Clear Cut: The Story of Philomath, Oregon (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
America's culture wars: up close and personal
roland-10431 May 2006
This remarkable documentary depicts a vivid example of America's current culture war: the struggle between clashing values of social conservatives and liberals, focused in this instance on a rural community undergoing the painful transition from a timber industry town to one increasingly dominated by "urban immigrants": the professionals and techies - high and low - who make up the ranks of the information age. In 1980 there were 12 lumber mills around Philomath, now it's down to 2. The largest employers in the area nowadays are Oregon State University, in neighboring Corvallis, and a Hewlett-Packard calculator repair center.

Rex Clemens (1901-1985) was a Philomath high school dropout who later became a wealthy lumberman. He dearly loved his old school and never missed a Philomath Warriors football game. In 1959 he endowed a unique foundation with a mission of supporting school building projects and providing 4-year college scholarships to any kid that graduated high school. Thousands of kids have had their chance at a higher education thanks to this unique program.

But about five years ago the school board hired a new superintendent, a liberal outsider, an educator from Chicago with a Ph.D. and a vision of teaching critical thinking to kids on themes that include the environmental impact of industries like logging. The student dress code was scrapped. A Gay-Straight Alliance group of students was encouraged. The high school mascot - The Warrior - was challenged, and its symbol, a five foot tall wood carved statue of a rather sad, bedraggled looking American Indian, was removed from the high school lobby.

It was all too much for the citizens with longstanding roots in the town, especially for Rex Clemens's three nephews, now in charge of the foundation. Led by one of them, Steve Lowther, battle was joined between the traditionalists and the new wave, led by the superintendent, Dr. Terry Kneisler, and his backers. After multiple skirmishes, Lowther forced a showdown, telling the school board that either Kneisler goes or the foundation will withdraw its school support and scholarship program.

In the film, producer/director/editor Peter Richardson lets the people of the town tell this story in a series of well edited interview segments. Richardson had grown up in Philomath and was able to gain the confidence of people on all sides of the debate. Everybody gets their say here. In that regard, unlike the one-sided propagandistic thrust of most recent documentaries on social issues (think of the films of Michael Moore or Robert Greenwald), this is one of the most balanced accounts I've seen in years.

That's not to say that Richardson is entirely neutral. By the end of the film, a perspective does emerge, and it is not very favorable to Mr. Lowther and his backers. But this leaning is not the result of any editorializing on Mr. Richardson's part. Instead, like the documentarist, Errol Morris, Richardson simply encourages all parties to talk away, and, in the case of Mr. Lowther, Richardson gives him enough rope to hang himself, his latent violence cloaked in Christian virtue, clueless about the vast contradictions in his views.

Lowther accuses Kneisler and his backers of pursuing a "social agenda" instead of "training these kids to become good workers and taxpayers." He and his brothers modify the Clemens Foundation scholarship criteria, first by going national, and also requiring that applicants be well behaved by traditional standards, come from a family with its roots in the timber, agriculture or mining industries, and have a career goal in one of these vocations. Doesn't he think that's a social agenda? Lowther fumes because the school board insisted that fact finding hearings be open to the public, rather than have closed meetings in a "manly" fashion.

More manly to meet in hiding than out in the open? Why not be even more manly and wear hoods? (Lowther refers not once but twice to his wish to have tarred and feathered Kneisler and run him out of town.) The loss of traditional values and activities is disorienting to established citizens of any community, and the newcomers, the urban immigrants, are no less disoriented when they move away from their roots and enter a town that has lost its cultural bearings. These issues are real, and answers to resolve the conflicts are far from "clear cut." It was either FDR or H. L. Mencken who once said that for every complex social problem there is a simple answer, and it is always wrong. There is no one right point of view that will satisfy all interests.

Richardson and his film respect the diversity of opinions of the townspeople. Philomath is a microcosm of the cultural ferment that is in evidence broadly in our land. That makes this film all the more poignant and relevant. It's a gem of a film. My grade: A- 9/10
22 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Us vs. Them: Nobody Wins
karmaDhyana12 June 2007
This film is about the legacy left by a man with altruistic intentions of providing a college education to students who would otherwise not have been able to afford one, and another man who mutated the original idea to his own ends.

In the late 1950s, Rex Clemens, the 'hero' (per se) of this film saw the writing on the wall regarding the decline of the timber industry in Oregon, and wanted to give the children of Philomath, Oregon an opportunity to get an education that would save them from a dismal and uncertain career in a town were the timber industry that once reigned unfettered had come to a screeching halt--and branch out into more promising fields. His motivation was to give the youth of Philomath, a town he dearly loved, the chance to compete in a changing world economy. Thus, he created a foundation that supported school-building projects and provided a 4-year college scholarship to any student that graduated from Philomath High School.

