Reviews - Specialty Releases


Film Review: Split: A Deeper Divide

Short but still rambling documentary about current American political hyper-partisanship is more unfiltered download of op-ed talking points than the thoughtful investigation the filmmakers seem to believe they’re making.

Oct 10, 2012

-By Chris Barsanti


filmjournal/photos/stylus/1364838-Split_Md.jpg

For movie details, please click here.

The nation is hopelessly divided; Washington is broken; people only listen to news pre-slanted to their ideology; there is no room left for even-tempered discourse. We have heard all this before, which doesn’t mean that Split: A Deeper Divide, a film about the state of American political partisanship, doesn’t tackle a worthy subject. (That would be like saying that since we have already been told war is hell, every war film after All Quiet on the Western Front has been a waste of time.) But it also doesn’t mean that this film brings anything new to the topic.

Split is really two films, whose respective bits are none too elegantly shuffled together. The main body of the film, the more recognizable part, is a series of talking heads, many boldface names among them, opining on the current state of American democracy. (Hint: Things aren’t going well.) Writer-director Kelly Nyks kicks off his discussion of partisanship with two eminently reasonable senators: Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Chuck Hagel. Both discuss how in Washington it’s no virtue to compromise and that the place they once worked in has changed, and not for the better; they’re both retired, which speaks volumes.

From here, Nyks puts himself front and center, going on a road trip to connect with real Americans and find out how things have gotten this way. This results in a lot of soporific narration and cringe-inducing interviews which come off like a vacuous newspaper trend piece that talks to three or four random people and tries to spin their answers into a larger thesis. In between these mercifully short pieces, Nyks talks to lefties like Noam Chomsky as well as right-wingers like the American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein (unlike most of its brethren, the film makes more than a token effort to include the conservative voice) about how the divide between political ideologies has become so stark.

At least, in theory. Split is less a pointed essay on an important topic than it is a slop bucket of theorizing about nearly every larger trend in current American politics, with little of it treated in any depth. Topics that actually have a lot to do with increased partisanship—such as gerrymandering Congressional districts and the trend of populations to select homes in places where most people share their beliefs—are brought up but handled in only the most superficial fashion. The frequently voiced nostalgia for a time when Americans supposedly talked politics in the friendliest of manners is backed up by precious few facts on the ground.

Although Nyks is able to assemble an impressively stellar cast of interviewees, their insights tend toward the anodyne, overly familiar, or responsibility-evading. One particular example of the latter is the appearance here of Tucker Carlson, who has been playing the role of nice-guy-conservative nerd in the media for years. Bringing in the editor-in-chief of the website Daily Caller, which specializes in a particularly nasty and hyperventilating brand of attack journalism, to discuss the evils of partisanship is a particularly inelegant move. Using footage of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting’s aftermath to hint that it was about partisanship without bothering to try and prove it, is just about as cheap a move.

Even without getting into the dumbed-down animated segments that try, Michael Moore-style, to explain concepts like the Telecommunications Act, or the low-budget, knocked-together look of the whole thing, Split feels like a well-intentioned film whose makers never wrapped their heads around what it was they wanted to say and so dropped in every theory about and nostrum for partisanship that we’ve all been reading for years now. This isn’t a film, it’s a laundry list.



Film Review: Split: A Deeper Divide

Short but still rambling documentary about current American political hyper-partisanship is more unfiltered download of op-ed talking points than the thoughtful investigation the filmmakers seem to believe they’re making.

Oct 10, 2012

-By Chris Barsanti


filmjournal/photos/stylus/1364838-Split_Md.jpg

For movie details, please click here.

The nation is hopelessly divided; Washington is broken; people only listen to news pre-slanted to their ideology; there is no room left for even-tempered discourse. We have heard all this before, which doesn’t mean that Split: A Deeper Divide, a film about the state of American political partisanship, doesn’t tackle a worthy subject. (That would be like saying that since we have already been told war is hell, every war film after All Quiet on the Western Front has been a waste of time.) But it also doesn’t mean that this film brings anything new to the topic.

