MEDIOCREMOVIE.CLUB
  • Reviews
  • Side Pieces
  • Shane of Thrones
  • Podcast
  • About
  • Archives
  • Game of Thrones Fantasy

The Revisionaries

1/21/2015

63 Comments

 

B-
2.73

"I don't watch movies to get some of that sweet confirmation bias. - Jon
"I didn't need an entire movie about McLeroy being wrong and having a very narrow of the world: that was clear early and often. - Bobby
"Everyone is pushing an agenda, including filmmaker Scott Thurman." - Phil
Initial Review by Drew

What a documentary.

This is one of my favorites and let me explain why and I will get to that but first the documentary itself.  Scott Thurman has an agenda and it is to infuriate the country and embarrass Texas voters by showing how the State Board of Education (SBOE) has made education a political issue and shifted information to the right.  He was successful on the former, not so much on the latter.

Viewers are exposed to some people who can be casted as “good” and “bad.”  I like to put it as the “smart” and the “dumb” ones. We are introduced to Don McElroy at the film’s start as it shows his hearing as the Board’s Chair and then get to see how he is as a person.  Quite frankly, McElroy is a great guy.  I would love for him to be my neighbor, maybe even my dentist, but there is no way I vote for him.  He is a right wing ideologue, who had an agenda while serving on the Board.  His agenda, however, was not for the betterment of students, although it was disguised as such.

His views were better articulated by Cynthia Dunbar, or whom I like to call Cynthia “Dumbshit.”  There is no question that she, like McElroy, is out to fight a culture war through education.  She was trained by Pat Robertson at his institution of Regent University and views the world through a black and white lens. Her arguments are not valid, historical points, as they are Robertson’s perspective on science, history, economics, government, etc.  Those characteristics are ever so present when she is featured.

We met their opponents Kathy Miller and Ron Wetherington when they discussed textbook adoption on scientific standards. Miller is a lobbyist for the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) and attempts to educate voters on the importance of this governmental body.  Her attempts have been in vain but that keeps her fighting. She appears to be a down to earth person, whereas Wetherington can come off as a snob. There is, however, no doubt he is an expert in the field of anthropology.  He represents the facts on science and can extensively argue history and politics.

My take on The Revisionaries is Thurman had some manipulation taking place.  He does not do what Michael Moore does, which is fantastic.  Moore presents his pieces as if he is writing a paper. He narrates and directs the viewer to see what he wants them to see.  Thurman does not manipulate in that way.  He presents what he sees as important and the viewer derives an opinion from that.  For instance, Thurman presented Mary Helen Berlanger’s rightful fit on discrimination (throwing the books on the ground) with the impression that others were paying attention to what she said.  Maybe there were, maybe there were not but Thurman does not care about that.  Another example is when Ken Mercer says he wants to put “Hussein” between “Barack Obama.”  It is a sliver of the presentation but viewers’ take from that, or at least they should, the question of “why?” 

Thurman’s influence is a reason it lands in the “B” range.  The positives are tremendous.  We see how politicized the process was and can be, how voting matters, and all elections are important.  I show this documentary in my Texas Government classes every semester and every time, a few students get upset.  That is fantastic.  I do not show them the film to make them angry, but there is context that I will conceal from you because it is boring education stuff but know I make no attempts indoctrinating students. 

There are many tangents that can arise from this but I urge us to stay on topic. The ongoing debate of teaching religion or science in the classroom is hotly discussed, especially in Texas.

Having stated that, I strongly encourage people from all political sides to watch it.  I welcome a good discussion on the film from everyone and hope this does the trick.

Grade: B+

63 Comments
Drew
1/21/2015 05:22:21 am

Just wanting comment notifications

Reply
Jon
1/25/2015 04:21:35 pm

Hmmm, a movie about non-science making its way into science, a huge bugaboo of mine. This documentary was clearly made for me, but it's not like I can call it an A and wrap the review up. It's got the usual documentary problems i.e. the stock footage, staged moments, and editing that forms a clear narrative that may or may not have synched up with real life. There's also the fact that I read a lot about this subject and have a strong working knowledge of the issue, so like Electoral Dysfunction, the Revisionaries isn't really showing me anything new. I don't watch movies to get some of that sweet confirmation bias. However, the generally-clear recounting of events, plus the picture-perfect caricatures of McLeroy and Dunbar are relatively useful, and if one barometer of success for a movie is the ability to draw a reaction out of the viewer, then the
Revisionaries succeeds based on how much anger it inspired in me.