After Clemens' death, Steve Lowther, Clemens' nephew--who is now in charge of the foundation--lost sight of his uncle's original mission by using his personal religious and ideological agendas to keep 'undesirable' students from taking advantage of the generous opportunity his uncle created.

During the film Mr. Lowther proves to be his own worst enemy: In one of many times Mr. Lowther contradicts himself, he states that one of the objectives of the education process was to teach children social skills, but in another statement he accuses the school superintendent, Dr. Terry Kneisler (whom Lowther shows an open contempt for) of pursuing a "social agenda". (BTW, Dr. Kneisler, now the Superintendent of Reynolds School District in Oregon, is an intelligent, well-liked and respected man in his district.) A public forum was held--overseen by an impartial arbitrator--wherein all interested parties were encouraged to participate and express their views regarding Dr. Kneisler and his position as superintendent; a decision was later made that he should continue as superintendent. This decision enraged Mr. Lowther who, in the film smirked, "We took our toys and went home," meaning he withdrew the scholarship altogether. This 'my way or the highway' attitude, and his choice of words used to describe his disdain for the board's decision, personified the childish attitude he embraced when he didn't get what he wanted.

Additionally, the above-referenced forum was considered by Mr. Lowther to be underhanded, and declared that their differences be settled 'like men', behind closed doors, without the benefit of others listening to both sides of the issue and communicating their concerns, if any. Apparently, Mr. Lowther was either unaware of, or had no regard for Oregon state law that mandates School Board meetings OPEN to the PUBLIC (with limited exceptions, such as personnel contract negotiations, or consultation with attorneys).

Another example of Mr. Lowther's dubious beliefs was when he spoke of his strong religious Christian values, then declared his wish to 'tar and feather' Kneisler, a value I find quite the contrary to Christian values.

Ultimately, Mr. Lowther reinstated the foundation funding by attaching an admission restriction to students who had no "background" (i.e. who didn't come from families) in timber, mining and/or agriculture fields.

The point that this documentary drives home is that, while Mr. Lowther thought he was hurting Dr. Kneisler and his supporters by dismantling the foundation his uncle had created, he was actually 'clear-cutting' the young men and women whose opportunity to create a better way of life for themselves was felled by a man with an ax to grind. Timber.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
What documentaries should be
darling1373 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A frightening look at a far-right winger
chuck-54330 September 2007
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.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Whose money? Whose values?
BruiserTom3 March 2009
The film-maker may not use the phrase "fair and balanced", but I will. He did an excellent job of letting the truth speak for itself.

I think the superintendent was wrong to change the name of the team from "Warriors" to "Cadets". What is wrong with the concept of the warrior? Such arrogant politically correct heavy-handedness is disgusting. Other than that, I don't see where he did much wrong.

Somebody said that the foundation had a right to withhold money from students who worked against the foundation's principles and values. My understanding was that the foundation's mission and value was to provide tuition for all students who attended Philomath High. What a noble mission, freely, with no self-serving strings attached, to promote the education of those not as fortunate as you. Is this value not worthy and sufficient in its own right? And even if you don't think so, where is your respect for the person who provided the money for the foundation in the first place? It was Mr. Lowther - a fortunate heir and beneficiary of Rex Clemen's hard work and business success - who undermined these values. While you are enjoying the wealth that you yourself did not earn, Mr. Lowther, could you not at least honor the legacy of the man who did so much for you and others? They were not your toys to pick up and take home. You have only reaped and trampled where others have sown. Shame on you.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Many viewers will probably end up completely siding with one side and villainizing the other, just as it played out in life.
Hellmant24 March 2012
'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
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"Quid-pro-quo" is wrong!
rpm_3711 January 2008
"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.
1 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Clemens Foundation Has Rights Too!
Julie-Hanson4 August 2008
My grandparents were long-time residents of Philomath and my mother graduated from Philomath High School. The Clemens Foundation provided scholarships to every PHS graduate for many years. When people heard about the scholarships, they started moving their kids into the high school for their last year just so they could get free money. When it was realized that this was happening, the rules changed a little bit, and understandably so.

The Clemens family has done so much for that little community. It's difficult for most people to fully understand how small the community really is if you just watch the documentary and haven't really been there. The Clemens has donated property to build a school, built a nice pool and countless other efforts to better the community.

