A look at the career of consumer advocate Ralph Nader from wannabe presidential candidate to public pariah.
Genre(s): Documentary, Biography
Runtime: 122 minutes
Rating: 7.9/10 (739 votes)
Release Date: 24 January 2006
Country: USA
Languages: English
Company: Submarine Entertainment
Director(s): Henriette Mantel, Steve Skrovan
Producer(s):
Kevin O'Donnell – producer
Writer(s):
Henriette Mantel – (written by) &
Steve Skrovan – (written by)
Cast:
Ralph Nader – Himself
Pat Buchanan – Himself
Howard Zinn – Himself
Phil Donahue – Himself
Andrew Egendorf – Himself
Robert Fellmeth – Himself
Mark Green – Himself
Morton Mintz – Himself
Claire Nader – Herself
Laura Nader – Herself
Music: Joe Kraemer
Tagline: Ralph Nader : How Do You Define a Legacy?
Recommended Links
Archives
I saw this film at a pre-screening in West LA and absolutely loved it.I have researched Nader extensively and there is a plethora ofinformation and accomplishments out there in regards to his life. Thismovie managed to pack in plenty, though there is never enough to showwhat Ralph Nader has really meant to the American people. The film wasimportant in that it showed both Nader's critics and followers, alongwith his betrayers and friends. It was very interesting to learn abouthis childhood a little since it was the only personal thing I have everheard about him. Nader simply appears to have had no social life otherthan that of social reform, which is most likely how he managed tochange the country so drastically. The film carries you through thehero he was once portrayed as, to the embarrassment he became and makesyou wonder what he really did to deserve the smearing he obtained.Hopefully after watching this movie, he will not be viewed so much as aspoiler. Regardless, even he said, he does not care about his "legacy",he really just cares about the people's interests. We are very lucky tohave someone so dedicated to us!
"An Unreasonable Man" argues quite persuasively that Nader did theright thing when he refused to drop out of the two most recent USPresidential races. I left feeling completely enamored of Nader theman. However, I would be loath to see the film again due to A) thecheesy, manipulative, "propaganda"-screaming background music and B)the amount of time spent on vile 50-something talking heads with nocamera appeal; the film could have been 45 minutes shorter at LEAST.Other than that, it was fine! A very informative biography of a guy whopossesses a great deal of personal consistency and integrity. Thisreviewer urges the filmmakers to post a 60-minute,musical-diarrhea-less version on YouTube.
This is a warts and all look at Nader's career from when he was pushingfor auto safety through his Presidential runs. This is an interestinglook at the man and his passion to do what he felt was right. Hechanged the country and the world for the better and made things muchmore safer for all of us. An uncompromising fellow, Nader my way or thehighway stances lost him friends when some of his "raiders" went intopolitics in the Carter Administration and didn't do what he felt wasright. More recently Democrats who needed a scapegoat. blame him forthe election and re-election of George W Bush (Which is probably trueon some level). Big Business of course hates his guts. Watching thefilm I still find that I admire the man, however I don't necessarilylike him, his pit bull mentality seems to have created the sort offellow you'd want to punch in the face occasionally just because itsprobably the only way to make him listen.
For those who want to see who the last four decades of "consumer"issues have played out this is must see TV, for anyone else who simplywants to spend time with a real character are also encouraged to take alook see.
This documentary is a chronicle of Ralph Nader's life and times, withan above-average dose of commentators. They are many: Nader'sassociates and many journalists, and others ranging from Phil Donahueto Pat Buchanan, but the latter is there for additional perspective onNader, not debating points. Indeed, while the commentators support thedocumentary narrative on Nader's background, activities (includingNader's Raiders), and accomplishments, the biggest debate is on whetherNader did the right thing in not abandoning his independentPresidential bid in 2000 and perhaps costing Al Gore the election.
Some material on Nader's background is included, from his birth inWinsted, Ct. His parents were Lebanese immigrants. His mother was apolitical activist, and his father ran a restaurant and a bakery,helping shape Nader's lifelong affection for the marketplace and theconsumer, as well as political discourse, for the restaurant was ahaven for political discussion. The town-meeting-type government, inwhich Nader's family participated, with citizens voting on laws, wasseen by Nader as pure democracy at work. Nader was bright and went toHarvard Law School, and he had a friend become paraplegic because of anauto accident.
Nader has championed many consumer issues. Auto safety, Nader's firstclaim to fame, is focused on most early and prominently and is arecurring theme, perhaps most appropriately. He took on GM, Ford, andChrysler on seat belts to pollution control to steering mechanisms, andthis is covered well, along with their twisted efforts to discredit him(even by extremely sleazy methods invading his privacy).