Back in Electoral Dysfunction, I talked about documentaries needing to work as journalism and cinema. For journalism, I think the film is mostly successful. Getting all that screentime with McLeroy and Dunbar is a valuable insight into who these people, and a lot of people like them, are. I recently watched the documentary Kids For Cash, which investigated the PA juvenile justice scandal where a judge who had received money from a for-profit detention center was giving mild offenders harsh sentences. What I thought was going to be straightforward and Dateline-esque got a lot more interesting when the accused agreed to be interviewed, something rare in documentaries like that. McLeroy and Dunbar aren't corrupt criminals, per se, but that they'd so candidly pour their hearts out does add a lot to the film. I do wish the director went for more interviews around the election, specifically talking to voters or some of the moderate council members. I was curious about what Texans of all stripes thought about what was happening, and didn't really get it from the film.

As cinema, The Revisionaries is pretty bland. Director Scott Thurman repeatedly catches characters staring out windows, or just going about their day. I do not like that kind of B-roll footage, as it seems so fake. The movie is less than 90 minutes, why do we have to waste time being shown that the leader of the Texas Freedom Network is a good mother?

Where the film most succeeds is in carving a window into McLeroy's brain. Dunbar, not so much, as she seems likes she's hiding a lot more and we don't see her in candid moments, but McLeroy is a much simpler person. I don't know about you all, but I buy his brand of bullshit. Not that he's correct about anything that comes out of his mouth, but I fully believe that he means what he's saying. I think he's dumb and incurious, as verified by a couple of podcast episode (408 and 410) of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe in which a panel of skeptics interviewed and thoroughly humiliated him. How many times can someone say 'agree to disagree' before they admit they're a moron who's afraid of actual debate? While I believe his good nature, it's also clear that he's had some media training from the Discovery Institute. Early in the film, he's about to say 'There's no way I descended from a tree,' but he stops himself mid-sentence because that kind of statement has been so derided that it marks the speaker as an idiot. One thing creationists are good at is debate, because they have no facts on their side, but they have plenty of mental curlicues and long sentences that don't mean anything and talking points and appeals to ignorance. McLeroy isn't very good at them, but it's obvious that he's trying.

This issue pisses me off so much. There's so many trends contained within it that are all equally enraging, like false equivalence, and the difficulty of scientific communication, and the insularity of the evangelical world, and the corruption of statehouses by outside think tanks, and the myth of American exceptionalism, and the separation of church and state. It gave me a headache, probably not the state that Thurman wanted to leave viewers with. Maybe he did really want people to get mad. The stakes in this film are so absurdly high, and everything's locked in til 2020. I'm a skeptic, and it very often feels like the battle is being lost. Science is the best chance for people to find out the universe's name, and until we find a better system, it's intolerable to me that so many close their minds and shun it instead. To quote Professor Farnsworth, "I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

Back to the movie, I think as journalism, it's around a B+, and as a film, it's around a C. There's too much information to be covered in the film's short running time, which is likely still true in the longer version. The averageness of the filmmaking isn't doing the film any favors, either. Drew's documentary picks are improving, with The Revisionaries landing at a B-. N

Reply
Jon
1/25/2015 04:22:28 pm

Back to the movie, I think as journalism, it's around a B+, and as a film, it's around a C. There's too much information to be covered in the film's short running time, which is likely still true in the longer version. The averageness of the filmmaking isn't doing the film any favors, either. Drew's documentary picks are improving, with The Revisionaries landing at a B-. No Mo Rocca would give any film a boost.

If this movie made you as angry as I did, I would strongly recommend supporting the National Center for Science Education, an organization featured in the film. They also played a huge role in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, in which intelligent design was ruled as a violation of the first amendment. It's a worthy cause. Help other children be taught facts and truth, while preventing them from being treated like braindead imbeciles. Their parents can fill their heads with simplistic bullshit all they want; tax dollars shouldn't be used to melt brains, unless it's a defense department secret project.

Reply
Drew
1/26/2015 03:41:20 am

What infuriated me, still does, is these people won elections to serve on the Board. Now, the SBOE only has a few remaining people from the film still serving, but the film frustrates me about Texas' political ideology.

AHHHHH!!!! Anyway...

