One Bright Shining Moment - The Forgotten Summer of George McGovern

George McGovern is a war hero of WW2 come home to teach the world the hard won lesson of peace. This documentary interviews some of his closest campaign workers and shows footage of his early years in politics FOOD FOR PEACE and his early elections. Bright and shining late at night in sincere work of conventioneers, un-orchestrated as are the fake campaigns of corporation candidates of before and after. Listen and look at the days once when a man of the people sought to remove a corrupt President from office, who did resign for crimes committed before and after the 1972 election. Watch this historic saga of democracy by people, not bribed agents of corruption. The inspiration you may find can guide you in the current race for the White House by Dr Jill Stein @JillStein2012 www.jillstein.org

"One Bright Shining Moment" is an informative look at a largely forgotten era in American politics. The film does an excellent job of recapturing the emotions of a divided nation struggling to define itself, and creates a sympathetic portrait of those who pinned their hopes of a better future on one man who - despite his best intentions - lost the Presidency in a landslide. The filmmakers do much to rehabilitate George McGovern as a decent, principled Midwestern politician who was driven not by ruthless ambition but by sheer conviction. All of this is done through interviews with McGovern himself and those who followed him into the field of political battle. Figures who've since drifted into obscurity - Gary Hart, Ron Kovic, Gloria Steinem - reemerge in intimate discussions about the 1972 campaign and contemporary issues that I found fascinating.

But the documentary also suffers from uneven pacing due to the inclusion of either irrelevant or excessively long interviews that mostly serve to advance the speaker's own opinions. The film's basic narrative structure is confused: on multiple occasions the story deviates from the 1972 campaign, alternatively to focus on McGovern's early career or attack his political opponents in both parties. As informative as it is, the documentary engages in hero worship of McGovern that side-steps his flaws and ignores the fact that his nomination was engineered by Nixon to ensure his own re-election. McGovern's crushing loss is mostly brushed aside almost as a footnote, and no mention is made of how the 1972 disaster helped push the Democrats away from the liberal vision of America that McGovern fought for; it's hard to see how McGovern was vindicated in the end as the filmmakers suggest.

I wish I could say that the direction makes up for the film's storytelling problems, but the filmmaking is amateurish with a heavy reliance on the "Ken Burns" visual effect, sloppy transitions, and a low-grade soundtrack. This would be fine for a student film, but not for a feature-length documentary. All in all "One Bright Shining Moment" stumbles but is nonetheless an informative look at an important period in American history. 7/10.

"One Bright Shining Moment" is the kick in the butt reality of what this country is, and what we should all inspire to become. Beginning with problems with the Vietnam war, George McGovern is a man who truly would have altered history as we know it. Or has he? Stephen Vittoria tells the remarkable tale of a man who, even in his eighties, could run rings around the present day administration. With great narrative by Amy Goodman and unmistakable interviews with Gore Vidal and Warren Beatty, being "progressive" takes on the dictionary's true definition.

For example, progressive means moving forward and advancing. Proceeding in steps and continuing steadily by increments, or promoting and favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, and methods.

It is my opinion that this film is a mentor of hope and should be passed along to EVERY young person in this once great land of ours! I only wish my history class was this enjoyable.

In 1972 Richard Nixon delivered to George McGovern the second worst electoral drubbing in history, with McGovern winning only one state (Massachusetts) and one district (Washington, D.C.). Of course, winning D.C. wasn't really a victory, since D.C. would elect a tree if it ran on the Democratic ticket, and Republicans there are considered human oddities. This film examines the phenomena that was the McGovern campaign, including the fact that many traditional Democrats were probably glad when McGovern actually lost his race.

McGovern's team won the nomination largely because this was the first Presidential election in which 18 year olds could vote, and McGovern was their man. To hear his campaign staffers tell it, before McGovern the Democratic Party was made up of a conglomeration of blue-collar union workers and Southerners left over from Roosevelt's presidency. As the party transitioned to more liberal stances, it should be no surprise that these traditional Democrats would defect, since most felt they had nothing in common with the tree-hugging hippies that made up McGovern's most fervent supporters and the new Democratic Party. McGovern never compromised his beliefs, and in the face of well-predicted electoral disaster, ran the cleanest presidential campaign in modern history against one of the 20th century's dirtiest fighters.