As for Nader's candidacy for President in 2000, the commentators debateextensively and, at some moments, venomously. He arguably cost Gore theelection versus a reactionary President, and was his staying in untilthe end justified? But Nader ran because of what he believed in,thinking Democrats had become too much like Republicans. As thedocumentary covers at length, this had been a theme of Nader'spolitical existence since the time of Nixon and Ford. Jimmy Carterturned out to be undependable in Nader's eyes, but the big problemreally arose with the election of Reagan, the force of whosepersonality made people forget the difference between right and wrong,including on consumer issues. Regulations with their roots in Naderwere opposed and sometimes successfully thrown out. Nader saw a lack ofsympathy and agreement with his concerns continue through DemocraticPresident Bill Clinton, whose Vice President was Gore. All in all,Nader's stubbornness in 2000 can be attributed to long-timefrustration, not just recent events. Hence, the title of the movie,based on George Bernard Shaw's quote.
Nader's contribution on environmental (clean water and air) and safetymatters outside of autos could have been discussed a little more.Another possible item for inclusion might have been some specifics onsome laws and regulations, enacted and recommended; then, it might havebeen interesting to hear debate on whether he was right or was goingtoo far, etc. However, this documentary ran more than two hours as is,and it is very well done; it will be thoroughly enjoyed by anyoneinterested in the subject matter.
A paradox: here is one of the most significant and controversial men ofrecent American history, and yet the media rarely mention him. Once ahero, he has become a pariah. This new documentary is a good record ofthe achievement and the controversy. While it's friendly to the man, italso lets some of his most vitriolic political opponents (Gitlin,Alterman) speak out loud and clear. It's hard to leave the theaterwithout entering into a debate over the final issue the film raises:Was Nader right or wrong to run as a third party candidate againstGeorge W. Bush? Did his campaign really cause Al Gore to lose? Is Naderresponsible for the Iraq war? The huge deficit? The post-Katrinadebacle? The film takes us back to Nader's origins: he was one of foursiblings born into a Lebanese Christian immigrant family in Winstead,Connecticut, whose town meetings he came to consider an example of truedirect democracy. His mother was a political activist and his father arestaurant owner who encouraged, if not required, political debate withcustomers and at home at the dinner table. "What did you learn atschool today"? his father would ask young Ralph: "Did you learn tothink, or did you learn to believe?" Clearly the man, his brother, andhis two sisters, learned leadership from these origins. Each becameoutstanding in their own field. Nader went to Princeton and HarvardLaw, then after a brief stint in the Army and time as a lawyer andteacher of government, he went to Washington, and the rest is history.
What is it about Ralph Nader? Surely there is no one like him in publiclife. The crusader, the Knight in Shining Armor. One thinks of the leanface, the uniform of dark suit and plain tie, the calm, piercing, oftenironic voice. One thinks of the man's dedication, his frugality. He hasnever married, a conscious choice: work comes first; there's no roomfor family. It's been written in Current Biography that before leavinghis six-month stint in the Army in 1959 Nader acquired four dozencheap, sturdy military socks from the PX that by the mid-Eighties hestill hadn't worn out. Thoreau would have liked that. The man hears adifferent drummer indeed. In his glory days of major accomplishments asa consumer advocate — a legacy so pervasive we're barely aware of it,though it has saved many lives — Nader worked stolidly through thesystem right at the time — the Sixties — when the Counterculture wasat its peak The Crusader, the Idealist, Nader is a stubborn man whosestands have won battles and infuriated many. His rigidity, hisnerdiness: rising to prominence in the Sixties and Seventies, he neveradopted the looser, more florid style of the time but always kept tothe monastic suit and tie and short hair.
Spurred by a good friend's becoming handicapped after a car accident,Nader first came to national and international prominence by fightingDetroit for safer cars, the Chevrolet Corvair being a famous target.This was to be an epic battle in which the auto manufacturers tried todig up dirt against him and bait him with prostitutes; he fought backwith lawsuits and won. Nader has tackled government agencies such asthe Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, theInterstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration. Inhis battles to keep the air and water clean, provide safe food anddecent nursing homes, protect forests and many other things, Nader hasfounded literally dozens of non-profit organizations. The list is solong the film can't quite keep up; it's best on the early period ofadvocacy for auto safety. "Nader's Raiders" — the popular name for thehundreds of young activists who came to Washington to work with Naderin suited, hard-working teams — provide some of the many talking headswho reminisce, besides the angry opponents. (Largely missing: corporatecritics.) Jimmy Carter's presidency was a turning point. Nader feltbetrayed by Carter, who seemed so friendly at first, and by some of hisformer associates who went to work in government agencies. Nader willnot compromise. People in government have to. For Nader, that wasunacceptable.