Shane
1/29/2015 04:26:40 am

If the GOP wants to survive, they'll slowly begin to cut official ties with these nut jobs. Although the current primary system makes them embrace these jerks.

Jon
1/29/2015 02:12:47 pm

The GOP gains no benefit from distancing themselves from them. It might make people like us more likely to vote for them, but come on. That probably wasn't going to happen anyway.

Shane
1/29/2015 03:09:41 pm

As someone annoyed by his fellow liberals, please give me an alternative.

Phil
1/30/2015 04:32:06 am

A Libertarian party that is liberal on social issues and a little more stingy on the government financial load will eventually come around and possibly even replace the existing GOP. The GOP wound up getting into bed with the conservative base b/c they are a major voting block and were not being represented by either party up until the late 90's. Somewhere along the way Republicans and Deomocrats flipped on quite a few values. Strom Thurmond was a democrat after all. I wonder how much him and Barack HUSSEIN Obama have in common?

Shane
1/29/2015 04:24:46 am

I don't see the doom and gloom of the future for science. The population is becoming increasingly non-religious or agnostic. This sort of thinking will continue to erode. 80 years ago was the Scopes trial. Before that, it was permissible to make teaching evolution illegal. Now teaching evolution is the norm and creationsim is the weird thing to be teaching. We've evolved and will continue to do so.

That said, it's still important to fight for these issues, especially scientific literacy. But science is going to win out eventually, just may take longer than we'd like.

Reply
Shane
1/29/2015 04:25:28 am

And I can't wait to download those pods.

Reply
Drew
1/30/2015 05:05:32 am

Here is your gloom and doom if you're a scientist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/americans-increasing-distrust-of-science-and-not-just-on-climate-change/?tid=pm_politics_pop

Shane
2/3/2015 01:35:11 am

I listened to the podcast with McElroy on there.

He's definitely on the stupid spectrum, though I have concluded that he's probably a nice guy. He just parrots back the same talking points verbatim like he read them off of a power point. He's not so catastrophic analytically (he actually seems to attempt to reflect), but his conclusions are literally the opposite of what the evidence is. He's just bending the fact in a way that matches his world-view.

Reply
Bobby
1/28/2015 06:48:52 am

I watched The Revisionaries a few days ago... but didn't feel like I had much to say about it. I still don't, but I suppose that shouldn't stop me from commenting and tossing a grade out there.

I think Thurman chooses a great topic for a documentary, but I'm not really feeling the film. It is ridiculous to think that a group of people who have little to no knowledge of the subjects they're discussing can just pick and choose what gets added and omitted from textbooks... and nearly as ridiculous that they can consider almost anybody expert enough to talk to them about those subjects. It definitely angered me a bit to see how things were working down there... but i don't think that's a testament to the documentary as much as it is to how horrible the system is.

I just didn't feel like the movie held much of a call to action (not that every documentary needs to) or even presented possible avenues for change. It felt like a pretty basic presentation of information and an all out attempt to make McLeroy look like an idiot. Here's what's going on, here's the big-hearted fool that got all the best intentions but all the wrong qualifications to do what he's doing, and here are a couple looks at the other side. We now know is that this is the process and the types of people involved, and it will apparently be like that until 2020. But what are the options come then? Give me more insight to the battle against McLeroy's side and those people. Give me equal parts Ron Wetherington and Kathy Miller to the McLeroy and Dunbar. Tell me more of what they've been doing and why it hasn't been working. Basically.. I didn't need an entire movie about McLeroy being wrong and having a very narrow view of the world, that was clear early and often.

That said... there really was a lot of good information, and actually seeing the process and the votes and amendments was all valuable. I think it's still an okay documentary overall... just didn't reach the potential that this topic has. C+

Reply
Shane
1/29/2015 03:44:13 am

Either they're a liar or they're stupid.

That's the thought that I kept thinking throughout this documentary. Scott Thurman does a fantastic job at presenting the people involved and making me continue to repeat that question. None of the characters here are clearly evil or all bad and Thurman lets them explain themselves in their own words. This light touch is what largely makes this documentary a successful one.

I tend to prefer documentaries that don't have an established bias that demonizes the Other Side. Garbage like Black Fish is the first thing that comes to mind. Those biased documentaries at times are basically gonzo journalism: The narrator involves him/herself and they get to be one of the good guys. Thurman, despite having a bias here, doesn't involve himself in the story, taking on the role of a traditional journalist. We know he has a dog in this fight, but instead of burning the opposition in a witch-hunt, he lets them hang themselves.

