MovieChat Forums > Free State of Jones (2016) Discussion > Why exactly was the courtroom scene nece...

Why exactly was the courtroom scene necessary?

posted 8 years ago by JSSTyger
11 replies | jump to latest

Seriously, they kept jumping around from the 1860s to the 1900s and I could never piece together exactly how that trial had anything to do with the story. What exactly does this "1/8th black = can't marry a white woman" trial have to do with the landowners rebellion in 1860s against the State of Mississippi about being required to give up 10% of their property to support the Confederate army?

Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'...
...That's god damn right.

[–] Mukta-3 8 years ago

I think it was necessary to show the long term effects of slavery and the ridiculous laws they continued to pass in the South. That although Newt tried to make a difference, even his ancestors continued to feel the effects.

[–] wileypeyote 8 years ago

I looked it up. It was a notorious case at the time and held Mississippi up for ridicule. He was the great grandson of Newt and Rachel. I agree I think it was good that it was incorporated as the film itself stops during reconstruction and the trial showcases the racist laws of Jim Crow.

[–] JSSTyger 8 years ago

I didn't like the cuts that went back and forth. It felt like that courtroom scene was a separate story from the rest of the movie.

Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'...
...That's god damn right.

[–] workbumpf 8 years ago

I didn't mind the cuts but I had already read the books the film is largely based on and knew the story. It might have been better for Gary Ross to use the time to explore in more detail the relationships of Newt and the two wives. Or start the film off with the 1940s court case.

[–] creatorof2002 8 years ago

I think he was on trial because he was one eighth black and married to a white woman but what I am confused about is this. Various stores and other institutions lacked DNA scanning technology so how do they prevent him from using "whites only" facilities? Any restaurant or store he goes into will assume he is white. Would the court also order him to use only the "black only" facility?

[–] workbumpf 8 years ago

It was local gossip, not a family Bible that caught him out in reality. Newt's oldest son Tom was estranged from the biracial side of the family. Some of Newt and Rachel's descendants were black, some (like Davis Knight) had so little black heritage that they 'passed' as white (or were white). But living around Ellisville all the local gossips knew the story of Newt Knight and Rachel.

The court judged Davis to be black (he had served in the Army during WWII as white). Then, on appeal, it was decided he was white because he was only 1/8 black. The decision had, as the film suggested, more to do with keeping the federal government out of Mississippi's business than any 'enlightened' interpretation of the notorious 'One Drop Rule'.

[–] canada22 7 years ago

I agree. I think that part could have been shown at the end of the movie.

[–] tjk1911 7 years ago

I think it was necessary to show the long term effects of slavery and the ridiculous laws they continued to pass in the South. That although Newt tried to make a difference, even his ancestors continued to feel the effects.

Wow! That's some really effective laws, such that they reach back into the past and affect the people who came before Newt. I'd have thought it was the other way around and that the laws would affect Newt's descendants.

/eyeroll

[–] poopfock 8 years ago

I loved the movie, but I too thought the cuts to the future were unnecessary. They also felt like they were from a totally different film. Everything else about the movie was great, tho. So thankfully those cuts were very brief and very few.

[–] kuntext 8 years ago

What exactly does this "1/8th black = can't marry a white woman" trial have to do with the landowners rebellion in 1860s against the State of Mississippi

That husband was the grandson of Newt and Rachel, whom also weren't allowed to marry for racist reasons. So, two things are going on there. First, it showed that generations later, some battles continue. Secondly, the courage and commitment and honor displayed by his grandparents trickled down and continued in their progeny.

The story and the fight is about freedom. The progress is slow and full of sacrifice. That more recent trial showed how our choices affect the future of our children. He could have divorced her. He could have run away with her. He chose to stand and fight for his rights. He sacrificed his freedom in the cause of freedom... and the conviction was overturned. :) Inspiring.

ETA: Also, the question of White rights or of Black rights comes together in this bi-racial American and then it's more clearly... human rights. Yes, I understand it was still an unjust law which was used to oppress Black people, but like all supremacist ideologies, the limitations affect everyone because the freedom isn't there.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]