A thing I’ve been a bit surprised to see discussion taking at face value is “what arguments people made.” One of the big degrees of freedom you have as a filmmaker is to ask a bunch of questions and then only include answers that fit your narrative.
i.e. it’s at least plausible that the optimists or CEOs gave better arguments that got cut either because they didn’t fit the narrative, or were too hard to understand or poorly phrased.
(Not saying this is necessarily true, just, flagging the question should be asked when you’re evaluating the film)
I would bet there were at least some pessimists who talked positively about kids who were cut because he wanted to paint a streamlined narrative about that.
A thing I’ve been a bit surprised to see discussion taking at face value is “what arguments people made.” One of the big degrees of freedom you have as a filmmaker is to ask a bunch of questions and then only include answers that fit your narrative.
i.e. it’s at least plausible that the optimists or CEOs gave better arguments that got cut either because they didn’t fit the narrative, or were too hard to understand or poorly phrased.
(Not saying this is necessarily true, just, flagging the question should be asked when you’re evaluating the film)
I would bet there were at least some pessimists who talked positively about kids who were cut because he wanted to paint a streamlined narrative about that.