An Unreasonable Man
|
List Price: Our Price: $8.83 You Save: $18.14 (67%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.83 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of An Unreasonable Man
Movie Review: Good as documentaries go...
Summary: 4 Stars
...but a little too excusing of Ralph.
For the record, I voted for Nader in 1992, and in 1996. Then there was nothing to lose. In 2000, I was responsible for a list serve many of the members of which were Naderites. I thought it through, then posted to all of them that, in short, elected to the White House will be either Gore or Bush. If Bush gets in, among the consequences will be some ghastly Supreme Court nominees.
Well, look at what happened.
As to Ralph's politics: Right on! I agree with him completely. As to his electability, ain't no way. Further, I don't believe he's a coalition builder. And in order to be an effective president, not just a figurehead, you must build those coalitions, make friends on both sides of the aisle, etc. Clinton knew that. Bernie Sanders knows that. Ralph? I think he sees the position as more symbolic than effective.
By the way, after the 2000 elections, I confronted a Naderite I still know about Nader's effect on that elections. He contended that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Bush. That ranks among the stupidest comments I ever heard, one not made, incidentally, by this documentary.
One claim the film does make, however, is related to the film's commenting repeatedly on the Florida results in the 2000 electon. Why do I recollect that? Because Nader wasn't the issue there! You may recall that the issue was RACE! Black people knocked out of the ranks of the voters because of allegations that they had criminal records when they didn't. And I recollect it too because it was the weakest argument of the film which spent just a little too much time trying to rationalize the Naderites' choice to vote for Ralph despite challenges such as mine.
Then there were the other former Naderites, "Nader's Raiders for Gore," whom Ralph referred to like he was a spoiled junior high school kid.
All in all, it's a pretty good documentary. Again, though, I felt it spent a little too much time trying to rationalize the voting behavior of those who couldn't be talked out of voting for Nader, were then, at least indirectly responsible for Bush's first "election." And that I regret.
Movie Review: A Fair Portrait of a Controversial Activist
Summary: 4 Stars
"An Unreasonable Man" is not a pejorative description in the context of this film. One is reminded that the qualities that make an activist effective, are the same qualities of persistence and refusal to compromise that make such a person infuriating in other circumstances.
Although the first half of the documentary is devoted to Nader's rise as the country's premiere consumer advocate, the crux of the film is Nader's controversial presidential candidacy in 2000 and the personal, public and political ramifications of his decision to continue the race knowing that he may cost liberals a victory of the (arguably) more palatable candidate.
Unlike the reviewer below, I did not see in the film any agenda to trash Nader for running for president. When the movie moves its focus to Nader's effect on the 2000 election and whether he should have run under the circumstances, both sides of the argument get a fair airing. In fact, if anything, I felt the movie makers were inclined to the pro-Nader perspective--that for the politics of corruption to stop, a principled stand must be taken.
Regardless of the side of the debate one might take, the filmmakers did a an admirable job of showing through historical perspective why Nader ran, and why he was unapologetic about staying in the race. His personal history, from his experience with the Carter administration, the debate debacle, and his basic uncompromising personality and dogged pursuit of his goals, illuminate the motivations behind the 2000 Nader candidacy.
Although the filmmakers obviously hold Nader in high esteem, particularly for his crusades on behalf of consumers, this is a documentary in the true sense of the word--it is not a propaganda film, it it does not beat you over the head with the filmmakers' views. While, it is sympathetic to Nader's political positions and would not be considered "balanced" by a hardcore Republican, this is not a Michael Moore type of opus to any particular position. It is an expository film that raises but does not resolve the issue that alienated so many former Nader supporters.
Movie Review: All Progress Depends on the Unreasonable Man
Summary: 4 Stars
As a plaintiff's attorney I have always been fascinated with the career of citizen advocate Ralph Nader. He has been involved in the creation of some of the most important legislation of the 20th Century: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Highway Safety Act and on and on. He has been the protector of citizens and consumers with the push for mine safety, safe foods, airbags and seatbelts. It is a shame that his legacy has been tarnished by two unsuccessful runs for President in which he has been called a spoiler by the Democratic Party. If anything Nader always worked within the Democratic arena.
Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan's documentary chronicles the life and career of Nader. It is a film that attempts to present a balanced view of the man's life by presenting interviews with both friends and foes. If there is an issue it seems to be that the film makes its character a little too heroic but this is a minor flaw.
The first part of the film deals with the consumer protection work Nader did in his golden years at Dupont Circle. We view a young Nader as he goes after and wins battles with General Motors on auto safety. We witness the drive and idealism of Nader's Raiders as they take on the corporate giants.
The second half of the film starts with the infamous theory that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the modern Republican and Democratic Parties. If there is to be a change in the country for the better it must come from within the democratic process. This part of the film tells of the two failed runs for president and gives itself over to opinions of whether Nader did what he dis for the good of the counrty or whether he simply acted as an election spoiler costing Al Gore the Presidency.
The film allows the viewer to make his or her own choices concerning his legacy and hid role as an unlikely hero.
This is a well made and thought provoking documentary that is well worth a look.
Movie Review: Terrific Bio
Summary: 4 Stars
I was interested in viewing this documentary because I didn't know much about Ralph Nader. I just knew that he didn't much care for the main political parties and he probably played the spoiler in the 2000 election.
I came away with an increased appreciation for the man. He has been involved in a number of worthy endeavors, the more notable of which were getting seatbelts and airbags in cars. I was really impressed with his idealism. This is not a man who was going to sell out to the highest bidder. He was in his causes because he believed in them, and he inspired many like-minded individuals.
Granted, I don't agree with many of his ideals. I think some of them are inefficient and/or silly. But his dedication to his ideals was most impressive. This was probably the reason that he has never been elected to any office. Or vice versa: perhaps the reason he has been able to stay idealistic is because he has never been in an elected office.
This documentary also highlights the problems of the two-party system. Democrats and Republicans have such a stranglehold that it is impossible for third party candidates to make a difference. Even to the point that Nader was not allowed to attend a presidential debate as an audience member. There's obviously something wrong with the system.
Of course, Nader took a lot of heat in 2000 for tipping the election to Bush by stealing Gore votes in Florida. But there were many 3rd party candidates that got more votes than separated Bush from Gore. However, since Gore got the most, he got the blame. The documentary really highlighted some of the disdain that Democrats now hold for him because of that, whereas as many of them previously supported him strongly.
Overall, the documentary is very good - especially if you don't know much about the man. Highly recommended for all students of politics.
Movie Review: An Unreasonable Man is a Perfectly Resonable Film
Summary: 4 Stars
An Unreasonable Man paints a picture of its subject, consumer advocate and candidate Ralph Nader, which is neither flattering nor vilifying. Rather directors Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan chooses to paint a picture of Nader that captures this remarkable man warts and all. Focusing on Nader's "rise and fall" in a chronological order with occasional personal interludes.
The compelling narrative presented is Nader's single mindedness. Like Don Quixote, Nader is portrayed as a man with a will of steal. The documentary focuses on how this drive which has for years pushed his efforts to success, would later lead him to chase windmills that he couldn't defeat, those of the American political system.
The documentary seems largely aimed reclaiming Nader's pre-candidacy legacy as a legislative reformer fighting for the American consumer. The bulk of the film focuses here. Telling of how Nader build one of the largest consumer rights organization in the history of the nation, the documentary at the same time touches on how the founding of progressive groups led to the founding of their counterparts. The film does however take small steps at reclaiming the legacy of his campaign, presenting an array of arguments for and against his campaigns in 2000 and 2004. The most interesting point is an interview with the author of an American Political Science Association Article looking at Nader's impact on the 2000 election.
An Unreasonable Man, is a compassionate portrait, while it takes great strides towards being objective, its sentimentality still leaks through. Like its subject, the film is compelling, warts and all. An Unreasonable Man is 2hrs. 1min. Long, and is not rated, although there is no nudity, sex, and little, if any, profanity.