I sat watching with my jaw on the floor. Nothing like the Weathermen/Weather Underground has ever existed in American history, and I don't think we'll ever see anything like it again. The film-makers did a masterful job of telling the story -- mostly through the eyes of the participants themselves, which, given how articulate, thoughtful, introspective, and just plain fascinating they are was the right way to tell it.
So why 9 starts instead of 10 for such an incredible documentary? Because the dreadful decision was made to include the insufferable Todd Gitlin's commentary. Gitlin, who is literally frothing at the mouth as he barks his contempt for the members of the organization, is an obscenity, not merely because he is so far over the top in his personal hatred of the people involved (they're Hitlers), but because he gets the history wrong. There was no "organizational piracy" by the Weathermen of SDS -- the anti-war group which the film-makers neglect to mention Gitlin formerly served as president. Hmmm, think someone has an ax to grind?
I would rather have heard from disgruntled former members of the WU. Was the NYT correct in the article we're shown on-screen that states feminists in the WU believed the organization had become "white male supremacist"? I also would like to have heard from a historian with some objective distance. Studs Terkel would have been ideal. What these individual did was so extraordinary, they are not in a position to place it in context -- not objectively.
But OK I've spent a lot of words on my one complaint about this wonderful film. Let me conclude by saying this is a dramatic, remarkable, stunning piece of documentary film making and I give it my highest recommendation.
So why 9 starts instead of 10 for such an incredible documentary? Because the dreadful decision was made to include the insufferable Todd Gitlin's commentary. Gitlin, who is literally frothing at the mouth as he barks his contempt for the members of the organization, is an obscenity, not merely because he is so far over the top in his personal hatred of the people involved (they're Hitlers), but because he gets the history wrong. There was no "organizational piracy" by the Weathermen of SDS -- the anti-war group which the film-makers neglect to mention Gitlin formerly served as president. Hmmm, think someone has an ax to grind?
I would rather have heard from disgruntled former members of the WU. Was the NYT correct in the article we're shown on-screen that states feminists in the WU believed the organization had become "white male supremacist"? I also would like to have heard from a historian with some objective distance. Studs Terkel would have been ideal. What these individual did was so extraordinary, they are not in a position to place it in context -- not objectively.
But OK I've spent a lot of words on my one complaint about this wonderful film. Let me conclude by saying this is a dramatic, remarkable, stunning piece of documentary film making and I give it my highest recommendation.