Split is really two films, whose respective bits are none too elegantly shuffled together. The main body of the film, the more recognizable part, is a series of talking heads, many boldface names among them, opining on the current state of American democracy. (Hint: Things aren’t going well.) Writer-director Kelly Nyks kicks off his discussion of partisanship with two eminently reasonable senators: Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Chuck Hagel. Both discuss how in Washington it’s no virtue to compromise and that the place they once worked in has changed, and not for the better; they’re both retired, which speaks volumes.

From here, Nyks puts himself front and center, going on a road trip to connect with real Americans and find out how things have gotten this way. This results in a lot of soporific narration and cringe-inducing interviews which come off like a vacuous newspaper trend piece that talks to three or four random people and tries to spin their answers into a larger thesis. In between these mercifully short pieces, Nyks talks to lefties like Noam Chomsky as well as right-wingers like the American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein (unlike most of its brethren, the film makes more than a token effort to include the conservative voice) about how the divide between political ideologies has become so stark.

At least, in theory. Split is less a pointed essay on an important topic than it is a slop bucket of theorizing about nearly every larger trend in current American politics, with little of it treated in any depth. Topics that actually have a lot to do with increased partisanship—such as gerrymandering Congressional districts and the trend of populations to select homes in places where most people share their beliefs—are brought up but handled in only the most superficial fashion. The frequently voiced nostalgia for a time when Americans supposedly talked politics in the friendliest of manners is backed up by precious few facts on the ground.

Although Nyks is able to assemble an impressively stellar cast of interviewees, their insights tend toward the anodyne, overly familiar, or responsibility-evading. One particular example of the latter is the appearance here of Tucker Carlson, who has been playing the role of nice-guy-conservative nerd in the media for years. Bringing in the editor-in-chief of the website Daily Caller, which specializes in a particularly nasty and hyperventilating brand of attack journalism, to discuss the evils of partisanship is a particularly inelegant move. Using footage of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting’s aftermath to hint that it was about partisanship without bothering to try and prove it, is just about as cheap a move.

Even without getting into the dumbed-down animated segments that try, Michael Moore-style, to explain concepts like the Telecommunications Act, or the low-budget, knocked-together look of the whole thing, Split feels like a well-intentioned film whose makers never wrapped their heads around what it was they wanted to say and so dropped in every theory about and nostrum for partisanship that we’ve all been reading for years now. This isn’t a film, it’s a laundry list.
Post a Comment
Asterisk (*) is a required field.
* Author: 
Rate This Article: (1=Bad, 5=Perfect)

*Comment:
 

More Specialty Releases

Cannibal
Film Review: Cannibal

The fact that this gripping and unsettling study of the psychopathic mind also magically manages to be very moving brings potential mainstream appeal to its ostensibly art-house subject. More »

My Man is a Loser
Film Review: My Man is a Loser

This formulaic sex farce is rescued by sharp comedic performances. More »

Momo
Film Review: Letter to Momo

Literally beset by goblins, this strained animated effort should have concentrated on the human elements of its story rather than the supernatural. More »

A Master Builder
Film Review: A Master Builder

A personal project which should have stayed personal, this turgid yet flat Ibsen adaptation is third-time unlucky for Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory. More »

ADVERTISEMENT



REVIEWS

Magic in the Moonlight
Film Review: Magic in the Moonlight

Slight Woody Allen period romance is enlivened by appealing leads Colin Firth and Emma Stone. More »

Sex Tape review
Film Review: Sex Tape

Couple's homemade porn circulates on the web in an R-rated comedy that wastes the talents of its stars. More »

Player for the Film Journal International website.


ADVERTISEMENT



INDUSTRY GUIDES

» Blue Sheets
FJI's guide to upcoming movie releases, including films in production and development. Check back weekly for the latest additions.

» Distribution Guide
» Equipment Guide
» Exhibition Guide

ORDER A PRINT SUBSCRIPTION

Film Journal International

Subscribe to the monthly print edition of Film Journal International and get the full visual impact of this valuable resource for the cinema business.

» Click Here

SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Learn how to promote your company at the Film Expo Group events: ShowEast, CineEurope, and CineAsia.

» Click Here