Is It Always Right to Be Right?

I can't compare this film to the other two Oscar nominees for 1971, as they apparently are not available. I assume that IS IT ALWAYS RIGHT TO BE RIGHT? was the best film, as it won...plus I really liked the film--even though it may seem a tad preachy.

This cartoon is about all the negative and polarizing issues we were confronted with in America at the time--racism,the generation gap, the war in Vietnam, etc.. In dealing with these issues, the film takes an amazingly neutral view--and suggests we all do the same. Now this does NOT mean that we should necessarily allow evil, but that we should all learn not to be so dogmatic and try to see the truth in both sides of the issue. In other words, seldom, if ever, is one side 100% right and being "right" should not be the goal but learning to understand and cooperate. It's all told through a parable and it's very clever. While it's all a bit obvious and perhaps preachy, the message is a good one and this film was incredibly timely back when it debuted.

As for the animation style, it ain't much to look at, but this was the case for all animation at the time. Simplistic backgrounds, low frame-rates and hastily drawn characters were all the norm, so I can't really penalize the film too much--it was a product of the times.

Fortunately, in addition to the nice message, clever parable and decent artwork, the film makers were also able to persuade Orson Welles to narrate--giving the film some clout and a touch of class.

Overall, a nice film--one that I wouldn't mind seeing again sometime.

It's a brief and penetrating parable about a land in which people thought they must be "right" and to admit otherwise was a sign of weakness. Nobody said, "You might be right." Nobody said, "I could be wrong." The population was divided on many issues and the gulf between them grew.

This won an Academy Award in 1970 and the groups described now look a little dusty with age -- doves and hawks, young and old. But the moral remains the same, though the self-righteous groups are now different.

The message is that we have to overcome our sense of certainty and build bridges across those gulfs to find common ground. It's easier said than done because building a bridge between two antagonistic groups requires at least two heroes, one on each side of the chasm. The heroes must not only appeal to the group across the gulf, who are likely to throw rotten fruit at them because they are "enemies." The heroes must also brave the insults of the group they BELONG to, because they'll be scorned as traitors to the cause or the race.

The issue is tied to the concept of manliness. If an armed man approached Clint Eastwood and ordered him to get out of town, would Clint Eastwood reply, "Can't we sit down and talk this over before one of us gets hurt?" No. No, he wouldn't. Neither would John Wayne. That concept of masculinity is a little limited. Japanese kamikaze pilots left little dolls and haiku behind for their loved ones. On the night before a battle, Greek generals would discuss philosophy and write poems. Any warrior doing that today would have one foot in fairydom.

Those gulfs look wider today that they did forty-five years ago and not much seems to have changed. During his campaign, one man said, "I'm not going to change my mind because it's made up, and I'm not the kind of guy who changes his mind once it's made up." We liked that so much we elected him president.

It's a conundrum and possibly there is no solution. Of course I may be wrong.

Fifty years on from this admittedly lacklustre animation, it's still worth listening to the words of Warren H. Schmidt's narrative (from Orson Welles) about the repetitive and fruitless nature of human belligerence. All the vested interests convinced that they, and they alone, are correct. No-one prepared to even hint that there might be room for manoeuvre or compromise as chasms begin to exist in society based on things like age, politics, race, sex, faith - and even chasms within chasms. Until, that is, someone somewhere has the courage to say that everything isn't just a case of black and white or right or wrong. Maybe bridges can and should be built if tolerance and understanding can be found amidst the hitherto bloody-minded and opinionated. Social media "influencers" in 2024 take note!

While I appreciate the intent of this film, and Orson Welles is always welcome, the film implies that there's a moral equivalency for each side being right.

If one person says 2 plus 2 is 4, and another side says it is 6.. That doesn't mean the answer is 5.

So yes, while we should listen to arguments, that does not mean compromise should happen.

If one side wants equality, and another side wants inequality, there does not seem to be a moral in between.

I used this film with high schoolers in the middle 70s. I believe it's a good time to remind students again of the tremendous gap we sometimes experience when so many of us feel we have the only right answers. This film depicts various groups and the great divide among them so vividly, that I still recall the images and Wells' booming narrative, even though it's been almost 30 years since I've seen a copy. It's a great open-ended examination of truth, and how different points of view affect us all. The issues may have changed since the 70s, but attitudes have not, and those issues still divide our nation. The Hawks and Doves, the Old and Young, etc. battle it out, believing Right is Might. The message of tolerance is clearly conveyed. I would love to find a copy to share with today's teenagers.