There's a blurb at the top of the book cover of Framing Emmett Till that reads, "The story of Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley can never be told enough. With the help of [Christopher] Benson's and [Eric] Battle's riveting books, it will never be forgotten."
Honestly, I don't know that I can say anything more poignant than that with this review.
The book relays Till's story through a series of flashbacks as we see Benson himself talking with Till-Mobley and various witnesses from the time. It's structued a little like Citizen Kane in that regard, but without the conceit of having a Rosebud-style MacGuffin. Benson seems more than aware that most of the book's readership is already at least nominally familiar with Till's story, so there's no need to force a pretense like that. But the structure allows him to showcase different elements of Till's story and why/how there were contradicting accounts at the time.
What the structure also does is allow Benson to point out contemporary discussions of Till's story, and how various groups -- mostly large media outlets -- try to frame the story to fit whatever agenda they have. Movie studios, for example, talking about buying the rights to the story, but then brainstorm how they could present it through the eyes of a white activist. Or setting up Carolyn Bryant as the true victim. (These scenes, I believe, are based on actual conversations Benson had, and I can only hope he was exaggerating for dramatic effect. But somehow, I doubt he did more than shorten an hour-long conversation to a few panels.)
Benson walked a tight line in that regard, I think. By putting himself into the story and framing the book as his trying to tell the story, he runs the risk of doing precisely what he criticizes others of doing. Particularly in those scenes when he's talking with movie studio executives and publishers about getting the story out. By framing the story around his telling of the story, doesn't that pull an outsized narrative focus away from Till himself? Doesn't it make the central conflict about Benson getting the story out and not the story itself? I'll admit that I found myself going back and forth on this point throughout much of the book while I was reading it. Ultimately, there are enough discussions shown between Benson and Till-Mobley that I think it lands on the side of making sure the complete and true story gets on the record. And unfortunately part of that complete story involves decades of various third parties holding up Till as almost a mascot for their 'team.'
There's even a very pointed discussion in the back half of the book where the question is flatly asked: how much of the trial was being sought out as justice for a mother's son and how much was being sought to prevent the need for another such trial in the first place? And is there a difference? Till-Mobley had to wrestle with this because the only thing she really wanted was something she couldn't have any longer: her son.
Regardless of how familiar you are with Emmett Till's story, I think it's worth your time reading this book. The setup and framing of the narrative makes it interesting from a strictly technical perspective even if you've spent decades studying Till's life and death, and the framing of the story makes for some compelling and fascinating commentary on how the story's been told and sold over the years.
Framing Emmett Till by Christopher Benson and Eric Battle came out from Abrams' Megascope imprint just last week and should be readily available from your favorite bookseller. The hardcover retails at $27.99 US.
The book relays Till's story through a series of flashbacks as we see Benson himself talking with Till-Mobley and various witnesses from the time. It's structued a little like Citizen Kane in that regard, but without the conceit of having a Rosebud-style MacGuffin. Benson seems more than aware that most of the book's readership is already at least nominally familiar with Till's story, so there's no need to force a pretense like that. But the structure allows him to showcase different elements of Till's story and why/how there were contradicting accounts at the time.
What the structure also does is allow Benson to point out contemporary discussions of Till's story, and how various groups -- mostly large media outlets -- try to frame the story to fit whatever agenda they have. Movie studios, for example, talking about buying the rights to the story, but then brainstorm how they could present it through the eyes of a white activist. Or setting up Carolyn Bryant as the true victim. (These scenes, I believe, are based on actual conversations Benson had, and I can only hope he was exaggerating for dramatic effect. But somehow, I doubt he did more than shorten an hour-long conversation to a few panels.)
Benson walked a tight line in that regard, I think. By putting himself into the story and framing the book as his trying to tell the story, he runs the risk of doing precisely what he criticizes others of doing. Particularly in those scenes when he's talking with movie studio executives and publishers about getting the story out. By framing the story around his telling of the story, doesn't that pull an outsized narrative focus away from Till himself? Doesn't it make the central conflict about Benson getting the story out and not the story itself? I'll admit that I found myself going back and forth on this point throughout much of the book while I was reading it. Ultimately, there are enough discussions shown between Benson and Till-Mobley that I think it lands on the side of making sure the complete and true story gets on the record. And unfortunately part of that complete story involves decades of various third parties holding up Till as almost a mascot for their 'team.'
There's even a very pointed discussion in the back half of the book where the question is flatly asked: how much of the trial was being sought out as justice for a mother's son and how much was being sought to prevent the need for another such trial in the first place? And is there a difference? Till-Mobley had to wrestle with this because the only thing she really wanted was something she couldn't have any longer: her son.
Regardless of how familiar you are with Emmett Till's story, I think it's worth your time reading this book. The setup and framing of the narrative makes it interesting from a strictly technical perspective even if you've spent decades studying Till's life and death, and the framing of the story makes for some compelling and fascinating commentary on how the story's been told and sold over the years.
Framing Emmett Till by Christopher Benson and Eric Battle came out from Abrams' Megascope imprint just last week and should be readily available from your favorite bookseller. The hardcover retails at $27.99 US.

























