The first time I saw this movie, I didn't enjoy it very much. Later that night I began to think Ben Stein and pals had made this movie as an example of how NOT to make a documentary. Bad, bad, bad: Star a repellant and untrustworthy host that comes from the other side of the issue. Rush through the cases of disgruntled former employees and tell only one side of the story. Never clearly define the subject. Stop everything to go visit a Holocaust Museum. Later, when somebody mentions the Holocaust, have the host make a big hokey gesture of grief. Give the scientists on the opposite side the first and last words. Make sure the best speaker is on the opposition, and that he has a beautiful, educated English accent. Let him mock your side. Have some hokey shots of the host making an overwrought speech to a bunch of "cool" students that don't look the type to be interested in thistopic. Bring in a film of a Ronald Reagan speech here. What else? Oh, yeah, the whole time, cut back and forth a lot from your modern day story to scary Nazi and Communist era footage.
That is what I thought. Then, I went to see the movie again. I enjoyed it the second time. Now I could almost follow the stories, now I caught the definition of "intelligent design"... well, at least somebody did recite it, once.
Nobody seemed quite as repulsive as they had the first time around, and nothing seemed so very weird as it had the first time around. So, I don't know what to make of this film.
I will say that Ben Stein is openly Christophobic (my new word!) and that when he scratches his back during a class at the Bible College, he is trying to take control of the situation and also implying that he is catching fleas from the Christians! This is not very nice, and you can image the reaction he would have gotten had he done this in a classroom with Black Christians or Native American Christians or anybody other than White Christians.
Furthermore, I think having Ben Stein host this movie was a bad idea, because he takes up a host spot that could have gone to an Intelligent Design believer. That person could have got publicity and a chance at a developing a national following. Having Ben Stein host the movie is insulting, as if he is doing the thinking and talking for the Intelligent Design side, and you know darn well he doesn't believe in it.
Why was this movie made? I don't know. I don't know if Intelligent Design will get any boost from it. But, if they were interested in more freedom and breaking taboos, they could have found some more exciting taboos to try to break. Say, the taboo about racial differences. They could have gone to Tennessee and talked to James Hart about Darwin's Most Favored Races theory!!! Or, while over in Europe, they could have gone to visit some of the scientists and other researchers that have been put in jail, fined, beat up, had their books burned, etc. for saying they don't believe this or that about the Holocaust. (Maybe they don't believe those buildings at Auschwitz were even gas chambers. Maybe they don't believe anywhere near six million Jews were killed.) I would have liked to see Ben Stein visit Ernest Zundel and Mr. Death and James Hart, and that would have been more appropriate to go along with the Nazi and Commie footage.
Expelled is okay, but Mr. Death is a much more memorable movie about this same problem of what can happen to your career if you ask the wrong questions and offend the wrong people.