Thurman gives us main characters, none more prominent than Don McElroy. We get to know McElroy and its clear that Thurman does want to show him as a human being. (To his credit, he even attempts to humanize the Cynthia Dunbar, who is too slick and professional to allow herself to be portrayed as a real human being.)

Interestingly, Thurman doesn't attempt to humanize the "good guys." We don't really get to know them at all, which is interesting because that's not what most documentaries do. I think this is a great choice as their stories weren't near as pertinent. They weren't the ones make extraordinary claims and therefor didn't need in-depth explanations.

Does this documentary have the ability to change anyone's mind? Probably not. It definitely gives some ammo to the pro-science side, but it kind of does the same for the stupid or liars side. But I'm not sure Thurman tried to change minds as opposed to just showing what was going on.

While the movie was overall concise and to the point, there were indeed some unnecessary B-roll moments. I would have rather done away with shots of browning leaves on a tree and seen more of the footage from the board meetings. Or perhaps we could have gotten to know at least one of the board members who weren't on the liar or stupid side.

So, were Cynthia Dunbar and Don McElroy liars or stupid?

It's easy with Dunbar: She's a liar. She may have gone to a sub-par law school, but even the student at Regent Law still have to pass the bar. So they have to know the law and that takes some analytic thinking. She knows what she's doing is disingenuous. She's a liar and she certainly isn't stupid.

McElory is harder. He comes off as a super nice guy, almost like a Phil Love. But even Phil Love had a boner for power. It's really hard to figure out if he truly believes what he's saying. If he does, he's stupid because his line of reasoning is entirely irrational. If he can't see the ulterior motives behind this movement, he's dumb.

He kind of reminds me of a certain subset of people that just kind of skate by in positions of power despite not really being talented leaders. They're just nice people who come across as responsible. These are the people who won all sorts of student elections and were always group leaders in high school despite never having any original thoughts. They went to college and probably joined a Christian organization and became leaders there. It reminds me of that former EI douche named Dustin who flipped shit because he lost an election for the first time ever and didn't get his way. He thought he should lead because he was the good guy and in the right. Fuck that.

Eventually these people get exposed for the rudderless vessels that they are. They have no true skills other being a nice person who just gets stuff done on time. Don McElroy was exposed as one of those people here. He's not really the person pushing this garbage, it's the Cynthia Dunbars of the world.

In the end, I enjoyed this one quite a bit even if it enraged me. I think it was very well done. It won't change anyone's mind, but that's OK.

A-

Reply
Jon
1/29/2015 02:16:37 pm

I would've loved to have seen Dunbar running an election. McLeroy, at least in this instance, is a full on idiot, but I think at heart, he's a nice guy. Dunbar doesn't seem to have a warm bone in her body.

Reply
Shane
1/29/2015 03:10:53 pm

I'd put my warm bone in her body. Hiyoo!



Kidding. I would never do that. But I'd make Bobby do it.

Bobby
1/29/2015 04:27:44 pm

You'd make me put your warm bone in her body?

I'm getting paid for this too, right?

Shane
1/30/2015 10:46:03 am

Well, yeah. I guess that's what I meant.

Jon
1/29/2015 02:42:35 pm

Liars and Fools is the name of my Chock-Full-Of-Nuts-style sitcom equivalent. It's about a guy who runs an alt-med store but knows it's full of shit.

Reply
Phil
1/29/2015 02:59:02 pm

I would absolutely watch this show. Who's attached to star?

Shane
1/29/2015 03:12:34 pm

YES.

Joyce DeWitt needs to be involved. I'm firm on this.

Jon
1/29/2015 03:21:07 pm

I think it's a pair of partners, one a liar and the other a fool. The liar is the lead and the fool is more supporting. The fool is more the crunchy face of the business, while the liar runs it and makes new contracts. I feel like the fool's genuine-ness keeps you from hating him, while the liar's rooting interest comes from being conflicted. So the lead needs to be able to fake confidence during meetings while not being so smarmy as to make the viewer hate him. Maybe Jack Huston from Boardwalk Empire. Fat Chris Pratt would've been good for the fool, but he's too big now.

Phil
1/29/2015 02:57:43 pm

“Have you seen these fossil records? Have you… pored through the data yourself? The numbers? The figures?... No? Interesting. So let me get this straight, Mr. Reynolds. You get your information from a book written by a man you’ve never met and you take those words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of – dare I say it – faith?”

Still the best argument I’ve ever heard against evolution, courtesy of Mac from It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia.

I’m going to start by saying I’m not going to go to the same extreme that Drew, Bobby, and Shane went to by calling anyone “stupid” or a “dumbshit” or a “liar.” I feel that whenever you resort to name-calling and wide generalizations, you immediately dismiss a person to a point where you cannot have any sort of civil debate. This is why I hate any debates involving evolution. The creationism side resorts to the same basis of “well God said so” and the evolution side eventually gets to the point of calling them “stupid.” It’s a pointless argument because neither side respects the other. And for what it’s worth, the creationists have a fair point. If you’re going to call “faith” an invalid defense, you better have a pretty airtight case. The fact that we cannot yet explain how life began in the first place will continue to be a pretty big blow to any scientific case. The logical leap we have to make to also assume that people and trees have a common ancestor is also, in my opinion, a fair hurdle to question.

(FYI, I’m definitely in the evolution camp in that it’s the better of the two options. Tough to take creationism seriously when most creationists don’t even know the Bible has TWO creation stories – Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are in fact two separate creation stories that don’t even line up on basic timelines. Genesis 1 says God created nature, then animals, then man, while Genesis 2 says Man-Nature-Animals. Many creationists inadvertently believe the story is one continuous story with Adam being created on Day 6. They are very wrong.)

Same can be said for Dunbar’s thoughts that America was founded as a Christian nation. She’s not wrong. There’s quite a lot of God talk in that ol’ Declaration of Independence. It’s not like the Pilgrims showed up so they could worship the sun freely.

This is my main issue with The Revisionaires. Everyone is pushing an agenda, including the filmmaker Steve Thornton, when the truth for everything is probably somewhere in the middle. That said, as a propaganda piece, it’s pretty effective. Any proponent of Creationism or just Conservative values in general would have to feel a little silly I’d imagine. Thornton does a very good job supporting his values, but I felt like he did it using the lowest form of persuasion – invalidating your opposition by questioning their intelligence at every turn.

Whether you agree with Dunbar and McLeroy or not, I think anyone would have to agree that this entire textbook process is fascinating and disconcerting. To think that 15 people in Texas have this sort of influence over the whole of our education is amazing. It’s even more amazing that, given the under 20% voter turnout for McLeroy’s election, people in Texas barely realize it. So the information was great, but I have to agree with the majority that the presentation was very dry. Documentaries have too high of a standard at this point. From a production value, this was pretty low on the bar.

That being said, doesn’t this all become a moot point when you consider how many school districts are going away from physical textbooks to iPads?

+ Great information on a fascinating process
+ Works well as a propaganda piece…
- But uses lowest common denominator to get there
- Frames situation around a debate that everyone has made up their mind about already

Grade: C

Reply
Shane
1/29/2015 03:17:36 pm

you can't have an honest (civil) debate with someone who isn't being honest themselves. McElroy and Dunbar are clearly pushing for Christian creationism to be taught, but won't admit it. That's whybtheyre a liar or stupid. Not because of what they believe, but because they act like that's not the point when it is.

And there is more Christianity in the founding of our country than libs like to admit and less than the conservatives think.

Reply
Jon
1/29/2015 03:28:51 pm

This isn't relevant to the movie, but the SGU interview with McLeroy really make it clear both how little of an imagination he has and how accidentally disingenuous he is.

Phil
1/30/2015 04:26:27 am

Shane, I was considering the debate over evolution and the founding of America moreso than their motives for what was and wasn't taught. I agree - there is no debate with regards to their motives, as their intentions seem very clear there.

Shane
1/30/2015 01:46:39 pm

Got ya. I wouldn't call somoene stupid based on their beliefs unless they were Scientologists.

Shane
1/29/2015 03:19:06 pm

How did the director question their intelligence? Dunbar comes across as incredibly smart. McElroy hangs himself with his own words.

