One of my favorite films of the year. FWIW here is my review.

Denny

My one comment on this film is I wish the main characters had been asked to debate the OPPOSITE point of view once in a while, instead of always arguing for the liberal, politically correct, progressive, yada yada point of view. My understanding is that debate teams have to be prepared to argue EITHER side of an issue, depending on what the organizers of the debate tell them to do. But this movie makes it look like these students were on a political campaign, rather than sharpening their intellectual skills.

This becomes especially crucial during the final, climactic debate, when the students begin to invoke personal experience to make their argument. If they had been assigned the opposite point of view, would they still have found a way to invoke their personal experiences, even though it could have meant giving their personal experiences a rather different sort of meaning?

Peter,

I would agree with you if this was a film about debates. This is an "interpretive history" creating a story that uses the debates to further the civil rights message as it was being lived out in their lives. That is where I found the film to be most interesting. As noted in my review and others, the facts were changed in a variety of ways in order to further the message of the film. It is the difference between a photograph and a drawing/painting. I have a drawing of the London skyline that is certainly not "accurate" but creates a different kind of "true" as it places the major buildings and attractions together into an expression of the "London experience."

Denny

But wouldn't this have been a more interesting painting if the students had had to juggle or reconcile their civil-rights agenda with their obligations as debaters? Even just once?

Perhaps. It would have just made it a different film.

Denny

That aspect is tweaked to favor the underdog-sports genre on which the film is modeled. Right from the get-go, the filmmakers have opted for the familiarity of that hook to keep the film "entertaining" -- which I think it is. And for that genre, this is one of the best because it doesn't oversell the significance of winning.

At the same time, that choice prevents it from the possibility of becoming a "great" or truly "important" film. So I agree with both Denny and Peter.

Your diplomatic skills are excellent. You could be a pastor!

However, I would argue that the message of the film is preached through the means of the debates. I would posit that this is not a film about the sport/art of debating, but about the foundational events that created a group of people who changed America. As such it is perhaps more "true" by its modifications of history than if it had only presented the actual historic events. It is similar to our understanding of theological history within scripture - that the events are interpreted by the prophets to communicate something larger than just the facts of human history.

Denny

As said, this is "Hoosiers for the debate team." Compare the scene where they stand in awe of the Harvard auditorium to when the Hickory Huskers first see Hinkle Fieldhouse and Gene Hackman measures the goal and foul line. In that regard, I liked it a lot.

I thought this was a very well-done film with a positive and important about the coming of age of African Americans in an era of racism. I admire the film for its authenticity and for its performances. However, the debate scenes didn’t have the spark of those from another excellent film from last year, Rocket Science. I wish the debate scenes had the energy of the exchange between Forest Whitaker's and Denzel Washington’s characters on the subject of Jesus and social activism. That brief scene was outstanding, ranking as one of the most sizzling conversations I have seen in a film in recent memory. More of that kind of thing would have made a good film terrific.