“The Divided State” - (Dennis Pilon reviews this film on Michael Moore)
Special to Canadian Dimension
This Divided State Directed by Steven Greenstreet Minority Films 2005; 88 minutes
When the student council at Utah Valley State College invited Fahrenheit 911 director Michael Moore to speak in the fall of 2004 - just before a president election and in the heart of bible-thumping, Republican territory - all hell broke loose. Just how bible-thumping? Utah is practically the Mormon state: 75% of locals belong to that particular brand of Christianity. Just how Republican? Very - registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 12 to one in Utah. Not surprisingly, a few hackles were raised by this decision amongst both UVSC students and members of larger community. This Divided State tracks the local debate, one that pits the conservative students and community members that are trying to prevent Moore from coming against more liberal students and professors who defend the student council decision and the larger issue of free speech in Utah. In the tradition of Moore’s own film-making, director Greenstreet tries to capture the key issues at the heart of this struggle by juxtaposing what the different players say and do as the drama unfolds. Unfortunately, Greenstreet lacks both Moore’s political analysis and gut instincts about where the story really is.
This Divided State wraps its story around a rhetoric of free speech. The student council defend their decision to invite Moore as an effort to hear all sides in the ongoing national political debate. Their opponents attempt to make the issue about money, focusing on the $40,000 appearance fee that Moore will be paid. When this is exposed as false - Moore’s fee will be amply covered by ticket sales and sponsorships - the jig is up. As the film demonstrates again and again, the right doesn’t believe in free speech. From the cynical right-wing student activist who knowingly uses falsehoods to get students to sign his petition to the Morman elder Kay Anderson who attempts to bribe and then sue the student council to get his way, the ‘right’ in this film is clearly acting in terms of exercising power, not debating principle. Greenstreet’s film exposes the right’s hypocrisy on free speech repeatedly but never manages to address how and why the right can exercise power as they do.
Basically, the problem with This Divided State is a lack of context. We never really get any insight into what is holding the particular political relationships in Utah in place. Utah - far from being ‘this divided state’ - is largely a cultural and political monolith where minorities are very minor indeed. What would have been fascinating is to delve into how this political dominance is maintained. The film gives us glimpses of debate amongst Mormons, particularly on the free speech issue, but then lets it drop. The larger municipal and state contexts of politics are also missing. What we are left with is largely a cultural critique - Mormons should be more open-minded. But as the film demonstrates that some Mormons already are progressive or at least tolerant, the real question seems to be why those Mormons don’t appear to have influence politically. This would shift the focus from platitudes about ‘free speech’ to questions of political power more broadly, something sadly lacking from This Divided State.
– Dr. Dennis Pilon Assistant Professor Political Science University of Victoria
Comment by Jack, writing from United States on June 22nd, 2006 at 3:29 pm:
I saw THIS DIVIDED STATE and so I completely disagree with this review. Why are you comparing this film to Michael Moore’s films? That seems very much like apples and oranges. Moore’s films are heavily narrated and personally guided. DIVIDED STATE has no narration and is more journalistically carried out. You wanted so badly to see another “why the right is wrong” movie that you totally missed what THIS DIVIDED STATE really is: Just an interesting observation of modern American Political Discourse.
Comment by Seth, writing from United States on June 23rd, 2006 at 3:12 pm:
Yeah, I agree with Jack. Dr. Pilon seemed disappointed that he didn’t get a “screw those crazy right wingers” movie. Actually, it sounds like he wants an entirely different movie all together. Maybe he should make his own film. But THIS DIVIDED STATE was a great documentary film in my opinion. Why it suddently has to be a “Moore-esque” film baffles me.
Comment by Dennis Pilon, writing from Canada on July 16th, 2006 at 9:19 pm:
Dennis responds:
The point of the review is take seriously what this film-maker has presented to the audience. No film, or piece of journalism, or artwork for that matter is ‘just an observation’ - they are made to make a point. The dialogue between viewers and reviewers and those that create is part of a public discourse. I don’t want ’so badly to see another why the right is wrong’ film. My point was that, from my perspective, that the film-maker raised questions he didn’t answer, and missed opportunies to tell us about important things that were contained in the film. I suggested that a different political approach might open up what was presented here in a fruitful way. But people are free to disagree. BTW, I liked the film too and hope the film-maker goes on to do more.