Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
My Review of ‘Won’t Back Down’ (spoiler alert)
I saw the trailer and was outraged over a scene where a teacher locks a child in a closet. As if that happens routinely. (And no, don't need to hear that your sister's teacher did this in 1960 whenever; this movie takes place in 2012, when any teacher who actually did this would be reported for child abuse and hopefully lose her job.)
I also find it unbelievable that ANY union contract would dictate how members spend their time outside of their work day. That's just crazy.
Then there's the part about falsifying attendance data, which is a felony in my state.
Oh, and BTW, this movie was shown to delegates at BOTH the RNC and the DNC.
<skip>
As they start to get more support from parents and then the teachers, the major logical flaw in the movie surfaces. All we ever see is the one ‘bad’ teacher in the school. When they finally get past the 18 teachers needed to sign the petition, I realized that the movie was not a movie about bad teachers. A movie about a school overrun by bad teachers and a corrupt administration could actually make a good movie, I think. But the crazy thing about this movie was that the teachers, except for that one, were all good teachers who desperately wanted to do a better job. And the only way they could do a better job would be if they got this charter approved because (you’re not going to believe this) THE UNION CONTRACT FORBIDS THESE TEACHERS FROM STAYING AFTER SCHOOL TO WORK WITH THEIR STUDENTS. I am not kidding. Throughout the movie they remind us of this. I kept thinking that if these teachers are so frustrated that they aren’t teaching as well as they can, why don’t they just do a better job planning? Does this union contract, which they tell us is 600 pages long, also forbid these teachers from planning at home at night? Also, in contrast to the ‘bad’ teachers cliche, this school has at least half of the teachers being highly motivated. So, again, the conflict in this movie is that all these great teachers do not have the freedom to stay after school if they want to, which is why the school is failing. There is never any other mention of something else in the union contract that prevents them from doing their best job teaching. And their charter plan has things in it that nothing was preventing them from doing already, like having 5th graders read Shakespeare. The new school can’t be union “because our contract has too many restrictions.”
As they gain momentum, and it seems that they might get the signatures they need, the union starts to fight back. The second in charge at the union, played by Holly Hunter, tells Jamie that if she gives up the fight, she will help her daughter get a scholarship to an expensive private school. Jamie refuses.
Meanwhile, the principal calls Nona to her office and asks if she has altered the attendance records for him. When she says yes, he informs her that this is illegal and fires her. At this point of the movie I almost screamed out “Good thing she’s in the union,” but I didn’t. If this really happened, the teacher and the principal would both be, justifiably, fired.
The hearing with the board finally comes. It is known that the board is very union-friendly, which is in stark contrast to the hand-picked boards in cities like New York that have mayoral control. The charter is initially denied, but when one of the board members explains that he voted ‘no’ because one of the line items said something would cost $413,000 instead of $134,000, he could not trust them to run a school. Jamie announces that this is because she has Dyslexia and then they have a new vote and the charter passes. Then, in an over-directed moment, Jamie looks right into the camera and reminds us not to forget that this is “for the kids.” Fast forward one year and the school is a completely different place with all the same teachers, it seemed, except that one, now that they have the freedom to stay after school if they want to.
more . . . http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/09/07/my-review-of-wont-back-down-spoiler-alert/
As they start to get more support from parents and then the teachers, the major logical flaw in the movie surfaces. All we ever see is the one ‘bad’ teacher in the school. When they finally get past the 18 teachers needed to sign the petition, I realized that the movie was not a movie about bad teachers. A movie about a school overrun by bad teachers and a corrupt administration could actually make a good movie, I think. But the crazy thing about this movie was that the teachers, except for that one, were all good teachers who desperately wanted to do a better job. And the only way they could do a better job would be if they got this charter approved because (you’re not going to believe this) THE UNION CONTRACT FORBIDS THESE TEACHERS FROM STAYING AFTER SCHOOL TO WORK WITH THEIR STUDENTS. I am not kidding. Throughout the movie they remind us of this. I kept thinking that if these teachers are so frustrated that they aren’t teaching as well as they can, why don’t they just do a better job planning? Does this union contract, which they tell us is 600 pages long, also forbid these teachers from planning at home at night? Also, in contrast to the ‘bad’ teachers cliche, this school has at least half of the teachers being highly motivated. So, again, the conflict in this movie is that all these great teachers do not have the freedom to stay after school if they want to, which is why the school is failing. There is never any other mention of something else in the union contract that prevents them from doing their best job teaching. And their charter plan has things in it that nothing was preventing them from doing already, like having 5th graders read Shakespeare. The new school can’t be union “because our contract has too many restrictions.”
As they gain momentum, and it seems that they might get the signatures they need, the union starts to fight back. The second in charge at the union, played by Holly Hunter, tells Jamie that if she gives up the fight, she will help her daughter get a scholarship to an expensive private school. Jamie refuses.
Meanwhile, the principal calls Nona to her office and asks if she has altered the attendance records for him. When she says yes, he informs her that this is illegal and fires her. At this point of the movie I almost screamed out “Good thing she’s in the union,” but I didn’t. If this really happened, the teacher and the principal would both be, justifiably, fired.
The hearing with the board finally comes. It is known that the board is very union-friendly, which is in stark contrast to the hand-picked boards in cities like New York that have mayoral control. The charter is initially denied, but when one of the board members explains that he voted ‘no’ because one of the line items said something would cost $413,000 instead of $134,000, he could not trust them to run a school. Jamie announces that this is because she has Dyslexia and then they have a new vote and the charter passes. Then, in an over-directed moment, Jamie looks right into the camera and reminds us not to forget that this is “for the kids.” Fast forward one year and the school is a completely different place with all the same teachers, it seemed, except that one, now that they have the freedom to stay after school if they want to.
more . . . http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/09/07/my-review-of-wont-back-down-spoiler-alert/