To give some background, in 1972 the Vietnam War appeared to have no end in sight as far as military victory was concerned, and several thousand American soldiers died in that one year alone. Nixon's claim was that withdrawing prematurely could cause upheaval in all of Southeast Asia, resulting in the entire region becoming Communist, and then those Communists going after even more territory. McGovern saw only the senseless destruction of the war, and thus vowed to stop it his first day in office. If you see parallels between the Vietnam War and our current situation in Iraq and the same resulting political polarization, you're not alone. In the end, the American people just trusted Nixon more than McGovern to protect national security, and McGovern won 38 percent of the vote to Nixon's 60 percent. I'm not sure where the other 2 percent went. Great shades of 2004.

McGovern was a good human being, and I don't think this film stresses that enough. He was dignified and spoke with clarity and intelligence. Even in this documentary he projects unbending decency without a trace of bitterness. When people wonder what would happen if a candidate spoke his or her mind and never compromised for special interest groups, they might do well to look to George McGovern as a prototype.

However, McGovern's supporters are another matter as they make numerous inflammatory remarks that sometime border on the preposterous. My favorite pronouncement came from author Gore Vidal, who was discussing with incredulity the phenomenon of anyone who makes under $25,000 a year voting Republican: "I was brought up in the ruling class. They hate the people," he says. He then goes on to describe how, if the Bush family was given sodium pentothal and asked about their feelings for America's lower class, you would hear that they think the people and elections are just something that get in the way. How he comes by this knowledge I do not know. Another gentleman postulates that George Wallace might actually have been shot by one or more of Nixon's men as a larger part of the Watergate scandal.

Besides Gore Vidal, we have Warren Beatty, Gloria Steinem, and Gary Hart opining about the campaign. Together they paint a pretty good picture of the passion and sense of urgency of the anti-war movement as it existed in the early 70's. What is missing from the film are the opinions of the silent majority that supported the war and put Nixon back in office. To understand the 1972 election in its totality, it would have been helpful to hear from someone who believed Nixon behaved legitimately as commander-in-chief, apart from his actions in the Watergate scandal. Gloria Steinem sums up the McGovern campaign best. She says that whenever former McGovern campaign staffers reunite, they look back on 1972 and the work they did with great pride. She mentions, probably accurately, that Nixon's campaign staff really can't do that.

If you get the DVD, the extras include some interesting deleted scenes that result in about an extra half hour of background on the campaign. There is also an interview with the narrator of the movie, Amy Goodman, who attempts to tie McGovern's political philosophy with the current left-wing resistance to the Bush Administration. It's a pretty good documentary about how the anti-war movement went from campus to campaign, and I recommend it.

Nixon / McGovern is the first presidential race that I can remember. I was in the third grade, so of course I did not understand the issues. All I knew was that my parents supported Nixon and my college aged brother supported McGovern.

History classes in elementary and high school never got past WWII, so this film helped me fill a gap. One of the deleted scenes explains how the U.S. first got involved in Vietnam and perhaps should have been the opening of the film.

It is great that they were able to capture McGovern in his own words while he was still alive. There are wonderful insights by Dick Gregory, Gore Vidal, and Gloria Steinem. Some of the other "talking heads" added very little and should have been excluded or cut way down. Framing them in extreme close ups made for unpleasant viewing.

The rest of the film is both too much and too little. The film opens with footage of Bush II, Clinton, etc. in what may have looked current when the film was made, but now just seems dated. It also hits you over the head with the creator's political agenda. The film returns several times to political events of the 80's, 90's, etc that have nothing to do with McGovern. It's a pointless (and wildly speculative) "look what happened because McGovern wasn't elected" argument.

The narration is over the top severe, but blandly delivered by a woman who sounds like she is reading a script.

We know how brutal Vietnam was. After a while, the repeated footage of body parts and mutilated people seemed gratuitous. We get the point.

Meanwhile, news footage that would have brought the past to life is missing. We hear about a debate in which fellow Democrat Humphrey brutally attacked McGovern. Why not show it?

McGovern's wife is barely mentioned and we learn almost nothing about her. Ditto for his children. If he had any life outside of politics, we weren't shown it. His political career ended in 1972. What did this man do for the next 40 years?

The film assumes too much knowledge of people and events. Muskie, Wallace, Humphrey, and other names and faces flash by with little explanation of who they were. As a yearbook for McGovern campaign workers, this may not be needed, but for educational purposes, this should have been included.

This film could have used an independent editor. I recommend this film, but if you weren't following the events when they occurred, you may have to supplement it with outside reading.