.jpg)
I attended an advanced showing of HAZE: The Movie last night in Colorado Springs. Two years in production, the full-length documentary attempts to tackle the issues surrounding high-risk alcohol abuse on America's campuses, and specifically within the Greek community in the context of hazing and other unhealthy new member activities.
There has been a good amount of worry – in this blog and elsewhere – that the release of this film is going to give a black eye to the national fraternity and sorority community.
Everyone can relax.
Other than shocking a few parents who are naive about the alcohol-centric campus social culture, no one is going to be shocked or surprised by what they see in the film. I honestly was hoping for something much more hard-hitting.
The film itself has a couple of significant problems, and sadly these culminate into a project that tried too hard and missed the mark.
PROBLEM #1:
What exactly is this film about, anyway?
The film cast too wide a net. In an hour and 20 minutes, it tried to address:
• Fraternity hazing
• The frustration of emergency responders to college drinking
• New college students dealing with independence from parents
• The nature of the "business" of national fraternities
• Binge drinking, especially with drinking games and competitions
• The 21 year old legal drinking age
• Alcohol industry advertising and product creation
• Female objectification and increasingly male-like behavior
• The negative role of fraternity alumni
I'm sure I'm missing a few. There were enough topics in this film to fill a two week student affairs conference, and because of that, it felt like a film of tangents. They tried to do too much, and they didn't go deep on anything.
Honestly, the film should have been called "Students Drink Too Much," because that's the only title that would have encompassed everything they were trying to accomplish. The producers said that their "first cut" was 10.5 hours long. When they started cutting, they didn't narrow their focus enough to get to a final product that followed a coherent path.
After watching the film with me, my partner asked me, "Why did they call it HAZE? It really wasn't about hazing."
"I think it was meant to be like haze, as in an alcohol related haze," I replied.
"Well, they tried to have so many meanings they ended up just being confusing. I don't think it was even really about fraternities and sororities," he said.
In the Q&A session after the film, an audience member asked the director to identify the film's target demographic. Parents? High schoolers? College students? The director answered, "Yes." They tried to hit everyone. Their intentions were awesome, but that was their biggest mistake.
PROBLEM #2:
The Lanahans
The 2004 death of Chi Psi Fraternity pledge Gordie Bailey (pictured above) serves as the emotional backdrop of the film. Bailey's mother and stepfather, Leslie and Michael Lanahan, were the primary funders of this project via their Gordie Foundation, and the two are listed as the film's executive producers. Thus, the filmmakers clearly had an obligation to spend a large amount of the film focused on the circumstances of his death and the impact on the family.
And that was the film's greatest weakness. The Lanahans should have been about 10 minutes of the movie, but of course, they were more. A lot more. While extremely sad and senseless, Bailey's death didn't pack a lot of surprise and horror. As an extroverted, 230-pound, fun-loving fraternity pledge, Bailey drank himself to death with the encouragement of his fraternity brothers. No violence, no victimization. Just a bunch of dumb, drunk fraternity men who created a potentially deadly situation and who didn't take care of each other.
Sad and tragic? Yes. Senseless? Yes. An important lesson in taking more responsibility for your friends and fraternity brothers? Absolutely. Shocking enough to provide the framework and majority of narrative for a feature-length documentary? Sorry, no.
I can think of several alcohol-related hazing incidents (one from my own fraternity) that would have been more compelling – incidents that would have tapped more effectively into my sense of injustice. Michael Moore knows that when he's going out to film a documentary, he needs to find several stories that surprise you and engage your sense of fairness. The film makes a point to tell us that 1,700 students die each year from alcohol related incidents. So, you wonder as a viewer, why are you only showing us one?
This is not to minimize the Lanahans' tragedy. As a parent, I felt Leslie's emotions at my core. I applaud their commitment to making something positive come from their terrible loss. From a filmmaking perspective, however, they shouldn't have been so much of the film. The producers let one story do all the talking, and it didn't do a good enough job. Not all sad stories are equal.
On a positive note, the film spent some time with one of Bailey's pledge brothers, the last one to check on him that fateful night. You could feel his honesty, his regret and his sadness. I sat there thinking, "Well at least one kid cared enough to check on him, even if he didn't do enough." This kid was the best part of the film, and I wish they had spent twice as much time on him.
PROBLEM #3:
Who are these experts anyway?
The film desperately needed a narrator. Throughout the film, a dozen or so "experts" are interviewed to shed light on the 800 issues covered.
Full disclosure: I was one of them. I participated in the production and am shown in three short interview segments. I knew I was in the film, but I went to the showing last night with no idea what I would be seeing or what segments of my interview they were using.
