A Disappointing Continuation

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

First: a disclaimer. I am in this movie. Having said that, I must say that this movie is a foreshadowing of the brilliant work of the writer/director, Peter Richardson, who has gone on to become a premier movie maker (How to Die in Oregon).As with any excellent documentary, Peter represents both sides of the divide in our little town with skill and clarity. I have friends, family, and acquaintances on both sides of the issue, and all agree that he states their case well.Furthermore, as with the powerful book American Nations (Carl Woodard), this is a clear explanation of where we have gotten to the polarized state of our current political life.

I spent the first of what was to be 14 years in Oregon in Philomath. I was a student at Oregon State in Corvallis and arrived too late to find closer housing. Philomath is an awesome little town. You have to have lived in Oregon, I think, to "get" them. I once heard that Oregon was in the top 5 states for churches (religious groups) per capita - it seems true when you drive around the state. Despite that, or because of it, they tend to be pretty liberal on social issues. There is a very strong sense of "what you do in private is your business, so keep it that way", meaning you can pretty much get away with anything as long as you keep it to yourself.The attitude extends to other areas, leading to comments like "it's his money". However, it wasn't this man's money. He was a trustee, with legal obligations to the trust. He had no right to make changes, especially this radical a change from the original intent.

A "Backwoods-Red-Neck" who wants to go "back to the 50's" vs "Progressive-intellectuals" who are forward thinking and interested in Diversity and want to take the school and it's students into the modern world (read 60's)While I watched the movie I had to hand it to the director/writer who went out of their way to make sure all comments were 1 for 1. Unlike our news media that usually gives conservative views a 1-3 conservative to liberal ratio, I was impressed that for each comment, the counterpart got a say. However, this was all window dressing. (Ironically, our protagonist claimed this was the case for him as well.) For the conservative side, few students were found to make cogent points. One old lady was found, labeled as a teacher, who halting, and hesitantly, sounded like she might be in the Lowther's camp. It was obvious to me she was measuring her words so as not to get fired for not towing the company line. For the liberals, we got the radical, in-your-face, we are not going to be told what to do crowd. And a number of teachers and some "townsfolk". They all pretended how concerned they were about being fair and not political. It amazes me how liberals in America think. No liberal ever thinks what they do is either politically motivated or divisive. As was readily demonstrated by the proponents of this Documentary, not one of the liberals in this movie considered anything they were doing to be politically motivated, yet when the guy with the money says he'd like a say in how the money gets spent, whoa-nelly all the liberals get all bent out of shape with the guy with the "political agenda". Of course they had a political agenda, the least of which was to totally convert the town from conservative to liberal and to indoctrinate the kids into a "progressive mentality". It was especially telling when the Science teacher compared logging to tobacco, and then said the curriculum wasn't strident enough in regards to it's Eco-fundamentalism.I found a few things interesting about the whole ordeal and how it was portrayed: They showed a Fox News Teaser, not the actual body of the story, but the teaser. Ostensibly to show that Fox News seemed to have a cynical approach to the story, even though they are supposed to be this radically biased conservative outlet. The scene near the end where the Superintendent got a plaque and how he went out of his way to say how much he was loved and how, THIS ONE TIME, he actually made friends that would last a lifetime. Only one student, sort of off-handedly mentioned, that it was "their money, they can do with it what they want to". No one on the school board, no community members. Odd. In the end, the guys they wanted out left, and this was AFTER they got their contracts extended, etc.. This led me to believe that they were in it for the money and that when the money left, so did their interest. Liberals think it's other people's money that should fund their failed policies.The whole bent of this movie, and the comments that came from those who were in favor of the movie were on how "fair' the movie was. Yet I was still struck by how I was manipulated in the movie. I am obviously a conservative but I can take a good liberal argument, if there is one. But my overriding feeling coming away is that once again I was given the Conservative Strawman and that there was something missing, something left out that could have been in there.In the end, I will say it's one of the most even-handed documentaries I've seen in awhile.

