because the law was obviously legal--it just also happened to be wrong.

This excellent 1991 docudrama was aired in two parts. The first part looks at the segregated school system in Claredon County, South Carolina, one of the four cases that comprised the ruling, and the harm of segregation is captured in a memorable sequence in which young black children always pick the white doll rather than the black doll to describe who is smarter, better, etc. The second part of the film deals with the lengthy process by which the high court deliberated the case, doing a better job of capturing the process than any drama I have ever seen.

Portier provides Marshall with all the dignity appropriate to the role, and it is a treat to see the actor play a lawyer arguing before the high court. Lancaster, in his final role, performs a key function: he is earnest and likeable, which means that in the context of this story our opposition has to be to his position and not to him personally. In other words, this is a legal matter that has to be determined on the point of law and not on our feelings about bigots and racism. However, writer/director George Stevens, Jr. has set us up, because for Kiley's Earl Warren it is a question of justice rather than the law, especially after the former Governor of California visits the battlefield at Gettysburg and discovers his driver had to sleep in the car because no local hotel would accept a black.

For me this is Kiley's film and the most fascinating part of "Separate But Equal" is watching him rally the Court to make its landmark ruling. This is a long, hard, effort for Kiley, who insists that a unanimous ruling is important to make it clear to the nation that there is no longer two sides to this issue. I appreciated that Stevens simply has Kiley read the actual ruling at the film's climax. Again, Stevens using a simple image to bring home the significance of the ruling as the preacher and father who were at the heart of the case we watched in the first part hear the news on the radio, pull over their car, get out and kneel by the side of the road to give thanks.

At 193 minutes this docudrama would consume a week of class, but it could be well worth the effort. Certainly screening it for students would produce some interesting questions and discussions. Final comment: Stevens uses irony throughout "Separate but Equal" (e.g., Marshall and the NAACP lawyers cannot get a cab to take them to the Supreme Court to hear the decision), but there is one delightful use of humor, when a young white lawyer who is helping with the appeal explains to the NAACP lawyers why he is there working with them.

Rating:
Summary: They play in the streets together, they separate for school.
Review:

"John, if this case goes before the Supreme Court. . . I'm gonna need you"

It's the early 1950's, in America. The governor of South Carolina James Francis Byrnes, in his 70's at the time, pays a visit to his friend, the famous lawyer John W. Davis. Davis had argued 138 cases in front of the Supreme Court. Byrnes was turning to him for help.

Byrnes was determined to show that discrimination and segregation in public schools were not the same thing. He wanted black school children to have equal schools. He was ashamed of the terrible condition the black schools were in, in his state of South Carolina. He even levied a three percent sales tax to fund the improvement of black schools. He was prepared to spend 75 million dollars to improve the public schools for black children in his state.

But he knew, that the small case that a few courageous people (Harry Briggs, Reverand J.A. Delaine) had started in Clarendon county, SC, was too big of an issue for his efforts alone. The case was on it's way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the NAACP), had become involved. Their head lawyer, Thurgood Marshall had combined this case and four other similar cases (from Delaware, Kansas, DC and Virginia) into one called 'Brown v. Board of Education', and made it his mission to strike down segregation in public schools in America.

The great thing about this movie is how it makes each side look respectable. The movie does not make this a 'bad evil white men against poor suffering black people' type of story. But rather, the film, portrays the white men as being highly respected, educated and willing to do the right thing. But at the same time, very concerned and perhaps even afraid of the consequences of their decisions.

I also loved the humor in this film. For example when Byrnes is conversing with Davis and says 'I admit to past sins, our colored schools are a disgrace'. Or when one of the lawyers at the NAACP legal defense fund says about the South Carolina case "If we win this one, we'll only have 11,172 school districts left."

The heart of this film is the uncommon courage of the people. Courage among so many involved. Of course, first from the blacks from those small towns, who risked their jobs and safety, and faced the hate of the Ku Klux Klan, by taking these complaints to their local lawyers. Then, to the NAACP, for climbing this long and expensive uphill battle. But also, to the judges on the Supreme Court, and in particular the Chief Judge Earl Warren.

Warren was quoted as saying 'Everything that I did in life that was worthwhile, I caught hell for.' What a difficult decision, but what a remarkable effort on his part to unite the nine members of the Supreme Court to conclude the case with a unanimous decision to end segregation in public schools in America.

It took a lot of brave people on both sides, to end separation of black and white school children in public schools. Perhaps Thurgood Marshall summed it up best, when he mocked the thinking of people in the south by saying 'you can have them attending the same State Universities and Graduate schools, but if they attend the same elementary and high schools together, the world would fall apart.'

A wonderful treasured movie. Must see for all.

Rating:
Summary: They play in the streets together, they separate for school.
Review:

"John, if this case goes before the Supreme Court. . . I'm gonna need you"

It's the early 1950's, in America. The governor of South Carolina James Francis Byrnes, in his 70's at the time, pays a visit to his friend, the famous lawyer John W. Davis. Davis had argued 138 cases in front of the Supreme Court. Byrnes was turning to him for help.

