The world is divided into factions, on opposite sides of issues; each side is, of course, right. And so the gap between the people grows, until someone challenges the absolutist view of what... Read allThe world is divided into factions, on opposite sides of issues; each side is, of course, right. And so the gap between the people grows, until someone challenges the absolutist view of what's "right."The world is divided into factions, on opposite sides of issues; each side is, of course, right. And so the gap between the people grows, until someone challenges the absolutist view of what's "right."
- Director
- Writer
- Stars
- Won 1 Oscar
- 1 win total
Photos
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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!
In 1972 I started teaching Race Relations in the Air Force. Many say that the Armed Services are conservative or bigoted, but this is an example of the forward thinking of the Air Force as this was one of the first films purchased for our program. It is probably one of the most powerful short films about bigotry and closed mindedness I have ever seen. Men and women of all ranks thought that the message was clear and meaningful. I wish it were available today, I am still in Social Work and while I primarily do therapy, the message is applicable to marriage counseling, domestic violence, anger control and even substance abuse group therapy. If any one has a copy I would appreciate contacting me at facts1@swbell.net
With Orson Welles' stentorian voice, he lays out what mankind needs. There is little to argue with unless your ox is being gored. All the bromides we have heard for decades are laid out, and they sound good. The problem lies in the the larger humanity, who want to be one of the factions. Simplistic and trite.
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.
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.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Чи завжди правильно бути правим?
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content