With God on Our Side: George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right in America (2004 TV Movie) User Reviews

Biased bias?

[jpgaltmiller · 7/10 · 8 November 2006]

This is my first time posting on here. Having read the above review, I felt I had to make some kind of reply. The other poster seems to think that the director of With God on Our Side was on the side of the religious Right, and the Bushes in particular. His comments suggest that the film portrays Bush in an heroic, even god-like light. Having just watched the documentary last night, I did not get that impression at all.

Maybe it's because I had recently watched an episode of the director's earlier documentary series, With God On Our Side, The Rise of the Religious Right. To me it seemed to be an outsider's view into this evangelical movement. While it did not try to attack the movement, it certainly didn't glorify it. And I think the same is true for the later documentary.

I found the film very interesting and would recommend it, though, the more extended series on the rise of the Religious Right has more detail about that topic.

its straightforward presentation makes it that much more absorbing... and frightening

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 19 April 2010]

For those looking for a much more in-depth analysis (like the filmmakers' previous mini-series on the Religious Right in party politics in America), this documentary might seem a little too short, or perhaps not focus quite enough on George W. Bush. But the film does work well at illustrating how deep the evangelicals have kept their fingers, more or less, into the American political system over the years. One sees how they tried to latch onto Nixon and how that (didn't) work, or how they wanted to cling to Carter until they realized (gasp) he was a democrat. More complex is how they had to go around with Regan, who promised some things but didn't deliver and whose vice president was a limp noodle who didn't really serve their interests once in office (albeit the religious right made up a lot of Bush Sr's vote in 88).

But then there's George W., who is, for all of his faults (and heck knows how many there are), a genuine believer in the faith, a Born Again who traded in his booze for Jesus and became the blessed figure for evangelicals who felt that politics were corrupted by Clinton. What the film demonstrates is this history as it unfolds from one administration to the next, going into Bush's and, in its presentation is just giving the facts as they lay. There isn't any of the muckraking of Moore's films, and it's not exactly a propaganda film for the religious right either (perhaps people like Falwell and Pat Robertson saw it was British-made and thought it was down the line as journalism). There may be some bias just by presenting the story as is, of the tortured relationship between those firmly in power in the government and those who preach and want their own moral code and laws put into practice.

How the film will play to the audience will depend on perspective. If you're on the left and have seen over the years what Bush did to the country and what kind of nutty (and often hypocritical) hold the religious right has on politics, then it will be seen that way. But there could be some right-wingers who watch the film and, if not 100% approve, then at least not foam at the mouth in bile like they do at a Moore film or other. It just presents the story, gives some of the pivotal figures their turn to speak (often in some really too-close close-ups), and how the tide has ebbed and flowed, and finally reached its peak with Bush and his "flock". It's competently produced and does its best to be fair and balanced, if ultimately showing, ultimately, how calculated and cunning the religious right really was and still is depending on the moment.

What a pleasant surprise (possible spoiler)

[hotmlange · 16 December 2004]

I was curious when I saw the title, the election was 6 weeks ago and I had never heard of this film. So, under the assumption that I would be treated to a Michael Moore like documentary, what did I find but a serious depiction of the rise of the evangelical Christian as the hot new voting block?

There were no fat drooling southerners, no needless NASCAR digs, and President Bush was not depicted as a chimp in short pants.

As an overview of the last 35 or so years from this perspective, I have trouble imagining a better documentary being produced. Not only were these people treated with respect, they were taken seriously by the film makers.

I have a degree in Political Science and am quite the fan of political or historical pieces. This one is a winner (though it won't even be nominated).

A Tragic Comedy

[deanofrpps · 1/10 · 11 December 2005]

British write the best histories because they have a clear definition between comedy and tragedy. Americans are a bit remiss in that regard with a decided unclarity in drawing that distinction. If this were a comedy, I'd rate this piece a full 10. As a documentary designed to answer the magnificence of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, the piece languishes in semblances short of fact.

There are scenes of The Bush, all aglow, with a radiant Lady Bush, singing hymns in church interspersed with The Bush's visit several days after the event to the smoldering heap that used to be the World Trade Centre. Ah yes The Bush walks on water for his fans. There is also a cut of the Bush's dramatic declaration of victory over Irak. He does look very heroic in that costume, a cute little air-force jumper.

