Charming and brutal

Admirable film.

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

'CLEAR CUT: THE STORY OF PHILOMATH, OREGON: Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five) A documentary about Philomath, Oregon and the dispute which happened there between traditionalist conservatives (most specifically Steve Lowther and others in charge of the Clemen's foundation) and more liberal minded residents and how it effected the scholarship (set up by Rex Clemens) which had paid the college tuition for every local high school graduate for over 40 years! The film was produced and directed by Philomath High School graduate (in 1998) Peter Richardson (who also filmed another critically acclaimed documentary set in Oregon about the 'Death with Dignity Act' called 'HOW TO DIE IN OREGON'). The film was scored by local singer-songwriter Debra Arlyn. I worked with Debra at her father's video store in Philomath (Video Circle, which is now closed), in the early to mid 2000s and recognized several of those interviewed in the film as former customers there. The film is a well made and informative film as well as a very moving one in my opinion.The movie centers around Rex Clemens, who died in 1985. He was a high school dropout who became a huge businessman in the lumber industry in Philomath and, as the movie points out, he knew he owed a lot to his employees and the local community. As a thank you to Philomath he used his wealth to setup a foundation supporting the local schools as well as granting a fully paid four-year college scholarship to anyone who graduated from Philomath High School, no strings attached! The scholarship had been abused over the years by many people moving to the town for just their final years of high school, in order to take advantage of it of course. When Clemens died his three nephews basically took over control of the foundation and began questioning how it should be used. Being extremely conservative and traditional they had severe problems with how the town was changing (as more employees from OSU and HP were moving in) and how it was becoming less and less the town it once was known to be. They also had a huge problem with how the high school was being ran and felt liberal views were being forced on to the students. They specifically had a problem with the new superintendent, Terry Kneisler, who moved there from Chicago. Things came to a boiling point when they threatened the school with pulling the scholarship if they didn't get rid of Kneisler.The movie does a very good job of getting all it's information across while still moving at a seemingly fast pace (for a documentary at least). It's only 72 minutes but it lays out a lot of information in a very involving way. It's yet another movie about argument and cultural differences. It's also a movie about the rich few, once again, trying to completely control the masses with their money. The movie is not biased in anyway; it presents both sides fairly and doesn't depict anyone in a negative way through it's storytelling techniques or editing. The people involved do show their character though through their own words very clearly and many viewers will probably end up completely siding with one side and villainizing the other, just as it played out in life. By the end of the film there was definitely an individual that I couldn't stand or feel any sympathy or respect for and I was actually inspired by how some things turned out and felt somewhat moved by them. That probably has a lot to do with Richardson's excellent directing. He never tells you how to feel but still does a great job of getting the emotions flowing anyway. Arlyn's soundtrack is perfectly subtle and, like the film, never tries too hard to force you to feel a certain way. Living in the area I was probably more interested in the subject matter than others who don't but I really thought it was a very well made documentary. It debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in 2006 and just earlier this month became available to the public on Hulu and Netflix.Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzFSvs_E5S8

"Quid-pro-quo" is way,WAY, WAAAYYY off the mark in his summary. The foundation was well within it's rights to pull money from a school that substantially did not stand for the beliefs of the foundation. TANSTAAFL! The money was not "owed" to students that worked against the education foundation's principals and values.I'm not sure where he gets the idea the students were singled out for persecution by the foundation over the gay and lesbian flier that was redistributed to the community (after it had been plastered all over the school) which contained the names of the students. The students proudly placed their names on the flier themselves.If they did not wish to be identified with gay and lesbian groups they should have remained anonymous instead of placing their names clearly in print.Congratulations to Mr.Lowther for standing up to a bunch of bullies and following his families principals. The only "lunatic" here is Mr."Quid-pro-quo". Perhaps he should move to San Francisco and pursue some free money for college there.

The "star" of this film is Steve Lowther, who controls the Clemens Foundation, and through it, the future of dozens of prospective Clemens Foundation scholarship students. He strongly believes that his standards are the only valid standards to use when making any decision about the scholarships, the local primary and high school agendas, the school board and especially the selection of school superintendents. He even demands closed meetings, so that issues can be dealt with in a "manly" manner.The frightening part of it all is not what Steve Lowther says or even what he does. Legally, he does have ultimate control over the scholarship funds. The fact that he has ignored the original intent of the fund, while despicable, is also not illegal.What is frightening is the fact that Steve Lowther's views are seen by the locals as if they were simply "the other side of the issue", rather than the homophobic, fascist, and racist views of the Ultra-Right that they actually are. That he's adept at masking those views in the smoke and mirrors of his promotion of "the old values" only adds to the reasons to be aware of the tactics of this man, and those like him.This is a quiet film that ends up saying much more than was originally intended. The producers of the film don't even try to take pot-shots at anyone. All they did was aim a camera at Steve Lowther, and allow him to say exactly what he wanted to say. He then proceeds to shoot himself in the foot, again and again, with obvious delight, and total obliviousness.

Concur with the first recorder that this film illustrates what good documentaries should do: provide enough information from all the angles without bias and let the observer decide for him or herself.All of the parties are intelligent, articulate and unburdened by melodramatic flair. Any of them could be our neighbors, relatives or kids and Philomath emerges as a kind of Everytown, USA.I will say that I don't see some of the points that the original commentator picks up on. I missed a few minutes while watching but apparently missed Mr Lowther's "latent violence". His "tar and feather" comment is a much more a reference to "the old days" than a threat of violence. Mr Lowther doesn't hang himself but, like the other interviewees, simply states very clearly what he believes in.You will agree or disagree with Mr Lowether based on your own values system and/or political beliefs, but there is no denying that a charitable foundation certainly has the right to decide to whom it gives its money. In short, public schools should not have agendas but all private institutions have them.Also, his criticism of the fact finding meeting is well founded. As we saw during the OJ Simpson trial and from many a congressional hearing, that public hearings can easily degenerate into popularity contests and circuses, in which politicians bloviate and pander to the majority.The title is a well chosen one. It's a pun that obviously refers to the town's historical heritage and less obviously a contradictory reference to the two sides in this debate. In Clear Cut, the protagonists and antagonists are anything but. In the end, there are no bad guys, but just a running commentary about the continuous evolution and shifting sands of each and every community in the country.