Chalk

I saw this film at the Tom Cruise Scientology Laboratories Religious Propaganda Festival, and I must say the crowd absolutely LOVED it. Afterward, we all chanted and lost ourselves in a quick, pulsating rhythm of spirituality that is in the very nature of our alien beings... Xinatthrusta-humda!

Seriously now. Why do some IMDb-ers start their comments with "I saw this film at such and such festival"? Who cares where you saw the film. As if the location and the circumstances matter. In fact, I saw "Chalk" in my bathroom while standing upside-down and juggling tennis balls with my feet. Does that make my experience any more or less worthy, interesting, valid?

I see no problem in someone combining Christopher Guest's mockumentary style (very obviously quite influential here) with a bit of Woody Allen thrown in. The improvisations are quite solid, the cast is good (amateur or not) and fairly likable, and there is even a pleasant little song at the very end of the end-credits. However, there are no laugh-out-loud moments - unless, of course, if you were watching this film with an eager festival crowd who carried you with their unbridled, uncritical enthusiasm, almost forcing you to laugh along with them. The gags i.e. the observations about the teaching life are clever, somewhat amusing, and "cute", but hardly what one could call hilarious. Although an indie film, it succumbs to the old Hollywood formula sentimentality trap which has ruined man a comedy by infiltrating itself like a virus into the last third of the movie. I can't say I was annoyed by the quick deterioration of comedy to melancholic semi-schmaltz, but a mockumentary should end just as it had begun: with humor. I am a proponent of the "Seinfeld" school of "zero sentimentality" comedy, as opposed to the "cheap weepy drama twists" school of "Friends", an approach tailored toward easy-to-please sheep. Hence that is the one rule that they should have definitely obeyed in the Christopher Guest Manual of Making Fake Documentaries. Although not a perfect film, the makers of "Chalk" can find consolation in the fact that their little movie is much better than Guest's "A Mighty Wind", which was a major disappointment.

I had never heard before either of the "Teacher of the Year Debate" or the "Spelling Hornet". Did they make this up, or do these two absurd events actually take place in American high schools? You are welcome to e-mail me with an answer to that one. (I can't be bothered to surf the net for that...) If so, then no wonder the U.S. pre-college education system is in such poor shape. Teachers debating in front of students over who should win "teacher of the year"?? Teachers being tested in spelling those ridiculous new slang words?? You gotta be kidding me...

All in all, I consider "Chalk" to be a cut above the rest of the independent films coming out in recent years. It was interesting to observe that the makers of the movie thank a few dozen festivals for supporting them from the beginning - and yet the supposedly "hip", "underground", and "trend-setting" Sundance festival wasn't mentioned. However, this doesn't really surprise me. The reason Robert Redford and his cronies (initially?) ignored this film is simple: "Chalk" is a totally unpolitical film, lacking the left-wing propaganda bits that Redford looks out for.

So my advice for "Chalk 2: The Sequel" is this: invite Michael Moore to have a cameo appearance in which he will mock a Capitalist or a policeman, and include a sub-plot about a dumb Republican teacher that everyone hates. That would definitely please His Royal Redness, Robert Ford the Red One...

Why do we assume that people can walk in off of the street and take charge of a group of young people? Part of the answer is a public perception that teaching is easy and doesn't require much special training; part of it may be that teachers spend years actually believing those things. The best learning environments in schools evolve to a meeting place for ideas and strategies to enhance interests in those ideas. If teachers lack ideas (concepts, facts, interpretations, etc.) and, additionally, a panoply of methods or strategies to encourage students and their various learning styles it should not come as a surprise that the Mr. Lowreys of the teaching profession as in deep water. Imagine yourself or your children in his classroom. Solutions: Begin with what you don't know and work hard to expand; visit other classroom and look for things that may work; and begin each new grading period with new ideas, filling in at the end with lessons that had worked well in the past. One can always tell if a teacher is stuck in the concrete of old lessons and ideas when an unannounced assembly or program breaks up the usual routine: "We can't do that; my third period students will be one day behind the other students." Did CHALK do a good job of communicating education's shortfalls? No. Why? Because there were too few students in the classes. Think in terms of more than thirty students to get an accurate picture, not twelve to fifteen. Yes. Why? Because the film captured the petty interruptions and bickering disagreements outside of the classroom that detract from the basic mission.

While this is, I think, an excellent film, the way the teachers are portrayed, and the culture within the school is hard to believe.

If this is accurate in terms of the skills the teachers have and the hostile culture within the administration, it is overwhelmingly disturbing. It makes me sad for our future.

Perhaps it is a tribute to how good a movie this is that is stirred up this strong of a response... nothing about it makes me excited or hopeful for the institution or the process. Many teachers I know do evoke these feelings in me, and I hope, in the classroom. So this creates a sort of cloud of conflicted emotions for me.

More than worth watching, just curious if anyone has the same sense.

I saw this at the LA Film Festival, and it's a funny peek at the lives of teachers, from a point of view you don't often see.

According to the festival literature, it was written and directed by actual former teachers, so as you can imagine there is a lot of inside stuff that we may not have seen before, that is both sad and funny.

The plot, such as it is, follows four new teachers at a high school in Texas during their first year, and all the trials and tribulations they encounter. I didn't recognize any of the cast, I think the kids may have been real students, but that didn't matter to me. Like 'The Office', it shows the ineptitude and struggle to make sense of ridiculous things, like school policy, and people desperate to win 'teacher of the year'. It's funny and heartfelt, and reminded me of a Christopher Guest film in that it felt ad-libbed more than scripted.

I ended up feeling great affection for these people, and thought the film was very good.

I'm a big Christopher Guest fan and honestly went into this film expecting to be disappointed, but wound up being pleasantly surprised. Chalk was very entertaining, often hilarious, at times touching, and even managed to pull everything together to actually tell a story pretty well. The development of the Mr. Lowery character from start to finish was great. There were only a handful of actors in the film (the rest were real students, principals, teachers, etc.) and they were great. Troy Schremmer was excellent. Anyhow, I highly recommend this to anyone who enjoys finding comedy in the ridiculousness of life or basically anyone who enjoys good mockumentaries. Or, people who are teachers or are related to teachers and know that world. Two thumbs up.