Oh were it only so that their hero could have walked on water that day and fill the gap the film leaves uncovered instead of passing it and running off.

Its about the influence of the Religious Right

[jeromec-2 · 9/10 · 26 January 2007]

I have read the comments of others on this board about this film.

I guess my objection to what I've read is that people did not understand fully what they were watching. It was the rise of the influence of the religious right or as it is stated the evangelical right.

It began with the protestant opposition to Kennedy who mistakenly I think, assumed that Kennedy would take orders from the pope. Kennedy denied it, but we are led to believe that the right was not comfortable nor did they really believe him.

Barry Goldwater represented the conservative views of the right: small government, moral integrity and standards of all kinds. The democrats under Johnson defeated him by painting him as a reactionary. If elected Goldwater would lead the country into social chaos if not international war. Funny the part fear plays in these things.

Nixon was next: Billy Graham openly supported him. The support was more inferred than openly stated. We all know why Graham was not happy about that friendship.

Then came Jimmy Carter who for the first time spoke a language that was clearly understood by the right. It confused the rest of the nation, but it lead the right to recognize its power, which they used for Ronald Reagan. He was the first of the presidents to betray the grass roots that elected him and get away with it. He had in my mind, and I say this most grudgingly, real political moxie. He turned the right into advisers instead of activists. By bypassing the right but mouthing the words, he was able to hold onto their support while not being taken in by an agenda he did not fully endorse. Reagan was able to do this for 2 complete terms. It's a remarkable feat, wouldn't you say? Bush senior was not nearly so adept at handling the religious right, but Bush junior being a new convert himself, was. The masterstroke of that election was not to discredit the religious right by destroying Pat Robertson directly, but by discrediting Bakker and Falwell so that those around him tarnished Robertson. The religious right was divided. No one could organize them.

The danger in Bush Junior is that he endorses the right without the careful thought that political rule involves. It has issues that are far too confined to be a valuable contribution to social political needs.

As anyone can tell by my writing, I am left wing. I see a need for the right. They have valuable ideas and men of good will on both sides of the political spectrum can use each other's idea.

Bush does not represent the right. He is an abomination. There are men of good will in the Political Arena. Our job should be to find them and elect them no matter what our political beliefs. We are far too lazy in our political discussions.

We ought to investigate films like this and we don't understand them then we ought to do careful research. That's what the Internet is for.

I give this a 9 out of 10. I took off one point only because I thought this could be edited just a bit better between the discussions about Bush senior and Clinton.

The worst documentary I've ever seen

[gzamikes · 1/10 · 28 August 2006]

I don't get what this documentary is trying to do. If this is supposed to be about how politics and religion have combined over the years, it isn't. It doesn't do a good job in the beginning and then quits on that subject about halfway through. If it's supposed to be a conversion tool it fails on that as well and it also fails on how Christianity saved President Bush.

Overall, it keeps distracting itself and doesn't even end with any sense of a point being made.

If I had to pick a scene that best illustrates my point, it's the interview with Jerry Falwell about how abortion caused the September 11th attacks which is followed closely by a wondrous fanfare over the premature MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner for the war in Iraq. Then, the end credits. See? No sense of direction whatsoever. Avoid this.

docu-drama

[wrlang · 8/10 · 12 November 2006]

With God on Our Side… is an excessive title about Christian church fundamentalism and how, like the Taliban, religious groups feel a God given right to institute a society of specific religious beliefs that not everyone shares. It contains basic information on several waves of fear driven panic held by evangelicals during hard and trying times and how ultimately the severe Taliban style restrictions fail to produce the intended results. It touches on past presidents including GWB, Reagan, Nixon and other conservatives who the evangelicals had wanted to be their political saviors that would institute sweeping Taliban style changes on the American public. It should be obvious from the founding fathers not stating Christianity was the national religion that they felt that religion had meaning only to the individual. Relatively neutral in presentation one could say it was pro evangelical and one could also say it was anti-evangelicals for putting such wild eyed fundamentalists on the screen shouting for clamping down on sin. The special features tended to be anti-evangelical interviews.