I don't think it was too much to ask for the school (including an obvious "tree-hugger" superintendent) to fairly recognize the timber industry and its contribution to that community. Teachers like those in the documentary didn't want to 'promote' logging but yet they were the first in line to expect money from a foundation that was started because of it! The Lowther family has every right to stipulate how the foundation funds will be distributed. If the school district didn't want to educate the children about the logging industry, why should the foundation continue to support the school district in the manner it had been all those years? The scholarships haven't stopped completely - they're just not handed out so readily anymore.

I commend Steve Lowther and his family for everything they have done and everything they are doing for their community. They weren't willing to sit idly by and continue to let some of the district staff continue to snub their noses at the industry that provides the money but also expect perpetual handouts from it.

I support the Clemens Foundation!
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An excellent documentary by an excellent film maker
lynnanddavidgrube7 June 2017
First: a disclaimer. I am in this movie.

Having said that, I must say that this movie is a foreshadowing of the brilliant work of the writer/director, Peter Richardson, who has gone on to become a premier movie maker (How to Die in Oregon).

As with any excellent documentary, Peter represents both sides of the divide in our little town with skill and clarity. I have friends, family, and acquaintances on both sides of the issue, and all agree that he states their case well.

Furthermore, as with the powerful book American Nations (Carl Woodard), this is a clear explanation of where we have gotten to the polarized state of our current political life.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Even Handed but still biased
HolyCritic28 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A "Backwoods-Red-Neck" who wants to go "back to the 50's" vs "Progressive-intellectuals" who are forward thinking and interested in Diversity and want to take the school and it's students into the modern world (read 60's)

While I watched the movie I had to hand it to the director/writer who went out of their way to make sure all comments were 1 for 1. Unlike our news media that usually gives conservative views a 1-3 conservative to liberal ratio, I was impressed that for each comment, the counterpart got a say. However, this was all window dressing. (Ironically, our protagonist claimed this was the case for him as well.) For the conservative side, few students were found to make cogent points. One old lady was found, labeled as a teacher, who halting, and hesitantly, sounded like she might be in the Lowther's camp. It was obvious to me she was measuring her words so as not to get fired for not towing the company line. For the liberals, we got the radical, in-your-face, we are not going to be told what to do crowd. And a number of teachers and some "townsfolk". They all pretended how concerned they were about being fair and not political.

It amazes me how liberals in America think. No liberal ever thinks what they do is either politically motivated or divisive. As was readily demonstrated by the proponents of this Documentary, not one of the liberals in this movie considered anything they were doing to be politically motivated, yet when the guy with the money says he'd like a say in how the money gets spent, whoa-nelly all the liberals get all bent out of shape with the guy with the "political agenda". Of course they had a political agenda, the least of which was to totally convert the town from conservative to liberal and to indoctrinate the kids into a "progressive mentality". It was especially telling when the Science teacher compared logging to tobacco, and then said the curriculum wasn't strident enough in regards to it's Eco-fundamentalism.

I found a few things interesting about the whole ordeal and how it was portrayed: They showed a Fox News Teaser, not the actual body of the story, but the teaser. Ostensibly to show that Fox News seemed to have a cynical approach to the story, even though they are supposed to be this radically biased conservative outlet. The scene near the end where the Superintendent got a plaque and how he went out of his way to say how much he was loved and how, THIS ONE TIME, he actually made friends that would last a lifetime. Only one student, sort of off-handedly mentioned, that it was "their money, they can do with it what they want to". No one on the school board, no community members. Odd. In the end, the guys they wanted out left, and this was AFTER they got their contracts extended, etc.. This led me to believe that they were in it for the money and that when the money left, so did their interest. Liberals think it's other people's money that should fund their failed policies.

The whole bent of this movie, and the comments that came from those who were in favor of the movie were on how "fair' the movie was. Yet I was still struck by how I was manipulated in the movie. I am obviously a conservative but I can take a good liberal argument, if there is one. But my overriding feeling coming away is that once again I was given the Conservative Strawman and that there was something missing, something left out that could have been in there.

In the end, I will say it's one of the most even-handed documentaries I've seen in awhile.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not surprised
shopbot1 January 2008
I spent the first of what was to be 14 years in Oregon in Philomath. I was a student at Oregon State in Corvallis and arrived too late to find closer housing. Philomath is an awesome little town. You have to have lived in Oregon, I think, to "get" them. I once heard that Oregon was in the top 5 states for churches (religious groups) per capita - it seems true when you drive around the state. Despite that, or because of it, they tend to be pretty liberal on social issues. There is a very strong sense of "what you do in private is your business, so keep it that way", meaning you can pretty much get away with anything as long as you keep it to yourself.

The attitude extends to other areas, leading to comments like "it's his money". However, it wasn't this man's money. He was a trustee, with legal obligations to the trust. He had no right to make changes, especially this radical a change from the original intent.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed