I saw Chicago KNOCKING screening and discussion afterward with filmaker

by OnTheWayOut 25 Replies latest jw friends

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Quite a while back Garybuss said:

    I think it's well done. The producers obviously had high Watch Tower support for the project since they had the top
    Watch Tower lawyer and a Watch Tower vice president on lengthy interviews.

    The Witness statements, like the blood teaching, seems like a public relations department sanitized statement. The
    elder says "We don't take blood in any form.". It seems to me a blood fraction like hemoglobin might be seen as "any form".

    He added:

    I'm glad I ordered it and glad I watched it and the purchase price was well spent by me.

    So, I did not buy the DVD. I have trusted Gary's recommendations in the past on books, and was not disappointed
    when I trusted him. Instead, I decided to go to the May 2nd screening in a small theater in Chicago. The promise
    was not made that anyone from the film would be present, but I thought that a big city ought to get someone.
    We got the producer/writer himself- Joel Engardio.

    I expected a biased film, pro-JW on how they fought for rights in the civil courts. Well, the story had some of that, but
    it really was a film by a non-JW. He let the people in the film, JW's and non-JW's, make all the biased statements.
    I thought it was very fair in it's treatment. (After all, I am biased. I might love it to attack JW's, but shouldn't expect it.)
    It was really a film about the lives of the ordinary rank-and-file members that were chosen. There was balance in that
    it allowed non-JW family to comment, and also others who had feelings about JW's. One family member even said
    they are a cult, and that her grandson only feels that he shouldn't have blood because of the religion's "pressure" upon
    him. Excellent for a 53 minute version- the same one that will air on PBS. It won't convert people to JW's.

    The discussion afterward- I looked around when the lights came on. I didn't recognize any JW's so I felt safe speaking
    my mind, but at the same time, I recognized the tone of confrontational wasn't necessary. Joel wasn't a JW, and wasn't
    defending any of their beliefs.

    Joel said that he had a difficult time negotiating with WTS for some cooperation. He didn't get much at first. They had
    to cooperate without being allowed any say-so in the finished product. In the end, they cooperated and provided some
    film footage of the early days, along with some interviews. Joel said they had a courtesy showing at Bethel, and as far
    as he could tell, they were okay with the end result. Even if they were not, it wouldn't have been changed.

    The audience questions seemed to deviate a bit toward the JW's and beliefs. Not an attack, but trying to understand.
    Nobody attacked the film and it's content. They just didn't understand these Jehovah's Witnesses. Joel explained things
    from the view of a non-JW whose mother is a JW, and who, himself, went to KH meetings when a boy. The consensus
    of the questioners was that JW's won't vote, won't serve in the military, but will try to use the court system to their
    advantage.

    Joel said that they would only use the courts to establish their own particular rights. They would not join other religions
    in an effort to promote causes outside their own realm, such as abortion. I cut in and said "But they did join Jimmy
    Swaggart in the 80's to avoid paying taxes on their literature." Joel agreed and he fully explained that to the audience,
    how they filed as a friend of the court, lost, so they changed the sale of literature to donations-only.

    I also asked "At the beginning, you (Joel) said that your mother wanted you to be a Witness, but you became a Journalist,
    instead. Can you tell us why you could not have been both, or why that statement seemed important for you to put into
    the film?" His answer was "A person could be both, but the JW's want you to focus on their preaching and not really on
    career. I focused on career. Also, they don't want you to examine and question everything. I clearly wanted to do that."

    Me and one other guy commented or questioned more than anybody else. At the end, Joel asked how many were JW's.
    It's a small theater, 100 seats. Maybe 70 in attendance. I think about 25 were JW's. I noticed that they didn't participate
    in the discussion, but listened. Discussion lasted about 40 minutes.

    Ask anything, but I recommend the film for you all. Many JW's will like it, but will say it shows them as normal people.
    Most outsiders will like it, and say it shows them as fundamentalist door-knockers, but they probably won't use the
    words "whacko" or "bizarre" from this film. "Cult" might come up.

