.

I disagree with this review and there are key points about it that are incorrect. A big flag of the review is the inappropriate misuse of a huge boogie man word such as "exploitative" which casts the film in an unfair, and ignorant light.

There is NOTHING dignified about what had happened to the individuals in the story. There is no way to sugar coat this period of Canadian history to make it more palatable and comfortable for the reviewer. The film in not meant for entertainment. It is much more than that, and was made more as an educational piece. What happened, and what is shown in the film, is an accurate depiction of events that callously shattered and destroyed many lives a thousands time over across the country.

It is important to correct the review in stating that the film is NOT an exploitation of children. The film shows a piece of Canadian history which involved the undeniable targeting of children. And there is no way to go around the use of stories which involved children in this piece of history. It undeniably involved the residential school system (not the Catholic School as the review points out). The film can, in no way, be dismissed as easily just because it was not "dignified". Nor can it be trivialized as exploitative of children. Schindlers List, The Color Purple are films that also showed uncomfortable scenes, and there are many other genres of films which are meant to educate that you can label "exploitative", based upon the harsh realities and heartfelt pain they provoke; however the whole period of residential schools involved children on an unprecedented level in Canadian history and had been denied for years upon years. The events of which, were key variables upon many young lives, and the lives of their families.

The film shows accurate depictions of events; and is no different from other genres of films mean to educate the ignorant, and the squeamish. It keeps history from begin unfairly swept under the table upon and ignored by those to uncomfortable to here about the realities concerning events affecting modern Canadians. Events that were part of a series which led to the denial of many, a chance to partake in Canada’s prosperity.

As for the review: casting this film as exploitative based upon ones on presumptions is ignorant and irresponsible writing. The film is not about moral high ground, or any sort of semantics. The film accurately shines light on a period in Canadian history with the use of two stories, and had no choice but to depict a real story based upon real events and contexts that are well documented across Canada. The children involved were not involved in scenes of rape as suggested. But there are hundreds of films about atrocities that have done worse so the idea of a “moral high ground” about tragedies such as these is offensive. Should we be suggesting that survivors of the holocaust be robbed of any moral ground? No that is ridicules. For the review to even mention it cast those who would educate as monsters and stigmatizes the victim for their stories as well.

I think that is an absolute cop out. The maturity of the writer is questionable and I am just pointing it out as questionable and I thought I should backed it up. There are inconsistencies with the piece written above with the actual docudrama. Insulating children being directly used in rape scene is one of them. I think people reading the review it should use caution, and after seeing the movie question the review itself. There were insinuations about the movies genre and the history it represents that use words that should not be used. Especially with this being a historical piece. Yes it is an onion but she should express it in a fair and non judgmental manner and free from boogie man words. I for one am not gonna stand by and let ignorant comments inflame people from seeing the movie and casting judgment upon people for trying to speak up and tell the truth. It is a piece based upon facts and documented evidence. A little much for those spoon feed Seaseme Street and fairy tales no doubt. But in no way is it an exploitation of children. Educate yourself upon the period and look to how many stories are out there about this period, and also get your facts straight about the movie they are incorrect. (Its not about Catholicism for one.)

Indeed they do have a right to speak there mind. However this does not mean they have the right to go unanswered. Indeed also they are doing there job, however getting feed back about the job there doing comes with the territory. This is a review, not someone’s blog. And it is placed upon the public domain under the banner of the Toronto Film Festival.

Having said this; there are people who read articles like this because they expect a type of writing professionalism and integrity; and this has an effect upon peoples perceptions. That is how it works.
With regards to my comments posted above– paragraph after paragraph addressed points in the movie and points in the article. Indeed it is a discussion. It addresses the incorrect information given out in the article above (such as insinuations of rape scenes, and that the movie is about the Catholic Church for example). More importantly it addresses the use of terms like "exploitative" and "moral upper hand" when chronicling rape, child abuse, forcible confinement, and I can go on and on. I'm only questioning as to who gave the writer the moral authority of what the moral standers are when discussing it? And who gave them the right to shame a person or group for telling such a story? For all the rights you are claiming of the author to their opinion. The article was written and placed in the public domain for all to see–so we the public are equally, if not more entitled, to have the right to fair and accurate reviews. Within the language I just pointed out, there are further implications and big accusations being thrown out there when using words such as “moral upper hand and “exploitative”–especially when one is giving information about a film that is chronicling history and uses first hand accounts of victims that are backed up by government documentation; moreover, one that is trying to document something that hasn’t been documented before.

ex•ploi•ta•tion
   [ek-sploi-tey-shuhn] Show IPA
1.
use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2.
selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3.
the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

I

I ask why should we the public have to sit and accept unfair and incorrect comments that are full of accusations, without us being able to question these and point them out? For all your threats of censorship, and awkward obsession about emotional states: we as a public have the right to correct and accurate information. So with regards to my comment about the review and the film I too, also have the right to question the integrity of the writer who placed these in the public sphere; especially when these are combined with inaccurate information (such as the movie itself was about Catholicism etc). The last thing I’m going to say about it is this: When your reporter used loaded words within their review it left up to question, their integrity. And the fact that the film was based upon a time and context which undeniably and explicitly involved children, and the reviews easy dismissal as “tawdry” and “exploitative” leads questions to their academic knowledge of the subject. The use of children was inescapable due to the facts of the historical context and the survivor’s stories documented across Canada. Your reviewer’s failure to recognize this augmented with the unfortunate use of the words they chose. With no special effects or lavish backgrounds to exploit, the film is as close to historically accurate as a film can be. Its narrative is conducted using stories that are not exaggerated and can be backed up by documentation; and the use of such langue as exploitative leads to questions about the reviewers to capability to accept hard facts, while examining the larger context of a given situation. Unfortunately their failure to do so leads to question of the writers capabilities which as person who had access to the story, I am full well and entitled to do so and is not way disrespectful–as is my obligation to point out any load terms which may confuse people who may read the review. I am now done with commenting.

My apologies I meant Toronto Film Scene not "Film Festival". However the sentiments still hold.

My only comment is that why didn't the producers hire an Aboriginal screenwriter and director? (Maybe nobody would have given them the money if they did.) It seems the more things change in this country, they stay the same.

I thought the movie was great. I think all the actors were great.

I know many people in Germany were hotly offended by any depictions about the treatment of Jewish people when that came out. It hurt their self image and made them take a hard at their society and themselves.

But again; I really liked the movie and disagree with the review. I hope it dose not discourage anyone from seeing the movie or give them an impression that it is exploitation, sullying their take on importance of telling stories like this. I read the very long comments above and I have to agree with Carmine.

Having said that I think that it was very courageous of the actors portraying the priests and the other villains for lack of a better word. Not that I felt any compassion for there characters in any manner AT ALL, but I think they deserve credit for helping tell this horrifying tale about Canadian history. Very brave. Even more so. The kids. Great Job.

Comment redacted by moderator due to violation of the TFS Comment Policy.