It's official. Just months after Al Gore's theatrical release of ""An Inconvenient Truth"" blew open a political Pandora's box on global warming, a small clan of Ralph Nader crusaders have followed suit, entering the field of ""enlightened people making eye-opening documentaries to inspire Americans"" with their new film ""An Unreasonable Man."" Co-directed by Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan, it chronicles the turbulent life of Ralph Nader, a contemporary Don Quixote of consumer advocacy and two-time presidential nominee who, practically overnight, was demoted from beloved public figure to political outcast.
""The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."" This George Bernard Shaw quote acts as the overture for this film that dares to call our democracy ""a corporate fraud,"" our presidential candidates ""skulking cowards"" and our two-party system ""an elected dictatorship"" of ""corporate puppets."" The Pavlovian bell that liberals have been waiting to drool over paints Nader as a truly anomalous and ideologically consumed man whose personal life seems totally bereft of scandal and whose romantic history is comparable to an asexual civic robot.
The film opens by revealing the root of Nader's fall from graceA-—namely, his 2000 presidential campaign when many Democrats accused him of ""spoiling"" the election by seducing throngs of liberal voters away from Gore's more centrist policies and thus, allowing G.W. to plow his way into office.
From there, the film chronologically traces the life of the man who singlehandedly forced General Motors to reform its safety procedures, roused hordes of followers known as ""Nader's Raiders"" and was responsible for countless safety initiatives we take for granted today including seatbelts, airbags, drug labels and the Clean Air and Freedom of Information Acts.
Viewers who aren't entrenched in politics may be appalled when the film reveals the bullying tactics our government uses to block third-party candidates like Nader from impacting elections, especially with their farcical, corporate-run debates. The David vs. Goliath theme is so prevalent, it's a wonder the film wasn't renamed ""Mr. Nader Goes to Washington.""
Despite its inherent bias of being directed by two of Nader's ex-employees, the documentary takes a fair stab at objectivity, including some testy interviews from Nader's staunchest critics who smear him as ""a disillusioned egomaniac,"" ""a Leninist"" and ""downright wicked."" Unfortunately, the dissenters are portrayed mostly as ignorant numbskulls, keeping the audience well aware of how they should judge Nader. At the same time, the film interviews such notable Nader supporters as Phil Donahue, Pat Buchanan and Howard Zinn.
Essentially, the film presents Nader as a modern day Sisyphus, relentlessly rolling his rock of consumer justice up a mountain of bureaucracy, only to have it tumble back down at the last moment under the weight of corporatism.
Regardless of political perspective, this is an important film for anyone who cares about politics, good citizenship or just strengthening our democracy. It's a philosophical film that begs the question: Is it ""unreasonable"" to advocate political change from a government fueled by the interests of corporate lobbyists into a government dedicated to consumer and ethical responsibility and, if so, what does that say about this dream we call ""democracy?"" As Nader mentioned during his live iChat following the screening, ""half of democracy is just showing up.""
