Split: A Divided America

Split isn't just a documentary but a retro-concept on documenting a topic: A non-slanted view of a subject matter.

What I enjoyed most about this film was the lack of a slant. I felt like liberals and conservatives, Democratic and Republican constituents were represented fairly and evenly.

I won't lie that it makes my blood boil when it comes down to people disagreeing with my point of view on so called "hot button issues" but that's really the point. We should get mad when people are against something we believe in so strongly but SPLIT's point is that we should be able to talk about it like civilized people and at least be able to walk away feeling like civilized beings.

When did we stop being able to talk to each other and respect others points of view? I disagree with the comments made that attack the style of the piece or it's so-called simplifying effect of a complex America but I respect it. That's the point. I recognize the other side, disagree completely, but I will not tear them down. Hurray to them for speaking up but, sadly, it is a statement that felt to me like it was made in vehement defense of a side, which is the underlying problem SPLIT is trying to make visible.

I think we've made a relatively simple idea too complex to talk about.

It's okay to disagree, as long as we can talk it through and keep the anger and defensiveness out of the conversation.

I enjoyed this film from beginning to end and would love to see what the future holds for it.

"It's hard to talk when your teeth are clenched."

~CDP~

This movie gives both sides of the political parties and never chooses to slant to either one. It's a great movie to understand that people will vote only because of a few things that have nothing to do with politics, or the economy. Main issues are of course, religion, abortion, gun control, etc. So even if the republican candidate will not help someone's economic status as much as the democrat (or vice-versa) they will vote just on those issues.

One of the woman said "I don't care what their politics are, if one of them is not against abortion I won't vote for them." Well, hopefully people who only view an election as a religious race, or a pro-life or choice, will not vote.

I was extremely impressed with Split. It brings forth so many interesting facets of how politics affect our culture and society, and how it divides America. It's truly bi-partisan and doesn't take a side, but remains very entertaining and makes you think. The travel throughout the USA is quite interesting. It's reminiscent of a Michael Moore documentary, but without Moore swinging his opinions and face all over it. Split is much more factual. It kind of opened my mind and I continued to think about it weeks after I saw it. Not many documentaries achieve this. It's a very engaging documentary that is a must for anyone even remotely interested in politics.

This film is excellent. Republican or Democrat, there is an essential message for all Americans. One of the best documentaries to explore Bipartisanship I have seen, ever. I was both shocked and relieved to see where we have come to in our politics. It takes courageous young filmmakers to tackle such difficult issues and to realize that they do not necessarily have to come up with the answers but rather begin to ask the important questions. There are so many difficult issues we face as a nation today that the mere thought of it can create a sense of defeat. Split acknowledges this fact while at the same time giving us hope and a reason to start the crucial repairs. This film should be presented to our nations youth as a tool for what is expected from all Americans as they come of age and become eligible voters. Hats off to the combo of Nykes, Beard and Co. for there work.

This documentary is fundamentally misleading in its characterization of the "split" that divides Americans politically by focusing almost exclusively on relatively meaningless "hot button" issues like abortion and homosexuality, while ignoring real class, gender, and racial disparity.

Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned ever. For politicians to pretend otherwise for the sake of mobilizing ignorant voters is disingenuous, just like this movie's insistence that abortion is a politically significant issue on the national level, one that divides our political spectrum, is also disingenuous. Similarly homosexuality is not an issue at the national level. The personal opinions of politicians have little bearing on the legislative reality, which is that at this time neither party will act either to further expand or restrict the definition of marriage. No one is pushing for equal rights for gays, and no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The documentary contains a number of short historical lessons for the viewer's apparent edification (so he can contextualize the current "split" with the halcyon days of yore) which are fundamentally inaccurate. For instance, in order to buttress the reality of the "split" as a modern phenomenon, electoral maps for the past 100 years or so of presidential elections are shown with the current red/blue color scheme. Not surprisingly, the red/blue states shift somewhat from election to election and substantially at certain times. What is not mentioned at all is that during these shifts it was the nature of the political parties themselves that changed, not the voters. The South overwhelmingly voted Democratic during most of the twentieth century, until Republicans co-opted the racial and evangelical platform issues important to Southerners. Subtler changes in party platforms during this time are also ignored. Another example of historical inaccuracy is the depiction of the religion of the founding fathers. It's suggested that there is a great deal of confusion concerning the religion of the founding fathers (and there is amongst many people, but not historians). Thomas Jefferson is painted as a devoutly religious man who compiled his own bible but nonetheless (and confusedly, it seems) is sometimes considered an atheist. What is not mentioned is that his "bible" contains only the moral teachings of Jesus, with the complete expurgation of miracles and everything else Jefferson considered spurious, because Jefferson was in fact a deist, more or less the eighteenth century equivalent of the modern atheist.

There are several more instances like this, which contribute overall to an extremely simplified picture of America as divided along meaningful partisan lines. Certainly America IS divided along partisan lines to the extent that politicians have been very successful in getting people to vote primarily on social "issues." But in fact the Democratic and Republican parties are both right of center compared to the parties of every other Western industrialized nation. They are both free market capitalist parties who employ aggressive foreign policy. The split between them is grossly exaggerated.

This documentary should have focused on the political agenda of deceiving voters into believing in the existence of a real political schism but instead merely furthers that agenda by reinforcing this deception.