The Great Debaters (2007)

When I can accurately describe a movie as logical, illogical, predictable, unpredictable, serious, subtle, light-hearted, heart-warming, hysterical, sickening, heart-breaking, ugly, disgusting, and beautiful, I tend to like it.

The marketing / packaging of this movie led me to believe producers strapped it into a formulaic straightjacket, whereas vitality and versatility better dress The Great Debaters. I blame the title.

The careful sequencing of shots impresses. Each scene ends with an unexpected watcher, or an unexpected smile, just enough twist that makes every scene feel worthwhile. It’s an idea for us fiction writers to take note of it. Offering the reader a gift—a reward—in each scene keeps a reader hooked. It's like a cliffhanger, but more subtle and genuine.

The climactic example of this comes in the final debate scene, which is broadcast across the country. Mister Tolson, black-listed for his extreme politics (more on the politically incorrect English teacher later), is not in the sequence of shots that contain all the characters of the film either attending the debate or listening next to a radio. The debate begins, still more cuts, ups and downs, and finally a cut to a man in a dark suit and dark hat making his way to the auditorium. We knew he’d come eventually, though.

If someone had told me that Denzel plays an inspirational, politically incorrect, poetry quoting English teacher, I doubt I’d give this movie a chance. (No one did.) Mr. Tolson, however, is more of a hardass than a Romantic poet, more discipline than liberation. The writers dealt with the characterization of Mr. Tolson carefully, undoubtedly aware of the type character they needed to avoid to make theirs interesting. Mr. Tolson is introduced to us while dancing at a backwoods whiskey fest. In the next scene, he, in suit and tie, lectures to college students. He also leads a movement to unionize local sharecroppers .

The story ends weakly, unfortunately. It’s hard to believe a movie that references warrants and logical fallacies would fall into its own trap. Weasely wins the debate against Harvard when a Crimson debater declares, “Nothing that erodes the law can be moral.” But, this is far too easy. Who better knows laws can be absurdly and violently unjust than Southern African-Americans circa Jim Crow?

But I pardon the movie because it reinforces many ideals that I hold true: the power of language, racism is wrong, the need for unions, the power of education, David can slay Goliath. I accept the movie because I accept its stance.

What’s got me hung up is that put another way these ideals are also clichés: the pen is mightier than the sword, all people are equal, power to the people, reading is power, and Go underdog Go.

Here is my update to Defiance, which also reinforces ideals I take to be true: 1. Love your family 2. Holocaust was horrific. 3. Go underdog Go.

Defiance masks the clichés of plot and ideology in illusion. The Great Debaters hardly masks the predictability of its plot.

Watchmen (2009)

...I wish there were more films / literature as outraged with contemporary morality as Watchmen.

...At 2 hours, 40 minutes, I wish more films to be a lot shorter than Watchmen.

...I wish I had time to read the graphic novel. I'm an outcast in the English department because I haven't. And, it seems Watchmen fans and movie critics agree that "prior knowledge" enhances the experience of the film.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

I think it's fun the way this film uses clichéd actions to create an explosive plot. In this film, clichéd actions are earned by the absurd amount of clichéd actions. The collision of absurdities is what keeps the viewer interested. The film doesn't ask the viewer to believe in its realism, so much as asks a viewer to ponder "what if?".

...I appreciated the runtime, as well--96 minutes.