REVIEW BY PETER MARTIN
Cinematical
Is it possible to make a non-partisan film about partisanship? Evenmore pertinent: Is it possible to watch a film on such apolitically-charged subject withoutgetting riled up, one way oranother? Kelly Nyks does his level best to present a balanceddiscussion in Split: A Divided America, a documentary that had its world premiere at AFI Dallas.
Walkinga veritable tightrope between red and blue states, Nyks travels acrossthe country, talking to a wide cross-section of random citizens, partyleaders, political celebrities and media pundits. He winds up with asincere, thoughtful inquiry into the neuroses of a fractured nation. Inits own quiet way, Split is a polite rebuke to the idea thatdocumentaries on political subjects must be adversarial -- orrelentlessly one-sided -- to be worthwhile.
The politicaldialogue wasn't always so fraught with the potential for personalviolence, according to a short animated clip embedded early in thefilm. Decades ago, Democratic and Republican neighbors could reportedlyexchange views without fear of the discussion breaking out intofisticuffs or obscene name-calling. Maybe so. Within my lifetime, thetone of political discourse has certainly grown progressively moredivisive, with aggressive, nakedly angry assaults being launched by oneside against the other on a regular basis. In a Presidential electionyear, what can a documentary do about it?
Nyks began inCalifornia with a tiny crew: just himself, producer Jeff Beard anddirector of photography Tarina Reed. (In the post-screening Q&A,Nyks notedthat the presence of a woman softened their approach andhelped put their interview subjects at ease.) He asked each person heinterviewed the same six questions about why the country is so dividedalong party lines, the role of faith and morality, and so forth,resisting the temptation to insert his own views or try to startarguments. The film then proceeds to consider each question asexhaustively as possible, given the 78-minute running time, arrangingthe sound bites into logical order and even adding sub-points to thediscussion of each question.
If that sounds too much like a term-paper outline, it must be admitted that Splitplays at times like an elementary schoolprimer aimed at an adultaudience. (It should play extremely well for school audiences of allages.) Historical and contextual asides are either animated orpresented as dirtied up archival footage, with occasional jokeyprofanities lacing the otherwise serious tone of the narration. Clipsfrom television shows are overlaid with animation, reducing thepoliticians to cartoon figures.
In an effort to gussy up thematerial, to keep it from being perceived as too dry and boring, Nyksmay have overreached. The stylistic flourishes tend to distract ratherthan enhance. Still, this is a case where such excesses mightbeforgiven. The subject matter is important and deserves thewidest audience possible, if nothing else to try and spark a dialogue.As the documentary makes clear, many people feel their voice doesn'tmatter anymore, that things will never change, that no one willeverchange their mind.
The filmplunges almost directly intothe idea that the country can be divided into"red" (conservative) and"blue" (liberal) states, breaking down voting figures into everyimaginable statistical permutation and then looking at the merits ofrural vs. metropolitan, coasts vs. the heartland, and so on and so on,even citing one stat that supposedly shows the relationship of the wildhog population to that region's propensity for favoring onepoliticalparty over another.
The interviewees includebetter-known figures such as Al Franken, Reverend Jesse Jackson andTucker Carlson, but it feels like everyone was given equal weight.Forexample, one expert claims that the country's "founding fathers"wereprofoundly religious, while the next asserts that they were clearlyatheists. Each feels that their viewpoint is supported byincontrovertible facts, and wonders why other people don't see theissues as they do.
Will the documentary change anyone'sviewpoint? No, but it's not trying to change minds,it's a plea to tryand start talking instead of simply flinging beliefs across animpassable chasm. In the post-screening Q&A, Nyks expressed hisbelief that some kind of huge historical turning point, such as theGreat Depressionor World War II, might be required to overturn thedeeply-held beliefs that seem to inevitably keep people from reachingnon-partisan agreements.
Until then, Split:A Divided America raises uncomfortable questions that remain unanswered in the current political climate.