I rarely say Liberal Clap-trap but I might have to make an exception. I just finished watching tbhe much acclaimed ‘Waiting for ‘Superman.’ I have never endured such liberal clap-trap. That is not to say there was not some merit. I can pretty much find merit with almost anything.
What I did find is lots of bashing and no real solutions. The great teachers I saw were rapping out math problems. I am not so sure that is what makes a great teacher. There were lots of kids trying to get into magnet and public charter schools. These were kids who wanted to learn. Kids who want to learn are easy to teach. This fact is not exactly a news flash.
What the film failed to point out is that each of these kids had parents who valued education. The parents were not necessarily educated themselves but they prioritized education to be pretty much the most important thing in that kid’s life. That is the secret. That is what makes for outstanding schools. Chock them full of kids whose parents set high expectations and value education and the sky is the limit.
I am amused by your reference to “liberal clap-trap.” Other than rapping teachers, can you please provide us some examples from the movie?
Does your use of “liberal clap-trap” make it officially sanctioned vernacular for all of us to use on this blog?
Why don’t you watch it so we can discuss the film. @Kelly.
It is difficult to just pull things out of thin air although I think in a lot of cases that is exactly what happened.
I do like Michele Rhea and I thought the film very much underplayed what happened with her.
The film is available on netflix.
I go back to my original contention: the one thing that all the kids had in common was parents who had very high educational expectations for their children.
It isn’t all bad. It is just very slanted. I saw parts I agreed with.
Kelly, I have never said not to use the term liberal claptrap. There is a lot in life I personally think is liberal claptrap. It isn;t officially sanctioned or unsanctioned. I am assuming that was a joke?
Any documentary is going to have the point of view of the film-makers. Doesn’t make it clap-trap, just one view. The purpose of documentaries is to shine a light and encourage viewers to explore the whole issue.
The purpose of documentaries can also be to cast one’s point of view in a light that influences others. Waiting for Superman has become the definitive smear on education for the decade. It leaves much unsaid that n eeds to be said and should as only one point of view, not the definitive work.
I found the film to be very insidious in its American education bashing. I don’t think it gave a fair picture at all. There were too many sweeping generalizations.
I will need to watch it again if we are going to have a blog discussion. I found myself dozing off…sort of like I did during Inconvenient Truth. yawn.
@Cindy, have you seen the film?
Here’s projects done in our area by student filmmakers:
http://www.dcintersections.americanobserver.net/category/manassas/
Yes, I’ve seen the film. Again, to me, it’s just a jumping off point to explore an issue.
I like the free documentaries I’ve seen at George Mason University’s Prince William Campus – the most recent one last week was sponsored by Soroptismist International of Manassas, “Call + Response” about sex trafficking. Very poignant, since a Manassas man was just charged with running a prostitution ring involving teen girls out of his apartment on Clark Place in the City of Manassas. The film featured a discussion panel afterwards with the local nonprofits that work with girls and women after they’ve been rescued, namely Restoration Ministries and Youth for Tomorrow, and organizations that improve the lives of women and girls (ACTS/Turning Points, BARN, BEACON, etc). There was also a special agent from the FBI, a retired Army captain who has seen the influx of women into Iraq to service the contractors there, and a lawyer from a firm in Old Town Manassas that deals with immigration and human rights law and represents victims of sex trafficking. For me, documentaries are best seen as a group and then discussed afterward, with experts on hand to offer differing views on the facts.
@Moon-howler
Yes. It was a joke.
@kelly
Let me know if you watch it. I would be interested in your impression. I went to watch it with a neutral expectation. I was very disappointed.
I watched it quite a while back. My memory is not crystal clear but I agree a bit with Moon, it struck me as biased in a few places. I think that it tries to rise above that and explore the issue in a non-political way, and it’s a mixed bag on that.
I agree with Cindy B that it functions well as a starting point for discussion. But that leads to my main criticism of it, that doesn’t have to do with the issues discussed in the movie …
This guy Guggenheim is not a great documentary filmmaker. Frederick Wiseman is a great one. Steve James is a great one. Guggenheim is a guy who has become expert at exploiting liberal sentiment to make money and generate hype. He’s after Michael Moore’s audience (not that I’m claiming he emulates Moore’s cinematic sins [stalking people, ridiculing people, being a blowhard]). He made his bones with Al Gore’s massive disinformation piece, found his genteel audience of sophisticated liberals with that, and moved on (in between hanging out with U2 and exploting that relationship) to creating this movie and marketing it – Inconvenient Truth style – as something REALLY IMPORTANT, which good people neeed to see right now so that it can change their lives so that the Earth can remain on its present axis. He’s not giving these movies away, he’s selling them – and making a lot of money. It’s liberal snake oil. Now that said, there’s at least some intellectuial integrity and rigor here, and it can serve as a fine starting point fotr meaningful discussion. But is the movie itself particularly important? No. Will it be remembered in 10 years? No.
@Rick,
Much of what I saw wasn’t new. It was tired old ideas and annualized data we have all heard a million times before. I kept waiting for the revelation. It never came.
When the documentary first came out, the media was fooled into thinking it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I read of audiences walking away blubbering and crying. I must have ice tea running through my veins because I sure didn’t see it. Maybe its an inner city thing.
I could slap about 75% of the film down with one hand tied behind my back. I wasn’t expecting it to present so much unverified, undocumented data. No revelation. I knew some of the film highlighted Michele Rhea, former DC superintendent of schools. I thought Rhea was an interesting figure and a person who brought a lot to troubled DC school system. The film didn’t really cover this topic well either. Her ‘sins’ according to the union were just brushed over and not explored. Her reforms were treated the same half assed way.
If Guggenheim’s next film is about the masturbatory habits of turtles, or some such thing, I wouldn’t bet against him finding a way to market it as something that is THE MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF THE YEAR and SOMETHING THAT CAN REALLY SERVE AS A SPARK TO SAVE THE WORLD.
BWAAAAhahahahahahahaha! Rick, you are probably right.
“I read of audiences walking away blubbering and crying.”
We’re all going to die anyway from the global warming, so why spend so much time worrying about kids’ educations? We should de-fund the educational system and put that money into cooling the Earth.
(that’s the liberal version of James Watt)
Steam engine James Watt? @ Rick. Afraid you will have to help an vintage woman out and explain that one.
Reagan’s Secretary of Interior who said he wasn’t worried about protecting the environment because Jesus would soon be coming anyway.
Bummer. He is who I thought of first and then I convinced myself his name was Earl. He also didn’t know who the Beach Boys were and cancelled their free concert one 4th of July. I hated him for it. Could we just have Beach Boy concerts until Jesus gets here?