Phil Writes Them as He Sees Them: This Divided State by Steven Greenstreet

Documentaries, by nature, are uniformly good. Now I must say that not all of them are but as of late the output of great documentaries have been constant and consistent. In regards to my thesis of sorts, I say they are uniformly good specifically because their directive and purpose is information. Unlike narrative film (which of course documentary filmmaking does adapt to the structure of narrative film or at least the good ones) the documentary is a more human form of filmmaking. I say all this because of late there really hasn't been a documentary that I haven't enjoyed which means either I have a bias that I am not completely aware of, there is a certain strength that cannot be ignored in the format, or this is just the "Golden Age" of the documentary. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Grizzly Man, Murderball, Guerrilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst, The Fog of War, Tarnation, Tell Them Who You Are, The Aristocrats, The Corporation, Overnight, Inside Deep Throat, and the best and most recent Why We Fight, to literally name a few, are all, despite having flaws of their own, stellar documentaries but more importantly, great films.

This Divided State proves that the documentary, even in it's most simplistic form is not only the most empowering format but is easily the most provocative.

Viewing myself as a filmmaker, a statement that is based more on a mindset then an actual output, the idea of the documentary is powerful because it is the ultimate achievement of any filmmaker to make a difference beyond the film. This Divided State follows the controversy surrounding the student body of a Mormon college in Utah decision to invite documentary filmmaker Michael Moore to speak at their school. Steve Greenstreet immediately involves us in a cast of "characters" who not only move the story forward but also are effective in causing the viewer to become emotionally involved inspite of whatever their view point is.

The most compelling moments in the film are the segments which involve Kay Anderson, a conservative who is trying to uphold the traditional morals of "Family City" USA and the speaking engagement of conservative talking head Sean Hannity. Both of these men, more specifically Sean Hannity, come off as simple minded and small focused with their talking points with nothing but their own words. Sean Hannity's speech is a 20 minute portion of the film that represents a lack of general understanding of the human condition or good political discourse. He is able to make his liberal opponents look dumb by using their nervousness against them but also ends up looking incredible cheap in the process. His use of the world "liberal" as a slur is nothing but propaganda against a huge demographic of people and the simplicity of his views are encompassed by these statements. With all of the controversy Moore's visit congers up the most disappointing part of the build up is Moore himself who comes off as a lighter more friendly version of Hannity who although his approach and ideology come off as stronger and less of an attack, all the fuss about his visit is diminished by the fact that he is nothing more than the democratic version of Hannity.

The film is extremely well constructed and the use of Godspeed You Black Emperor! is a nice touch as well. The film is a great representation of the political divide in this county and how people who know their agenda cannot stand on it's own are afraid of outside influences corrupting their ideology with a possible truth. The funny thing is, is that Moore did nothing but speak to his base, although he did make a better attempt at reaching out as he is more charming and funny than Hannity, he made no attempt to just simply explain the facts and cared more about his agenda, which fair enough that this doc took place during the time of the upcoming Kerry/Bush election, but preaching to the choir is just that.

The fight by local conservative Kay Richardson to keep Moore out was a stronger representation of the insecurities of his views then it was the danger Moore poses. Moore's speech itself was really nothing that could sway anyone who has their heart set in what they feel is the right place.

The film has many strong moments and few very cute superfluous ones like interviews with Darth Vader and Storm Troopers. Oddly enough the Storm Troopers do not follow the allegiance of their Master Vader who thinks Moore would be a great asset to the Dark Side. To the contrary the troopers think he is un-American and think he is doing a disservice to the country. Yet I was under the impression they were all clones, not having made it through Episode II I can't be for certain what went on but I was shocked to say the least that they had starkly different views.

I give this one 3.9 out of 5 stars.

Phil Writes Them as He Sees Them: The Introduction

As a sort of, avid, filmgoer I find myself constantly having insightful dialogue - in my head - about my feelings towards almost every film I see. Sometimes though, in the case of something like Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack's (of King Kong fame) The Most Dangerous Game, a film adaptation of the short story you have most likely read in your high school classes, I gained nothing from watching it, but also lost nothing. I felt completely neutral toward it, and it was nothing more than a check on my Criterion Collection check list, but that in it's own right is a reaction. So in this new section, by the way is the only section thus far, I will review a film, as I see it, whether it is new, old, or even relevant. This of course is presumably exciting to no one in particular but I hope that the insights will help incite (see how I did that) decisions or cause a certain discourse on your own belief of certain films. I will attempt to not revisit films unless I find it important or something new is revealed through the act of rewatching, I also plan on tackling all mediums at one point but my diligence only goes so far.