Reply
Phil
1/30/2015 04:24:10 am

This is a fair critique. I felt like Thorton went a long way to attempt to make McLeroy look like a buffoon. Based on our reviews, I think he succeeded. Dunbar he painted as more of a zealot. Regardless, therein lies my dilemma. Thornton spends an inordinate amount of time using their character to attack many of their points. We all mentioned in some capacity that Thornton did not spend much time with the counterpoint to Dunbar & McLeroy... so little in fact that I cannot remember any of their names.

If you're going to frame your movie as a debate, you need to follow debating rules, and attacking a person's character is a pretty quick way to show a lack of ability in debating. Now, the major problem here is that to present the film as a proper debate, it would have been even more boring than it already was.

Jon
1/30/2015 12:53:32 pm

McLeroy can only look like a buffoon, because he believes something demonstrably false. Plenty of other sects of Christianity have no problem accepting the reality of evolution and cosmology, so it's not like his religion is keeping him from this truth. In this area, he is just stupid. A nice guy, but stupid.

I don't think this movie was about a debate at all, but about the textbook issue. There is no real debate about evolution and creationism. I don't know if anyone else watched the Nye-Ham debate (which was a complete waste of time), but Ham simply said the same thing over and over again. It's impossible to dramatize something like that, because the sides are so clearly delineated between science and religion, two things that have nothing to do with each other.

Jon
1/29/2015 03:26:46 pm

Big problem with your second paragraph. The scientific camp is comfortable with saying, "We don't know. We might someday, but today, we don't." Creationists treat lack of knowledge as the creaky Jenga piece that knocks the whole structure over. Science is not in the business of proving a negative; things just get increasingly unlikely.

Also, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. It takes as it's starting point the first cell. What happened before that is a different field. I'm not going to get into the 'trees and humans have a common ancestor' statement because that is a much, much longer discussion.

Reply
Phil
1/30/2015 04:18:45 am

Kissel, I totally agree with what you're saying about science's comfort with the unknown. My point was that this the point where a creationist would feel you have "lost" the debate b/c you have a "hole" in your case.

Religion was born out of man's need to explain the unexplainable, and say what you want about religion, but it does offer an explanation for pretty much everything and uses faith as its leg to stand on. So with religion, you never get the answer of "I don't know" when it comes to natural phenomena. There is always an "explanation" and "faith" replaces "fact" as the proof.

And I do agree the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, but the "science" answer to origin of life will forever go hand-in-hand with evolution much like the Geneis 1 creation story will forever go hand-in-hand with intelligent design. So it may be a different debate, but it's easy to frame them in the same context given their interdependencies.

Bryan
1/29/2015 04:23:14 pm

You're right. Typical textbooks are dying. They're being replaced by custom curriculum and the web.

The debate now is about the standards. 20 years from now this movie will look moronic for spending so much time on the book aspect.

Reply
Bobby
1/29/2015 04:31:08 pm

Where did I call somebody any of those things?

I said McLeroy was presented to us as a goodhearted fool... was he not?

Boo, on Phil. (or i forgot that I said something, and don't want to go re-read my post)

Reply
Phil
1/30/2015 04:11:18 am

You're right Bobby. I unfairly lumped you in. I read this sentence in your review wrong:

"It felt like a pretty basic presentation of information and an all out attempt to make McLeroy look like an idiot."

Bryan Hartman
1/29/2015 04:19:47 pm

I'm shocked by the grades for this movie. No part of watching it was enjoyable - it's an old story shown with no hidden footage or new insight. Following a school board meeting is just as boring on TV as it is in real life.

Here's the thing with Conservatives, they aren't going to change their minds. That's why they're conservatives. Showing them debating evolution is like convincing Shane organics are good or Phil that baseball is the greatest sport on the planet. Why subject yourself to the agony. And this is why I hate political documentaries, watching ignorant people is painful. Might as well turn on 'The Bachelor.'

This was as painful as Bobby's last pick, D- . Should have gone with Bo.

Reply
Shane
1/29/2015 04:30:22 pm

Organic are neither good or bad. They simply are what they are: Food that is grown in a broadly defined manner.

Reply
Bryan
1/30/2015 12:09:36 am

I think you just proved my point.

Bobby
1/30/2015 06:43:17 am

Yeah, but if you brought Shane some kind of well documented proof of the amazingness of organics, other than speculation 'natural is better,' he would probably listen.

Big difference from what the evolution debate shows us.

Bryan
1/30/2015 07:49:20 am

True, but that's not how the creationists debate.