This remarkable documentary depicts a vivid example of America's current culture war: the struggle between clashing values of social conservatives and liberals, focused in this instance on a rural community undergoing the painful transition from a timber industry town to one increasingly dominated by "urban immigrants": the professionals and techies - high and low - who make up the ranks of the information age. In 1980 there were 12 lumber mills around Philomath, now it's down to 2. The largest employers in the area nowadays are Oregon State University, in neighboring Corvallis, and a Hewlett-Packard calculator repair center.Rex Clemens (1901-1985) was a Philomath high school dropout who later became a wealthy lumberman. He dearly loved his old school and never missed a Philomath Warriors football game. In 1959 he endowed a unique foundation with a mission of supporting school building projects and providing 4-year college scholarships to any kid that graduated high school. Thousands of kids have had their chance at a higher education thanks to this unique program.But about five years ago the school board hired a new superintendent, a liberal outsider, an educator from Chicago with a Ph.D. and a vision of teaching critical thinking to kids on themes that include the environmental impact of industries like logging. The student dress code was scrapped. A Gay-Straight Alliance group of students was encouraged. The high school mascot - The Warrior - was challenged, and its symbol, a five foot tall wood carved statue of a rather sad, bedraggled looking American Indian, was removed from the high school lobby.It was all too much for the citizens with longstanding roots in the town, especially for Rex Clemens's three nephews, now in charge of the foundation. Led by one of them, Steve Lowther, battle was joined between the traditionalists and the new wave, led by the superintendent, Dr. Terry Kneisler, and his backers. After multiple skirmishes, Lowther forced a showdown, telling the school board that either Kneisler goes or the foundation will withdraw its school support and scholarship program.In the film, producer/director/editor Peter Richardson lets the people of the town tell this story in a series of well edited interview segments. Richardson had grown up in Philomath and was able to gain the confidence of people on all sides of the debate. Everybody gets their say here. In that regard, unlike the one-sided propagandistic thrust of most recent documentaries on social issues (think of the films of Michael Moore or Robert Greenwald), this is one of the most balanced accounts I've seen in years.That's not to say that Richardson is entirely neutral. By the end of the film, a perspective does emerge, and it is not very favorable to Mr. Lowther and his backers. But this leaning is not the result of any editorializing on Mr. Richardson's part. Instead, like the documentarist, Errol Morris, Richardson simply encourages all parties to talk away, and, in the case of Mr. Lowther, Richardson gives him enough rope to hang himself, his latent violence cloaked in Christian virtue, clueless about the vast contradictions in his views.Lowther accuses Kneisler and his backers of pursuing a "social agenda" instead of "training these kids to become good workers and taxpayers." He and his brothers modify the Clemens Foundation scholarship criteria, first by going national, and also requiring that applicants be well behaved by traditional standards, come from a family with its roots in the timber, agriculture or mining industries, and have a career goal in one of these vocations. Doesn't he think that's a social agenda? Lowther fumes because the school board insisted that fact finding hearings be open to the public, rather than have closed meetings in a "manly" fashion. More manly to meet in hiding than out in the open? Why not be even more manly and wear hoods? (Lowther refers not once but twice to his wish to have tarred and feathered Kneisler and run him out of town.) The loss of traditional values and activities is disorienting to established citizens of any community, and the newcomers, the urban immigrants, are no less disoriented when they move away from their roots and enter a town that has lost its cultural bearings. These issues are real, and answers to resolve the conflicts are far from "clear cut." It was either FDR or H. L. Mencken who once said that for every complex social problem there is a simple answer, and it is always wrong. There is no one right point of view that will satisfy all interests.Richardson and his film respect the diversity of opinions of the townspeople. Philomath is a microcosm of the cultural ferment that is in evidence broadly in our land. That makes this film all the more poignant and relevant. It's a gem of a film. My grade: A- 9/10