The first time each of these experts shows up, there's a graphic with his or her name and title. But, the filmmakers did not do an adequate job of explaining who these people are and why their opinions matter. Had there been a narrator introducing us to each of these experts and why we should listen to them, it would have been a better film.
We see Hank Nuwer, for example. I know that Hank Nuwer is an amazing advocate for hazing prevention. I've met Hank, heard him speak, have read his books on the subject of hazing. He is the go-to guy on the issue of hazing prevention, and his website is incredible. Had the viewer been introduced to Hank properly, they would have known that he's truly a national expert on the issue. His comments would have meant more.
Dr. Susan Lipkins is in the film. The viewer of the film has no idea who she is, so she comes off as a concerned mom in a hot pink jacket. Nothing is invested in establishing her credibility, so the impact of her comments is minimized.
I have spoken to nearly two million students – mostly fraternity and sorority members – on issues concerning their health and wellness. But, the viewer doesn't know that. So, instead I come off as a fat-head frat guy with a few clever comments. I was pretty happy that the three times I appear on screen, I actually say some pretty good stuff (sigh of relief). But, nothing is invested in establishing my credibility, so who cares?
There are about 18 segments of this particularly witty psychologist talking. He totally dominated the "expert testimony" portions of the film, to the point I found myself wondering, "Who the hell is this guy?" He had good things to say. His credentials? No idea. Some random psychologist, I guess.
My friend (and CAMPUSPEAK speaker) Travis Apgar has several amazing segments in the film, but again, we aren't sure who the hell he is. Is he a campus administrator? Is he a speaker? Was he himself hazed in the most terrible way? The answer is yes to all three questions, but there's no way that the average viewer of the documentary would know that.
PROBLEM #4:
They went too easy on fraternities.
The film delivers a few light jabs, but nothing close to a knockout head punch that the national fraternal organizations deserve. Having spent the last 20 years of my career working in the fraternity and sorority world, I was ready for a film that would hold some feet to the fire. But, it didn't happen. Fraternity executives can all rest easy.
There were facts that might disappoint the average viewer, such as Chi Psi responding with lawyers instead of compassion, fraternity members receiving weak community service sentences, chapter brothers marking all over Bailey's body with Sharpies. But, there was nothing that will surprise any of us who live in the risk management dominated world of fraternity and sorority life.
There was one moment that made my eyebrows rise. An expert stated that most national fraternities are basically real-estate businesses that depend on constant, aggressive new member recruitment. Note to filmmakers: THAT was what your movie should have been about – national organizations willing to accept a certain number of alcohol-related deaths as a "cost of doing business." But alas, that was as far as it got.
PROBLEM #5:
Where were the people of color?
What? Black and Hispanic folks don't drink? I won't spend a lot of time on this, but I didn't see a single person of color in the entire film. Not one expert, not one student. Bailey's pledge brother, maybe a little, but I'm unsure.
Granted, Boulder is pretty white, but if the filmmakers were trying to portray this as a national problem, they left out a whole lot of folks. They could have tried harder to be more inclusive. One filming trip to a fraternity party at a state school in Southern California could have solved this.
I haven't seen a movie this white since The Sound of Music.
So, in conclusion...
This film will be good for starting discussions, particularly in high schools.
I think most college students will feel it's a fair (and unfortunate) portrait of their reality, with its images of beer funnels, keg stands, and flippy cups.
Student Affairs folks will be eager to host programs where the film is viewed, because it justifies a lot of the work we are trying to do.
I believe the filmmakers were very fair. There wasn't a single time I thought they were being exploitive or sensational. Their portrayal was honest, and their desire to shed light on some scary issues is sincere and worthy of praise.
But, HAZE: The Movie, is not going to cause widespread change. It didn't break new ground. It should have chosen a more narrow focus and gone deep. They covered the issues, but they didn't "uncover" anything.
The impact of this film will have much more to do with its distribution than its content. If the producers succeed in getting it on HBO, 60 Minutes, or some other broad national venue, it will get a fair amount of press and attention.
There will be some press and there will be hundreds of campus showings. The Gordie Foundation is going to make sure of that.
I hope it will have a positive effect by generating some campus (and high school) discussion about high-risk drinking behavior, but as a national call-to-arms, I don't have high hopes. It won't force any big change in college students' choices surrounding alcohol other than to scare their parents a bit more.
This film will not be a major game-changer, and that will relieve or disappoint you based on your perspective. The work of changing the realities of campus drinking and drugging (and specifically within fraternity and sorority communities) is immensely complex. This film with its valiant effort and overwhelming charge proved this, beyond a doubt.
