Gerrymandering

TedFlicks Rating:

$4.00 ticket on a scale of $0 to $13.50.

AN EARNEST YAWN

Thank Heaven that “Gerrymandering,” a new documentary by helmer Jeff Reichert, runs only 77 minutes.  It is an earnest bore.  It is also more propaganda than documentary.  That is hardly a criminal offense (and neither is Gerrymandering), but the film itself belies its press materials, which say in part, “For the first time, GERRYMANDERING exposes the most effective form of manipulating elections short of outright fraud.” “Gerrymandering” is a term that originated in the early years of the American republic.  It “honors” Governor Elbridge Gerry ofMassachusetts who influenced the drawing of congressional districts in order to enhance the power of his party, the Federalists, at the dawn of the 19^th century.  Filmmakers make a point of it.  They also employ old television news footage, much of it black and white, to make their point by illustrating hoary examples of carving legislative districts in order to preserve the seats of incumbents.

This is a film review, not a primer on political tactics.  Wherever a legislature can draw district boundaries, a great many deals are to be made under the table — likely more than over it.  Incumbents have an interest in writing lines on the map that will exclude from their districts voters — and candidates — who will oppose them.  In the vast majority of American states elected legislators draw both the districts of state legislatures and of the US House of Representatives. Generally this takes place every ten years in the two years following the decennial census — although the filmmakers treat auds to a hilarious dust up in the Texas legislature wherein Democrats bolt for anOklahoma motel when an unscheduled, 2003 Republican supported, redistricting pops up on their agenda.

Pic’s point of departure is the campaign for Proposition 11, spearheaded by Kathay Feng of California Common Cause, to take the power to draw legislative districts from the California legislature inSacramento and put it into the hands of “a commission made of Californiacitizens chosen via an intense screening process.”

The narrative is adequate to make the point.  Faces on the screen includeCalifornia governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Republican National Committee chair Ed Rollins, former California governor and US senator Pete Wilson, formerCalifornia governor Gray Davis, formerVermont governor and Democratic national chairman Dr. Howard Dean, Harvard Law professor Lani Guiner, a nominee to the US Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton.

Pic’s problem is that anyone who did not sleep through high school US History class already knows the story and the backstory.  In an interview distributed by pic’s flacks Reichert admits that he knew nothing of redistricting until 2003.  Perhaps he needed an extra cup of coffee mornings as a teenager.

Pic clearly has a point of view — which moves it from documentary to propaganda.  Filmmakers are avowedly in favor of taking the power to draw district boundaries away from elected officials and giving it to blue ribbon commissions.  At least they are honest enough to quote Feng saying that no alternative is perfect.  Your critic knows that democracy is messy. The alternative begs the ancient question, “Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?”  In the event that Reichert slept through Latin class it means, “Who will guard the guards themselves?”

Pic’s flacks make a point of its “Official Selection” at no fewer than six American film festivals from Tribeca toHawaii.  One wonders what the selection committees were thinking — or maybe they, too, slept through high school history class.

“Gerrymandering” is technically adequate for a film that draws heavily on outsourced footage as well as original material shot on the run.  It is not rated.  Take the kids if they have trouble sleeping.  It gets two stars: One for civics and another (dubious) for earnestness.

–30–

[Show as slideshow]