Byrnes was determined to show that discrimination and segregation in public schools were not the same thing. He wanted black school children to have equal schools. He was ashamed of the terrible condition the black schools were in, in his state of South Carolina. He even levied a three percent sales tax to fund the improvement of black schools. He was prepared to spend 75 million dollars to improve the public schools for black children in his state.

But he knew, that the small case that a few courageous people (Harry Briggs, Reverand J.A. Delaine) had started in Clarendon county, SC, was too big of an issue for his efforts alone. The case was on it's way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the NAACP), had become involved. Their head lawyer, Thurgood Marshall had combined this case and four other similar cases (from Delaware, Kansas, DC and Virginia) into one called 'Brown v. Board of Education', and made it his mission to strike down segregation in public schools in America.

The great thing about this movie is how it makes each side look respectable. The movie does not make this a 'bad evil white men against poor suffering black people' type of story. But rather, the film, portrays the white men as being highly respected, educated and willing to do the right thing. But at the same time, very concerned and perhaps even afraid of the consequences of their decisions.

I also loved the humor in this film. For example when Byrnes is conversing with Davis and says 'I admit to past sins, our colored schools are a disgrace'. Or when one of the lawyers at the NAACP legal defense fund says about the South Carolina case "If we win this one, we'll only have 11,172 school districts left."

The heart of this film is the uncommon courage of the people. Courage among so many involved. Of course, first from the blacks from those small towns, who risked their jobs and safety, and faced the hate of the Ku Klux Klan, by taking these complaints to their local lawyers. Then, to the NAACP, for climbing this long and expensive uphill battle. But also, to the judges on the Supreme Court, and in particular the Chief Judge Earl Warren.

Warren was quoted as saying 'Everything that I did in life that was worthwhile, I caught hell for.' What a difficult decision, but what a remarkable effort on his part to unite the nine members of the Supreme Court to conclude the case with a unanimous decision to end segregation in public schools in America.

It took a lot of brave people on both sides, to end separation of black and white school children in public schools. Perhaps Thurgood Marshall summed it up best, when he mocked the thinking of people in the south by saying 'you can have them attending the same State Universities and Graduate schools, but if they attend the same elementary and high schools together, the world would fall apart.'

A wonderful treasured movie. Must see for all.

Rating:
Summary: separate but equal
Review: Black kids have had no buses to go to school, Marshall, who was trying to convince the government to get for their buses. It was in Calorina 1950. Scott Branch School.

The supernintendent said that white people pay taxes and they have buses for black kids. Request the 10th Amendment required equal rights for the people; the right time and the right place was the arguement of the law. The white people did not accept the black people, white response it response was trying to scared them to make Marshall stop. The government wants to spend money to make the schools equal; "Separate and equal is the key" Springer went to delay house, they tell him that the government offered only school bus and money, they tried to get him a raised and drop the case but he said no. He got fired

There were 11173 people in segragation. White response they fired the priest who was teaching the school, reported one of the newspaper. Marshall was trying to say that he didn't have no damage because of going to a separate school. The lawyer made him out and not right to know anything about the U.S.S Court decision, they wanted equal school segratgation. White reaction, you didn't show.

Marshall's wife found out that she got a cancer. John W. Davis was a lawyer of South Carolina of the Supreme Court, his daughter told him not to take this case, but he did it because he wanted to do it base on the equal rights. The white people was laughing at the priest because the house was buring down

The justices of the Supreme Court started in 1952. 1st arguement of the court of law what went wrong. The Chief Justice Vincent had mkae up his mind because he died from a heart attack. 2nd arguemnet of the supreme court, the lawyer was not good in the court because he didn't show a lot of details, he got caught out

New Presidnet- Hissin Harward Justice Felix Frankfurter- the new chief

Supreme court did on Friday, no one can enter or leaving during the court. Someone should know what's going on until the decision made

Charles Black- professor, lawyer, historian

The Supreme Court decided that the black people have their equal rights.

Rating:
Summary: reviewing history from a young blackman's eye
Review: I think this movie was great. With the way that I rated it you can tell. I think every young white male between the ages of 11-18 should see this move. To show how hard the blacks had it during the time of the civil rights movement. The reason why the judical system made Marshall a justice, is because he won every case. The ole saying if you can't beat him,Get him on your team.

Rating:
Summary: Great historical/legal drama
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this historical dama about Briggs v. Elliott. It was a great drama, seemed very accurate, portrayed a little-known legal "Super Bowl" between my hero, John W Davis, and Thurgood Marshall. Everybody should watch it.

Rating:
Summary: Great historical/legal drama
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this historical dama about Briggs v. Elliott. It was a great drama, seemed very accurate, portrayed a little-known legal "Super Bowl" between my hero, John W Davis, and Thurgood Marshall. Everybody should watch it.

Rating:
Summary: Eye opening
Review: I was forced to watch this video in my government class. It isn't something I would rent on a Friday night, but the educational content was great. I didn't sleep through the movie at all. This is a story anyone who didn't live through the civil rights movement should experience.