There is one particular scene on one particular movie that I would like anyone who has ever voted Democratic to watch. The movie is a documentary about the cartel that runs the education system, specifically in New Jersey. The scene is about a lottery drawing for slots in a charter school showing the faces of children whose names have been drawn, and those who were not so lucky. Both are in tears, but are crying for different reasons. The scene focuses on a child weeping for her loss.
The scene was criticized by New York Times movie critic Jeannette Catsoulis as something that resulted from "emotional coercion," as if the director had found an exceptionally gifted young actor who could cry on his signal instead of just being at the right place at the right time. The critic goes on to say that the movie was "a bludgeoning rant against a single state."
It is unlikely for anyone without any political or personal stake in the corruption of the teachers' unions of New Jersey to watch the scene and not be moved. It is not unheard of that in many schools, both teachers and students are victims of corruption, contributing to the increasing number of children leaving schools quite unprepared for the "real world." But no one can blame the movie's director for acting like nobody has cared enough to delve on the activities of the cartel on the public education system and expose them.
Since it came out, the movie has moved people to finally start leaving their mark on the process of school budgeting and keep themselves informed on where their taxes and their government's funding are put into good use. New York Times reported that New Jersey residents rejected over half of the budgets on the ballot during school-budget elections.
It seems that education budgets are no longer held as something inviolable in the state of New Jersey. Motivated by that fact, New Jersey Governor Christopher J. Christie took on the education cartel like no previous holder of his office has done before. Although it would facilitate the resolution of this issue if he were to tackle it with the same gusto and assertiveness he shows on the other issues he is undertaking.
It is worth to note that at the beginning of the film, the director's credibility to tackle such a powerful issue is immediately established-after all, doesn't being a local TV reporter in New Jersey carry more reliability in exposing the truth than any other profession?
The director also makes it easy for the audience to understand the flurry of statistics concerning education funding by the government, tax revenues, comparisons of New Jersey educational outcomes with other states and other countries, and so on.
The movie has the cartel running scared now. And the fact that they are criticizing New Jersey's Governor is not helping them. Hopefully this movie will inspire many to act and do something about this issue. We owe it to the weeping child.
The scene was criticized by New York Times movie critic Jeannette Catsoulis as something that resulted from "emotional coercion," as if the director had found an exceptionally gifted young actor who could cry on his signal instead of just being at the right place at the right time. The critic goes on to say that the movie was "a bludgeoning rant against a single state."
It is unlikely for anyone without any political or personal stake in the corruption of the teachers' unions of New Jersey to watch the scene and not be moved. It is not unheard of that in many schools, both teachers and students are victims of corruption, contributing to the increasing number of children leaving schools quite unprepared for the "real world." But no one can blame the movie's director for acting like nobody has cared enough to delve on the activities of the cartel on the public education system and expose them.
Since it came out, the movie has moved people to finally start leaving their mark on the process of school budgeting and keep themselves informed on where their taxes and their government's funding are put into good use. New York Times reported that New Jersey residents rejected over half of the budgets on the ballot during school-budget elections.
It seems that education budgets are no longer held as something inviolable in the state of New Jersey. Motivated by that fact, New Jersey Governor Christopher J. Christie took on the education cartel like no previous holder of his office has done before. Although it would facilitate the resolution of this issue if he were to tackle it with the same gusto and assertiveness he shows on the other issues he is undertaking.
It is worth to note that at the beginning of the film, the director's credibility to tackle such a powerful issue is immediately established-after all, doesn't being a local TV reporter in New Jersey carry more reliability in exposing the truth than any other profession?
The director also makes it easy for the audience to understand the flurry of statistics concerning education funding by the government, tax revenues, comparisons of New Jersey educational outcomes with other states and other countries, and so on.
The movie has the cartel running scared now. And the fact that they are criticizing New Jersey's Governor is not helping them. Hopefully this movie will inspire many to act and do something about this issue. We owe it to the weeping child.
The Communication Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment