Freedom Riders
Stanley Nelson’s documentary film Freedom Riders is a direct narrative from historians, journalists, and first person accounts of the protests which occurred for civil rights in the South. At the very beginning, the audience is greeted with the reading of a consent document which is shared by the voices of four different Freedom Riders. Each voice reads a brief statement as the viewer is shown their faces, newspaper articles, and archival photographs. As this montage drew to a close, an immediate question of editing and its role of how a story is conveyed enter into play. What was gained by Stanley Nelson’s editing approach in sharing the story of the Freedom Riders?
To begin with, the interviews become a central priority because it sets an outline of action experienced by the character, and allows the audience to become engaged through the use of strong voices. In order to further peak audience interest in a profound manner, Stanley Nelson cleverly edited archival footage, photographs, and maps into the film as the story unfolded before our eyes. Neslon creates an element of suspense by sharing the story of the Freedom Rider’s almost effortlessly. In other words, the story appeared to flow on its own volition. An example of this magical momentum seems most emphatic when archival film footage is shown on screen. Rev. James M. Lawson, Jr, speaks, “By using nonviolence, people see the contrast between your dignified, disciplined confrontation of the wrong, and then the reaction of violence. No way of confusing that confrontation” (Nelson). Immediately after Reverend Lawson speaks about reactions to violence with nonviolence, Stanley Nelson inserts archival footage at the time marker (13:49) to reinforce the storyboard elements with the viewer. One gain Stanley Nelson made by editing interviews and archive footage together was the enhancement of an established hearing trust with a visual aid. A final example of editing blended with visualization takes place around minute (21:00) of Freedom Riders. Stanley Nelson shows “Mae F. Moultrie Howard, a Freedom Rider, speaking while the audience is shown shots from inside a bus window” (Nelson). The arrangement of this scene perfectly illustrates the credible, convincing, and compelling mood to the film the producer intended to create.
The films The Thin Blue Line and Freedom Riders both share commonalities from a storytelling perspective. Both documentaries utilize first person interviews, and add visualizations as the stories themselves unfold. The crucial difference however is how the archival editing and reenactments were used. Errol Morris, director of The Thin Blue Line, created a reconstruction of a crime scene based through reenactments to give the audience a visualization of a shooting of a police officer. Stanley Nelson, director of Freedom Riders, created a reconstruction of a historical scene based on archival footage to bring to life the events the Freedom Riders faced.
Ultimately, despite the subtle differences between these two films, the recreation devices used place the audience in the presence of the story. With narration playing an important role in each film, the purpose to inform becomes evident when one closely examines the editing process a director chooses to take when piecing together a story. Furthermore, reconstruction and reenactments when used in proper fashion are powerful tools a producer can utilize to create a relationship with the audience.
Works Cited
Freedom Riders . Dir. Stanley Nelson. Perf. Rev. James M. Lawson Jr. 2010.
Freedom Riders . Dir. Stanley Nelson. Perf. Mae F. Moultrie Howard. 2010.