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    Thank you and well done OTWO!

    Hey wait just one second...........I thought you're in a foreign country and "faking" being from Illinois! LMAO!

    Nvr

  • looking_glass
    looking_glass

    Thanks Onthe for posting that. I was considering going to IFP tonight, but work prevented it. I did not have a strong desire to fight my way out the door either, so it was not that much of a loss. Anyways, I wondered how it was going to be presented pro/con-wise. Interesting to hear that it was not a lot of go JWs go. I am still interested to see how it will translate to the rest of the free world.

    On another interesting note, PBS has been running the LDS on PBS. It is a 2 part series. I have found it amazing the similarities between JW and LDS. The one comment that stood out to me was night b/4 last, the commentator said that Joseph Smith was either truly a martyr or chose to make himself a martyr. It made me think of Rutherford. As some here would say, he put himself in a position to become a victim and also encouraged JWs to become martyrs for the cause as well. Whereas, JWs would say that the early day bible students/jws were martyrs because of satans wicked system of things turning on them. Funny how the spin doctors have been present since the very beginning!

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Hey wait just one second...........I thought you're in a foreign country and "faking" being from Illinois! LMAO!

    See how well that's going?

  • Gayle
    Gayle

    Thank you very much for your report! I bought & saw the DVD. I still have mixed thoughts/emotions. Interesting perception there of the audience. I am still apprehensive about the two stories, ending happily ever after concept tho. Yet, most people know little if anything about JWs other than coming to their doors so this exposure may be good and some people hopefully will go on to the Internet and read the "rest of the story."

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut
    I have found it amazing the similarities between JW and LDS.

    Yes. My favorite part of that Mormon documentary-
    A former Mormon said that he put his life on the line during his missionary work.
    He no longer believes the truthfulness of the roots of Mormonism.
    He said he couldn't have his children put their lives on the line for that. His quote:

    "It might be the greatest thing ever invented, but if it's invented, it's not worth dying for."

    While I don't agree that JW morals are the best ever, I wouldn't bother arguing with them
    over this. I would just use a quote like the above.

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    Very interesting perspective OTWO. Thank you. I enjoyed your posting here. Firsthand accounts can't be beat. I might see the DVD now. Before your report I had no interest in seeing it - as I perceived it as absolutely pro-JW.

    Thanx again

    Jeff

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut
    most people know little if anything about JWs other than coming to their doors so this exposure may be good and
    some people hopefully will go on to the Internet and read the "rest of the story."

    I asked Joel if there were, to his knowledge, anything in the works in comparison with the
    American Experience 4-hour documentary on Mormons. He said he would love to have
    4 hours from PBS, and then he would gladly put doctrine and controversy in the film, but
    nobody has offered that deal, and he knows of none in production.

    He might be overstating it, as his mother is a JW, but doing it by letting others discuss
    their opinions, he could get away with it, and say "Mom, they said it, NOT ME."

  • bebu
    bebu

    Thank you very much for the review and for the details of the discussion. I feel encouraged to hear that this will be a program that won't be just a sales pitch. Excellent that the producer is being even-handed.

    bebu

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut
    Excellent that the producer is being even-handed.

    While I agree with that statement, many ex-JW's will see red. They might see that
    it doesn't attack the WT views. Try to view it at face value- it is about the people, not
    the beliefs. I know those go hand-in-hand with JW's, so that made the piece all that
    much harder to make.

    Also, you can't make a film about corruption in the White House, and expect the
    president and his staff to cooperate. You have to film a neutral piece to even ask for
    his cooperation. The same would be true of JW's and rank-and-file members.

    Try to see how they included the bulk of rejections to their message, and try to agree
    that the rank-and-file are trying to be normal people, doing a warped work. Then you
    can appreciate the film. Read Garybuss' thread about it.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/123923/1.ashx

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit