IMDb user comments for
The Great Debaters (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

79 comments in total

---

76 out of 98 people found the following comment useful :-
Exceptional Film, Extremely Talented Cast, 17 December 2007

Author: (normangelman@verizon.net) from Washington, D.C.

Although "The Great Debaters" does not open until Christmas, I had the good fortune of seeing it at a preview -- and I can recommend it without reservation. It is a great story, based on real events that most of us never heard of, about a debating team from Wiley College, a small black institution in rural Texas, that performs extraordinary feats because the kids are good and the team is taught by Mel Tolson, a real person, acted by Denzel Washington, who also directs. Forest Whitaker, like Washington an academy award winner, plays James Farmer Sr., the school president and the father of one of the debaters, James Farmer Jr. (yes, that James Farmer Jr.). The participation in this enterprise of Washington, Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey and the Weinstein brothers should draw crowds (provided the film isn't cursed by being described as "uplifting," though it is). The revelation in this film are the performances of the three principal debaters: Jurnee Smollett as Samatha Booke (with an "e", as she proclaims when she tries out for the debate team), Nate Parker as Henry Lowe (also with an "e" as he announces in response to Samantha's declaration) and Denzel Whitaker as James Farmer Jr. (It's an amusing coincidence, but he is unrelated either to Denzel Washington or to Forrest Whitaker.) You may have seen Jurnee Smollett earlier in her career when she was a "cute kid" and a promising actress. This film could be her portal to stardom. In addition to being a gorgeous young woman, she's also an accomplished actress, ready for bigger parts in the future. You'll also be impressed with her colleagues, people whose names you may never have heard. You don't have to be black to find this film engrossing; I'm not. All you need to be is (a) a human being and (b) someone who appreciates a good movie. I hope it makes a ton of money at the box office but it is, above all, a quality film. It just happens to be about a difficult period in American history, the rural South in the 1930's. It just happens to be inspirational and uplifting and all that good, boring stuff that cause your eyes to roll when that's how the critics describe it. But it's better than uplifting. It's GOOD and it's REAL.

---

48 out of 66 people found the following comment useful :-
Though I speak with the tongues of angels, but have not love...., 24 December 2007

Author: intelearts from the big screen

"The Great Debaters" is a very fine film.

It reminds us of what it means to be excellent, to stand for something good, to love with all our hearts, and to shine;

The performances, or the cinematography, historical care, or directorship all lift it out of the ordinary.

And in its difficult subject: racial tension and the education and discovery of values by the three young debaters from Wiley College, one of the oldest colleges in America it creates real excitement, and interest.

But the real reason that this is a fine fine is its plea that here in education lies the reasoning, the power, and the will to change history. That learning lies not just in knowledge but also in applying that knowledge to better yourself, your world, and all of humanity.

The very significant point of the film is at the end. I can forgive the slight drag here and there because the ending is magnificent and explains something crucial about American history by its finish.

From an era when bigotry, racism, and degrading behavior was a wretched norm to our era where values are mutable, where dumbing down has no limits, and taste little place "The Great Debaters" stands out as being a story that stands against all of these things.

The rating says it all: excellent.

---

42 out of 57 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Sophomore Film by Denzel as a Director, 23 December 2007
Author: desiplaya from United States

Two words perfectly sum up this movie - inspirational and uplifting. I have not seen Antwone Fisher, but I will be sure to check it out after seeing this.

Before watching this, I had never even heard about Wiley College or what it did in the '30s, so not only is it great entertainment but it is also educational. I don't know how closely the movie follows the actual events so I can't point out the flaws, but it doesn't matter because the movie is brilliant and moving. This is an underdog movie and you'll be rooting for the Wiley College team throughout the movie. The acting is marvelous by all the actors, but recognition has to be given to the three stars that portray the debaters, Denzel Washington, and Forest Whitaker. Not only is Denzel great as an actor, he is even better as a director. As other reviewers have said, out of all the actors Denzel Whitaker is the star. His portrayal of James Farmer, Jr. is outstanding and this role will certainly further his acting career. Forest Whitaker doesn't have a huge role to play, but he performs his parts beautifully (for example the hog and the sheriff scenes).

Overall this is a very inspirational and uplifting movie. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a few Oscar nods.

9/10

---

50 out of 73 people found the following comment useful :-
You should see this film, 20 December 2007

Author: Phillip Golub (Phillipcgolub@gmail.com) from United States

I say this because: 1) The acting is remarkable. Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker, Nate Parker, Jurnee Smollett, Denzel Whitaker, and Kimberly Elise are all stunningly good 2) The cinematography is very well done and the score is beautifully and uplifting. 3) The story is great. It has multiple underdog themes which when watching, you root so much for the underdog it actually hurts :). These would be: a) the black people in the south in the 1930s b) little Wiley collage (especially when they are vs Harvard) c) the 14 year old boy James P. Farmer Jr. (Denzel Whitaker) who is seemingly incapable at first of debating. Do yourself a favor and see "The Great Debaters". You are going to love it.

---

28 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
Triumph ... and Treacle, 10 January 2008

Author: cliffs_of_fall from New York, NY

Sometimes you can enjoy every second of a movie, every frame, and be phenomenally moved by it, and cry a happy tear … and yet, when you ponder the film afterward, you feel disappointment, a sense of "why couldn't this film have been braver?" For me, this was that kind of film. There's just no subtlety in it and situations are stock.

Best things: the design of the film, the cinematography, the casting of the primary characters, and, most importantly, the inspirational theme of debating, of speaking well as a way out and up. I hope it inspires young people of all races to clean up their bad speech habits, speak up and be heard. As the Samantha character says at one point, in wonder, "I didn't need weapons, I had words!"

Worst things: predictable plot line, the fact that the speeches themselves, while well delivered, are not always well formulated, and the deliberate decision to end with an unalloyed triumph when the actual situation was less glamorous and more poignant; other postings here have explained why. As someone pointed out, the white characters are demonized (I would say "stereotyped") and not only by cretinous pig farmers in Texas but by the young Harvard debaters whose delicate features and snooty bearing make them seem like Stepford Scions. Oh, well … black characters in films have often been stock but one must ask, if that was wrong then why is this right now?

Oprah is a soft-hearted person with an aspirational dream for her people. That's nice but it doesn't necessarily lead to great art.

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Pulitzer-Prize Winning Screenwriter, Academy Award Winning Director, Academy Award Winning Actors and Editor, Made-For-TV Movie, 4 January 2008

Author: colinbarnard-1 from Oshawa, Ontario,Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Votometre doesn't show decimals, but really my number rating is 6.9. Today, anyway....I may change my mind tomorrow.

Knights of the South Bronx, Akeelah and the Bee, Glory Road- we've seen this movie before, and we've seen the same themes before. A feel-good underdog story with the typical American cinema's portrayal of Blacks centred one-dimensionally on how they are forced to relate to the issue of "race" in a racist and classist society.

At least the characters in this film get to display their full humanity and are not reduced to one-note caricatures, centred on their "race". These characters are not stereotypes, but fully realized human beings who have decided that not only education, but intellectualism, is as much their birthright as any American.

There are major problems with the script and/or the editing of this film that will hopefully be rectified in the DVD edition. There are several character arcs that have no logical building, just a juxtaposition of problem and solution later in the narrative. Forest Whittaker's humiliation during the pig incident, and his subsequent redemption in his son's eyes when dealing with Denzel in jail- there's dramatic stuff missing in the middle that makes me think that this is a three-hour film. Ophrah has been known to do those, so why not here?

We all know Ophrah Winfrey is full of good intentions. But as a film-maker, whether in front of the camera, or behind it, she has a very limited repertoire of themes that inspire her. We all know that the poor lady practices counter-transference in everything she does, but funding a $30 Million psychotherapy session should not be one area of her practice.

By fictionalizing a true story (not Harvard), you rob the narrative of its one true virtue- it really happened. And by fictionalizing it, you make it merely product to stand with the other films of identical theme. I don't buy the film-makers claim that by altering the venue from USC to Harvard they are able to show the magnitude of the Wiley team's achievement. Some careful exposition through the film could have easily made USC do quite nicely.

No, Harvard is the symbol of the white eastern intellectual elite, of white class and privilege, and that is why the film-makers chose Harvard. I am not sure that this is a legitimate reason for me to complain, though. As the Harvard Chancellor says in introducing the Debaters, Harvard is the school of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and numerous other US Presidents. Harvard IS America: the Debators are knocking at America's door and saying "we coming in 'cause we live here, this is our home".

The characters in the film certainly are enamoured with the possibility of being associated with Harvard. The device of the black butler at Harvard is not fully explored, but the choice to include him accentuates the viewers' perceptions of Harvard as a racist institution, and a locus for racial oppression.

