Change Your Image
kiroolioneaver
Reviews
Scarborough (2021)
Both the system AND the individual are responsible for being neglectful of children
First off, really great acting by all involved especially the child actors. It's always refreshing to see Canada, Ontario, Toronto play itself and showcase it's stories on film (and this is particularly true for an area like Scarborough). Hard film to watch (because of the emotionally weighty material) but goes to show the many similarities between the rural economically depleted small town and the economically challenged inner/city-suburb neighbourhood.
What really, however, makes this film intriguing is the fact that, on its face, While the film may be seen as being a critique of systemic income inequality, racism, sexism (the underfunding of social programmes, housing, etc.), it (while doing those other things) also puts forward the sometimes uncomfortable notion that simply throwing money at a situation (whether through charity or personal wealth) is not sufficient in helping rear children who are emotionally and physically neglected.
For example, the social worker's boss in the film is not wrong in telling the social worker to set boundaries with the families that she serves and that they are a literacy programme and not a food bank. While it may seem harsh and cruel, that distinction is important because in any relationship, having boundaries are super, super important. If not the least, because once you give to much of yourself to something or someone, that cannot possibly reciprocate what you give, it inevitably leads to resentment. We see this with the Caribbean food owners and the single dad who asks for food outside closing hours. The reason why they say "no," even though they otherwise do help people in his similar situation (they give one of the mum's earlier some jerk chicken) is because if they don't set boundaries (i.e. Closing the restaurant for personal/familial use) they will grow to resent the people they help and may otherwise stop being charitable altogether. As the restaurant owner rightfully points out, "it's not my fault your daughter doesn't have a meal tonight."
The other thing the film highlights is that, along with the lack of financial literacy in the K-12 education system, the lack of parental education is also something that is lacking. Sex education is (rightfully) seen as important (in terms of helping young people understand their bodies, healthy interpersonal relationship, sexual/gender identities) but there is (probably because, historically, "home economics" was a gendered subject in school aimed mostly towards women and motherhood) no real equivalent education about how to be a good parent. This is especially hard given that most people who end up in the situations that the parents in this film find themselves in had parents young and so would benefit the most from having this education as early as possible.
Through that education, they'd learn perhaps the most important thing; if you can't take care of yourself, how can you possible think you can take care of a child? This is not a eugenics argument against lower socio-economic individuals having children (as the film proves, and we'll get to later, money is not the most important thing in the rearing of children). But through the parents of two of the kids highlighted in this film (the Indigenous and Caucasian kid) it's very obvious and clear that the parents are probably most likely themselves the victims of their own traumas; and haven't dealt with them enough to adequately put them in the proper spot to properly raise a child. If you've got a drug habit, or are in an abusive relationship, those are not ideal environments with which to bring a child into the world and you kind of have to deal with/quit those type of things before you think about child rearing. Indeed, it is those things couple with poverty, not the poverty in and of itself, that hurts the children.
This is probably most evident in the Filipino mother who's son probably has the best shot of the three children of leading a semblance of a healthy/normal life because even though she's "poor," she is not dealing with other external issues which means she is able to centre her son in her life. In other words, her only real concern is making enough money for them to survive (not, for example, also battling a drug addiction or toxic romantic relationship). She is there for her son, accepts his defying of traditional gender norms, and is even willing to sell her own family heirlooms to support his passion of singing/performing. He gets accepted into the gifted programme, and it's clear his mum has decided she is going to live for him rather than herself. Conversely, We actually see with the girl at school who lives in the nice suburban house, that the financially well-off father is neglected his own daughter's wants and needs (as she wants to look out the window but her tells her the window is so that other people can look in).
Again, as this film illustrates, poverty in an of itself actually provides for things like community and selflessness that may be absent in more affluent neighbourhoods. As seen in the film, neighbours watch each others kids, take children to the store, share food, etc. This is why, for instance, a lot of people romanticize their university/college experience or musicians, bands, artists, actors/actresses look fondly on their early days of hustling before "making it." The days when you thought you had nought, you may have had plenty; just not materially. Things you appreciate more in hindsight as you accumulate wealth.
In other words, while this film definitely makes the case for more government and social support (and does so effectively) it also makes the point that all the governments support and social services in the world can't necessarily compensate for parental emotional and physical neglect. There should be parental education in school, people should work on themselves (especially emotionally and mentally) and then should thick twice, three, four, multiple times before even considering having kids, and yes, organizations should be funded more and led from grassroots people on the ground who know the situation.
As this review demonstrates, this film caused a lot of during and after thinking which is always the mark of a solidly made film. My only critique (albeit minor) was the story telling was a bit disjointed and the film a bit too long but otherwise the setting and what the film explores more than make up for any potential shortcomings it had. Recommend.
National Champions (2021)
Play turned into film throws too many interceptions
Only watched the first 56 minutes of this film before fast forwarding to the end (it was that boring/uninteresting). If I had watched this in theatres, I feel that this would've been the first movie ever I would've walked out on and that's saying something as I love college football and I am passionate about the student-athletes getting what they deserve (you know how far we've come when Republican governors like Ron DeSantis are in favour of players getting a piece of the pie).
First things first; making a movie/tv show about a fictional sports team/character set in a real-life league is going to require licencing. I know, I know, if you get the licencing you're either going to have to pay and/or submit the script for approval but by not having that and being a low-budget movie, it takes away from the authenticity/realism especially when coaches, players, and media are referring to "ESPN," "the NCAA," "the Big 12," and "Vanderbilt." Although superficial (and films like "any Given Sunday" have arguably pulled this off) this leads into the second more important point: the scope.
A way to get around not having licensing when you're trying to depict two big college football programmes facing off in the title game for the College Football Playoff would've been to re-interpret this as a five-star recruit making the decision as to where he wants to go to college. Having a fictional high school would've gotten around the issue of licencing since those are way more believable, and it could've been centred around National Signing Day almost mirroring the recent decision made by top recruit Travis Hunter's decision to go to an HBCU over a Power 5 programme. Weighing the more exploitative relationship at an Alabama versus a Jackson State or Harvard (which have sent players to the NFL) where the player gets more bang for their buck would've been an interesting backdrop that also offered the limited scope (you could set the entire thing in the hallways of a high school).
Ultimately, one of the things working against this film is the fact that it is outdated. This is primarily because the primary issue of the NCAA was not that it didn't pay it's players; it has and does in the form of scholarships; the central argument was should student-athletes be able to receive compensation above and beyond (and even up to) the true cost of attendance. The NCAA made the fatal mistake of preventing players (adults) from making money (e.g. No internships--which this film does bring up--not being able to accept gifts) while at the same time they didn't want to provide additional compensation in the form of salaries. By reluctantly allowing NIL, this issue of "if you're not going to pay the players, don't stop them from making money" the issue has been punctured and with Justice Brett Kavanagh's scathing decision baiting a case to be taken to the Supreme Court to allow for players to be classified as employees, this issue has been relatively dealt with as it is only now a matter of when, and not if, this will happen. The film characters in the film do note that NIL will only benefit the name players, but this is not entirely true. NIL allows the fourth-string punter or the field hockey player to monetize Youtube or Instagram (even OnlyFans) or even return to their hometowns during the summer and set up their own sports camps using their own name, likeness, and image (NIL). Everyone actually benefits from NIL legislation much more than what the film would have you believe.
Also, the reason why (like the storyline in one of the recent NBA 2K's where a senior player "boycotts"---the accurate term should be strike--the national championship game in his sport) this is fictional and not based on a true story is that student-athletes at the Power 5 schools in the revenue generating sports benefit (yes, even under the table monetarily) from the system as well. In other words, they are not just victims. This is also an issue I had with a film this was compared to "High Flying Bird"; the reason there why the top athletes don't go an start their own basketball league is because then they would have to invest the money and directly suffer the risks of things like the pandemic. As an NBA player, you show up play and every two weeks, rain or shine, regardless if the league has lost television revenue, ratings, attendance is down, you get paid your guaranteed salary. That's why these movements are being hypothetically on film by those outside, and not within, the sport by those with the actual power to make the statement.
This is also illustrated in that we have the quarterback preaching to the students as to how the NCAA takes advantage of them. Not only is this patronizing, as his fellow students are also college students, but ever since NCAA Football 14 was cancelled by EA Sports and the successive lawsuits that have followed, you'd have to be pretty much living under a rock to not know how exploitative college athletes are (particularly as a college athlete).
Things that I did like where the ruthlessness of the NCAA in terms of instigating a destruction of character mission against the athletes. This is realistic whenever one goes up against a big corporation and many times, as the saying goes, it's not personal, it's business." The sideshow affair could've been cut (much like the romance in the film "Draft Day") but J. K. Simmons was good and you do buy Stephan James as the charismatic leader/quarterback (as a fellow Canuck, I appreciated the way James pronounced "Sues-catch-you-won" in the way an American would when he joked about having to play in the CFL; his Canadian co-star's "southern accent" though, came off as less authentic).