There has been a dramatic shift in the nature of what people want and need from their governments.”” – Malcolm Gladwell, Globally Renowned Author The world has changed fundamentally, according to the author Malcolm Gladwell, from one in which problems are puzzles to one in which they are, instead, mysteries. Using terminology developed by an intelligence official, Gregory Treverton, Gladwell said this distinction often centres on the amount of information available. In the past it was often about having too little data – a puzzle; in today’s world too much data is more likely to be the issue – a mystery. To take education as an example, today a wealth of data on how teachers perform is available, including on such complex is-sues as how a particular teacher’s methods interact with the capabilities of an individual student. Similar issues affect fields as diverse as defense and health care. This places challenges on institutions such as governments, because many developed their ways of operating in the 19th or even the 18th century. They are equipped to solve puzzles, not mysteries.
Trailer for Celsius 41.11
Celsius 41.11: Citizens United Documentary
Manohla Dargis of The New York Times compared Celsius 41.11 unfavorably to FahrenHYPE 9/11, another documentary film aimed at rebutting the arguments made by Michael Moore. While Dargis felt that the purpose of FahrenHYPE 9/11 was the detailed rebutting of the arguments put forward by Moore’s film, she felt that the purpose of Celsius 41.11 was to “make you afraid — very, very afraid”. She stated that Celsius 41.11 “presents a vision of the world verging on the apocalyptic“. Dargis concluded “finally [the film is] interesting only because it represents another unconvincing effort on the part of conservatives to mount a viable critique of Mr. Moore.”[6]
Criticisms of the production[edit]
The Boston Globe and the New York Times both questioned the reliability of some of the individuals interviewed. The Globe called the experts “occasionally dubious” saying that they “offer[ed] drive-by disses and plain untruths“.[21] Manohla Dargis of the New York Timeswas particularly critical of the film for not detailing the extent of Mansoor Ijaz‘s investments in the Middle East or “just how intimately familiar he was with the nonsense of the Clinton White House”.[6] Both publications, however, spoke well of the contributions of Fred Thompson with the New York Times calling him “thoughtful”[6] and the Globe adding that “with his level head and reflective words, [he] makes partisanship seem dignified.”[21]
Several critics felt that insufficient time had been spent on the film. Maitland McDonagh of TV Guide said that it “bears all the hallmarks of having been thrown together in a heated rush”,[22] a criticism echoed by Robert Koehler of Variety who called the editing “choppy”.[7]Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe described the film as “a seemingly last-minute series of talking heads and montages”.[21] A number of critics compared the style of the film to that of a PowerPoint presentation.[6][8][21][23]