Part of the problem in North American education (in Canada and the U.S.) is alienation of certain groups by not telling their stories, rendering them 'invisable' to themselves and the wider society. When you fictionalize an important human story, you are essentially saying to everyone that the real history isn't good enough. And it IS! It seems to me that that can be potentially damaging, because you are saying that the real story isn't worth being told. And it IS!

Note to Denzel- take the training wheels off, you did "Antoine Fischer", you didn't have to film it twice, and please don't do it a third time. Antoine was a much more self-assured and cinematic work.

This film would have worked far better as a stage-play- not surprising since it was written by a Pulitzer-prize winning playwright. The actors do their best to "elevate the material" and are actually the reason why the film is worthwhile to watch and engaging: the actors are uniformly charming and charismatic. It is their feelings and common humanity that I empathize with on screen.

This film is set in the Great Depression. This is of little consequence to the main characters of the film. But, Denzel's Communism seems to be a throw-away theme, as are the plight of labourers and share-croppers themselves. "Of Mice and Men", or John Sayles' "Matewan", or even the Coen Brothers' "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" are films that explore these themes with much more authenticity.

Social injustice is portrayed in this film as racism, not as the poverty that creates an underclass, regardless of skin colour. In the climatic debating scene, political reaction to racism is the theme, provided by the debaters own experience of witnessing a lynching.

Yet, racism has its roots in classism, and economic oppression that could have equally been cited in this movie. It seems to me that Denzel's communist character could have made better use of this avenue of social commentary. But perhaps, being an American film, nobody wants to hold capitalism itself responsible for racial oppression, and therefore, the larger issue.

The central characters are middle class, even in a racist society. And it is worth remembering that even in the Depression, the employment rate was 70%.

Does civil disobedience have a place in today's society? Or, is that theme used in this film as a precursor to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? With Barack Obama less than 12 months away from his Inauguration, Stephanie Wilson sitting on Harvard's Board of Governors, and Ophrah the richest woman on the planet, memory of injustice should be memory of fact, and anger at injustice directed towards the present, and focused on eliminating that injustice.

---

16 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
The Great Denzels, 28 December 2007

Author: Clayton Davis (thetrilogy911@hotmail.com) from New Jersey

In his sophomore effort, actor-director Denzel Washington has created one of the best films of the year, The Great Debaters. Never trying to be the cliché coming of age tale of student-teacher relationship that becomes like a bad aftertaste like past efforts, as Mona Lisa Smile; the film takes a high road to transform its narrative into a beautiful canvas for Washington to paint on like forgotten masterpieces like Stand and Deliver and Dead Poet's Society. Adapted from a Tony Scherman article by Robert Eisele and Jeffrey Porro, the film follows an astonishing pace and never forcing anything down the audience's throat rather, uses images and manifestations for its armor.

Washington's achievement here is pulling the performances of this new, unknown young actors. Denzel Whitaker as the innocent, curious James Jr. is wonderful in exposition of character and gives the best child performance of the year. At 17, young Whitaker should have no problem coming into his own as a great young leading man in the future. Nate Parker in a momentous breakthrough performance indulges the audience as Henry, the angry young college student dealing with the inequalities of African-Americans in the South. In the end it's the tenacious performance by the beautiful Jurnee Smollett that holds the emotional premise of the film together. Not only dealing the racial barrier, but the barrier of being a woman, a woman running away from her past and trying to settle into a world dominated by the differences of her own. Smollett's debate speeches are felt with every word, every expression, and every influential command. Smollett's performance is the ignored performance worthy of consideration for awards of 2007.

Not expecting too much from last year's Oscar winner Forest Whitaker probably helped him in watching the film. Whitaker reminds the viewer of how great he was for years before The Last King of Scotland. This is a true superior work on the actor's resume. So how Denzel Washington do in directing himself? Not glossing as much as Clint Eastwood and Kevin Costner past works, Washington does an admirable effort and takes the supporting role (yes it's supporting) and acts as the film's right hand man. Adding his charisma, potency, and veteran thespian persona, the film is a success.

In terms of Oscar's chances, costume designer Sharen Davis nominated for her designs in Ray and Dreamgirls is worthy of citation. David J. Bomba's production design is quite easy on the eye and captures the era of tyranny and persecution. With the potential to be a late surge to the Academy Awards race, The Great Debaters delivers on every level encompassing the richness of love, the evil of oppression, and the beauty of triumph.