Shane
1/30/2015 07:54:30 am

So that makes me not like them. I'm willing I listen and make a lifestyle change.

Bryan
1/30/2015 09:59:56 am

I know, I know. Bad example - I was tired.

Shane
1/30/2015 10:47:02 am

Probably because you're not getting enough GMO's in your life.

Drew
1/30/2015 05:18:03 am

You do not like watching ignorant people, as you called it "painful," yet you like Annie? Really? A disconnect seems to exist here...

The thing that is new about it is the violation of public trust. How education, which is usually debated in the halls of state legislatures, was bullied by people to force a religious agenda. You meet interesting people who are at the forefront of the debate.

Now, what exactly did you expect? It appears to me that you got exactly what you wanted and in a sense was not open minded to this documentary.

To not like a film is one thing but not give it a chance is something completely different. You should have vetoed.

Reply
Bryan
1/30/2015 05:57:51 am

Well that's a low blow Drew. I'm making an opinion about the characters in the film - not taking cheap, personal shots here.

Violations of public trust has been going on for years. And school boards across the country do some pretty screwed up things. This American Life has an equally infuriating, yet better told story about a school board in New York: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/534/a-not-so-simple-majority

I had an expectation this movie would be what I've read about the Texas School Board and it was just that without any good storytelling techniques.

I used one veto and felt bad about it.

Drew
1/30/2015 07:50:02 am

No low blow was intended, Bryan. I am sorry you thought of it like that.

Actually seeing the process is different than reading about it but it seems like you went into the movie not liking it, which is exactly happened.

Since you suggested I should have gone with Bo, you should have vetoed regardless of how you felt. It is pretty clear your mind was not going to change so why not use your veto?

If you did not like the film, that is your prerogative and I am perfectly fine with it. To reiterate, it just seems like you failed to give it a chance.

Bryan
1/30/2015 09:12:46 am

Again, all movies start at A+ for me. Maybe I should graph my grade live next movie.

Bobby
1/31/2015 05:08:57 am

Hey gave it more of a chance than you do on the movies you don't review out of spite... :-p

Drew
1/31/2015 05:51:09 am

This is Bryan's response from yesterday (01/30/2015, 2:12 pm):

"Again, all movies start at A+ for me. Maybe I should graph my grade live next movie. "


This is Bryan's Facebook post on May 9, 2014, 4:38pm:

(In reference to the choice of Drinking Buddies)
"The actors on the cover remind me of 'The League,' this is going to be brutal."

Do all movies really start at A+, Bryan? This may have started at C-.

:P

I have the snippets if you'd like to see them.

Looks like Bobby has sour grapes that I failed to post on his movie. Awww, poor Bobby. :P

Bryan
1/31/2015 07:36:22 am

As I think more about where my grade starts - A is definitely not it. I'll go with what I tell my students. You start at an F until you prove you know something.

I don't watch movies just to hate them. I watch them to participate. This is another movie in the category of the more I think about it the more I hate it - Frances Ha, Revisionaries, and Bobby's Philosophy. I made bump Philosophy up to a D for trying to be original.

Bobby
2/1/2015 08:35:48 am

I think the simplest and first reaction for anybody when another person doesn't like what they like or what they recommend, is that other person never gave it a fair chance. I know I've made that argument before, and was probably wrong... An expectation about a topic, actor, director, etc is not necessarily an admission of disliking the movie going into it.

It's not sour grapes, as i'm talking about more than just my own movie choice... and I knew it would happen. You didn't fail to post, you just blatantly choose not to watch/review other people's movies for seflish reasons,,, which is actually more true to the sour grapes sentiment, in that somebody didn't post on your movie, so you refuse to post on theirs.

Drew
2/2/2015 02:45:16 am

To reiterate for a third time, I am glad Bryan had an opinion and it is entirely fair for him to dislike it. My opinion on his opinion - his review - is he did not want to attempt to like it. Maybe I am wrong and if so, I will admit it.

Now, on to another issue. This is the third time you (Bobby) mentioned my philosophy on participation in either a condescending, "gotcha," or witty manner. Here is my response to that and I quote The Dude. "Obviously, you're not a golfer."

Drew
2/2/2015 03:24:08 am

"It" being the movie and not his own opinion. Oops!

Bryan
1/30/2015 12:14:57 am

General Question here. What made you want to watch more of this movie, what was engaging about? We've seen 3 documentaries now - Electoral Dysfunction, Dear Zachary, and this.

ED (lol) presented some history, dug up some Hoosiers, and had a court outcome to follow. DZ kept the viewer wanting to know what happens next. To me, The Revisionaries, offered little information and watching the legal wrangling over small bits of text is important, but not enjoyable to watch.

Reply
Phil
1/30/2015 04:37:46 am

Fair point here. There was no driving hook. The social studies stuff just popped up out of nowhere all the sudden. Thornton would have been better served to set the plate earlier with the implications that standards would not be reviewed again until 2020. That's why it felt like a Dateline report to me. What kept it above a D level is that it did a good job evoking emotion, namely fury, for how absurd this entire process was. Anything that cane evoke an emotion without resorting to melodrama will have a C minimum for me.

Reply
Bryan
1/30/2015 06:01:58 am

I had to look up what melodrama actually means. melodrama: a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions.

McElroy is an exaggerated character in himself. A young earth creationism - oh geez.

Bobby
1/30/2015 06:11:29 am

The problem with that standard, for me, is that... it's not really the film that is evoking the emotion.

You could go to lunch with me and tell me about the Texas School Board and the process... and it'll piss me off. Somebody can film you talking about it... and when i watch it, it'll piss me off. But it won't make a good movie.

Just because the topic is good, and will evoke emotions, does not mean the film should have a set floor, should it? But then again, I've never really any movie should start with a specific floor or ceiling, which you seem to strictly subscribe to, so there's a big difference in how we go into things.

Bryan
1/30/2015 07:18:28 am

Ceilings and Floors is a fun debate. I give every movie the benefit of the doubt for the first 5 seconds - A+ to start!

Drew
1/30/2015 07:52:09 am

Bobby, was it a good documentary?

Shane
1/30/2015 07:56:16 am

I learned more about state school boards are run. Makes me curious about Georgia.

Phil
1/30/2015 08:18:42 am

Bobby - I think you raise a good point that the movie works because of its content and doesn't do a lot to generate interest in the subject on its own. You're absolutely right that I could have probably given you a 10 minute summary and, depending on how good a storyteller I am, evoked the same emotion.

So I'm going to answer Drew's question of "was it a good documentary" in this way... It was not given today's doc standards. I'll use Exit Through the Gift Shop as the counterpoint here. That movie is about a subject I have zero interest in - "street art" - yet kept me engaged by building a narrative and creating interesting characters. What pulled me through The Revisionaires was the content as opposed to the characters or narrative. We've seen the word thrown about already, but I'll just reiterate, it was good reporting. I think in the hands of a skilled documentarian, this situation could be built into a good narrative, but Thorton does not bother with that.

Bryan
1/30/2015 09:14:08 am

You all know that school board meetings are open to the public? Fair warning, they're painful.

Bryan
1/30/2015 10:07:18 am

Phil, when you say "it was good reporting." I'm on the fence. It was reporting and factual, but it took an unnecessarily long time to get everything across.




Leave a Reply.

    Authors

    JUST SOME IDIOTS GIVING SURPRISINGLY AVERAGE MOVIE REVIEWS.

    Categories

    All
    2017 Catch Up Trio
    80s
    Action
    Adventure
    AI Trio
    Author - Blair
    Author - Bobby
    Author - Bryan
    Author - Chris
    Author - Cook
    Author - Drew
    Author - Joe
    Author - Jon
    Author - JR
    Author - Lane
    Author - Phil
    Author - Pierce
    Author - Sean
    Author - Shane
    Author - Tom
    Best Of 2016
    Best Of 2017
    Best Of 2018
    Best Of 2019
    Best Of 2020
    Best Of 2021
    Best Of 2022
    Comedy
    Culture Clash Trio
    Denzel Trio
    Documentary
    Drama
    Foreign
    Historical
    Horror
    Internet Docs Trio
    Mediocrities
    Movie Trios
    Musical
    Podcast
    Romance
    Round 3.1
    Round 3.2
    Round 3.3
    Round 4.1
    Round 4.2
    Round 4.3
    Sci Fi
    Season 10
    Season 2
    Season 3
    Season 4
    Season 5
    Season 6
    Season 7
    Season 8
    Season 9
    Shorts
    Sports
    Thriller
    Western
    Women In Men's Worlds

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014

    Click to set custom HTML