Analysis of The Revisionaries film by Scott Thurman’s

Please respond to each question with a response of no less than 3 sentences

1. In the first part of the film, there is a lot of focus on how to discuss evolution in highschool science textbooks. What type of language did each side want to include? What were their respective reasons for wanting to keep/get rid of “strengths and weaknesses”? What language did the scientists prefer? Why did they object to the “compromise” language of “analyze and evaluate the theory of evolution from all sides”? What language do you think would be most appropriate for students in a high school setting?

2. The second half of the film examined the language to be included in social studies textbooks. Give a few examples of the disagreements they were having. How do these disagreements reflect upon the interpretations that each side has regarding American history? For example, why did Cynthia Dunbar want to include Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas in the section on philosophers who influenced the Founding Fathers, and why did Ron Wetherington object? What was the rhetorical purpose of inserting “Hussein” between “Barack” and “Obama”? You can examine these examples or others of your choosing.

3. What do you think director Scott Thurman’s purpose was in making this film? What was his main argument?

4. How did Thurman incorporate rhetorical strategies into his film? You can consider strategies such as music, camera shots, use of the chalkboard as “narrator,” and whatmaterial he chose to incorporate about each character–for example, why did he focus on Cynthia Dunbar’s education (at liberty University), but no one else’s? Why do see see Don Macleroy at church and at work, but not other characters? How do these decisions influence his argument?

5. Finally, evaluate the film. Was it effective? Fair? Trustworthy? Explain your answer.