Grade: ****/****

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
The Beginning of Civil Rights Legislation, 31 December 2007

Author: Casablanca3784 from 15th Row Orchestra

Of course the title deals with debating but it goes far deeper than that. Forest Whitaker, playing a true academician in every sense of the word, has both a precocious and gifted 14 year old son played by the brilliant Denzel Whitaker,no relation, and that son is none other than James Farmer Jr.,whom 7 years later becomes the founder of C.O.R.E., the Congress on Racial Equality. Thus began the beginning of the end of segregation as well as the vicious Jim Crow laws of the South which made it as difficult for a Negro to live and thrive there as it did for the Jew in pre-war Third Reich Germany. Yet, the film was basically not political in theme.

It deals with a small black college in Texas,Wiley,that had a poet plus a political agitator played by Denzel Washington as many students' mentor. Denzel, knowing that if given the chance, a few gifted students could form a debating team to challenge any college team in the nation and he sets out to prove it. Keep in mind that the main theme of the Civil Rights Movement was "if given the chance" and so the film builds on it and does the kind of damage to opponents as did the great "Brown Bomber," Joe Louis.

Although a bit slow moving and at times, pretentious, the film was very skillfully done in bringing to light the efforts accomplished by the African Americans to do away with the perniciousness having pervaded this nation from the time the first slave ship landed on our shores. Without delving into the ultra-political, nevertheless we are made to see for ourselves how prophetic became the words "We can overcome".

Who wrote, "And the youth shall guide them?" Truer words never written. Those Wiley College kids, without anything but minds for weapons, caused a revolution from the mid '30s to the present--kids who put real meaning into the Emancipation Proclamation.

---

11 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Classic Hollywood BS, 26 January 2008

Author: weeples09 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I went into this movie and i liked it. A few scenes were bland where James tries to hit on Samantha. I thought it seemed pretty well done and especially with the job Denzel did with his acting. I wasn't as thrilled with his directing, but it was still a decent job.

Later that day i was looking up online about the story of Wiley College and i realized the script was highly inaccurate. The writer deserves all of the blame. During it, it was hard for me to believe that small Wiley College could get an opportunity to debate against the honorable Harvard, and now i know why. They NEVER faced Harvard, they faced USC and they barely won. However their victory was negated because they weren't a member of the national debate association, which further shows how hard it was to be black, which was the real reason it was taken away.

This was all "hollywooded up" as i like to say. It is a David and Goliath story, with Goliath coming out on top, during the time of the civil rights. This had the potential to be a box office hit, but not a success in my eyes. They are telling me a false, inaccurate story that is hard to believe considering that it was 1935 and not 1960. I wasn't moved by it at all. I feel if the writer had gone with the actual story, it would have not made as much money, but would have been more artistically effective and more moving, because the fact that their win was taken away adds more to the whole racism idea of it. I have no respect for the writer who destroyed an interesting story to make money.

---

13 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Gripping, educating and impressing! A masterpiece., 23 December 2007

Author: Gordian Frank

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Great Debaters, taking place 1935 in Texas, is about a young debate team of Wiley College, a school which became famous as it won many debates against schools of any background in the 30's. Denzel Washington, playing professor Melvin Tolson, coaches this team to finally debate against Harvard University. Tolsen selects four young people who he trains in debating and who he strengthens in their resolve to fight for the civil rights. Melvin Tolsen also organizes the Southern Tenant Farmers Union, which contributes to him coming into constant conflict with the town's sheriff. The Great Debaters allows you to gain a great insight view of the lives of these four debaters (not to mention Tolson's life) and their family circumstances: For instance Hamilton Burgess (played by J. Williams) quits the team because his parents are too worried about the radical actions of Tolson and possible consequences of those.

The actors were perfect. Especially Denzel Whitaker (as James Farmer Jr.) who catches your attention when debating about the cruel conditions to be faced by blacks, delivers an outstanding performance. J. Smollett (as Samantha Booke) is chosen the first woman to ever debate and N. Parker (as Henry Lowe) is sort of the leader of the debaters yet plays a surprisingly small role in the showdown in Harvard.

Overall this movie is a masterpiece of the drama genre and definitely a milestone of Denzel Washington as Director. Hence, I am looking forward to more movies to come with him directing.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history