Some other points: Nader is a "consumer advocate," but that doesn'tmean he's pro-consumption (remember the socks). Perhaps Nader'sattitude toward the democrats goes back to his issues with Carter. It'snot difficult to point out the many ways that Clinton as president waspro-business, anti-welfare; that he did not keep the promise of anational health service. With a different façade, Nader points out,Clinton continued many of the pro-corporate, neo-liberal policies ofReagan and George H.W. Bush.
Nader's defies the two-party system. Nader holds, as the film shows,that any independent candidate who knuckles under when the final pushto election time begins and throws in his support to the democraticcandidate is telling the Republicans and Democrats that they can dowhatever they want. It's essential to have a third party that's a realthreat. And the reason why this is so is that there is not a bigdifference between the two parties. Still: George W. Bush no worse thanAl Gore? One critic says Nader is a Leninist: he implicitly wantsthings to get worse to force a change. Not quite true — he's just fedup with the principle of the "least worst" — but few of us who live inthese United States can be so uncompromising, so maddeninglyself-righteous and rigid — and often so surprisingly right despiteeveryone else saying otherwise. In short, few of us are like RalphNader. If those who voted for him in 2000 had foreseen the disasterthat is the current administration have done so? But would the worldnot be measurably worse without him? That's what this fascinating filmchallenges us to consider. Don't we need more, not fewer, such people?
Early in this film, Phil Donahue says "there's a Shakespearan featureto all of this", and he is right on the money. This brilliant film fromthe former producer of Everybody Loves Raymond examines the life ofRalph Nader, hearing from his favorite admirers…and his admirers whoturned into his harshest critics(Eric Alterman: "I think the man needsto live in a different country. He's done enough damage to this one,let him damage someone else's for a while").
Nader had a massive impact on our lives, from seat belts to the Freedomof Information Act to product labeling to OSHA, no one in America hasbeen left untouched by Nader's legacy. With amazing archival footageand on camera interviews, this film portrays how a once hero of theleft, who appeared on the cover of Newsweek wearing a suit of armor,became the Democrats favorite bunching bag for costing Al Gore theelection.
The filmmakers do not pull any punches, as they examine the linebetween idealism and pragmatism and how far one should allow theirpolitical party to get worse before taking action. They also examinehow one man could make a remarkable difference in the world.
Nader was undoubtedly the most important private citizen of the 20thcentury. As the 21st century progresses along, the debate will be,Ralph Nader: Spoiler or Hero?
If any single individual can be said to have determined the outcome ofan election, it would have to be Ralph Nader. And if any one person canbe credited with saving thousands of lives through the actions he'sperformed and the stands he's taken, well that would be Ralph Nadertoo.
After decades as the world's premiere consumer activist and all-aroundcorporate gadfly, Nader should, in the sunset of his life, be baskingin the glow of unalloyed adulation, a shiny symbol of hope and couragefor the common man in this country. Instead, he finds himself a figuremore reviled than revered by those who should love him most.
The documentary "An Unreasonable Man" attempts to explore the reasonfor this mystifying love/hate dichotomy. Filmmakers Henriette Manteland Steve Skrovan trace the path of Nader's life beginning with hischildhood in Connecticut, where he was raised by his socially-consciousparents to champion fairness and the cause of the little guy, to hiseventual career as the populist activist par excellence, taking oncorporate behemoths in the name of consumer safety. The moviechronicles the run-ins with GM that turned Nader into not only ahousehold name but clearly "one of the most admired men in America." Wesee him inspiring a band of college students – who came to be known as"Nader's Raders" – who successfully took on any number of corporategiants throughout the 1960's and 1970's, resulting in many of theconsumer protection laws we take so much for granted today. He wasclearly a pioneer in his field, and the movie is an inspiring tributeto the selflessness, determination and courage that helped this one manmake such a difference in the world (the movie reminds us that beforeNader even seatbelts were not standard items in automobiles).
It's with the coming of the Reagan Revolution in the 1980's that Naderbegan to become severely disillusioned, as he watched the newconservative administration, hostile to the very principle ofgovernmental protectionism, dismantle many of the programs Nader haddedicated his life to setting up. But his disillusionment did notextend merely to Republicans. For it was at this point that Nader beganto claim that there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between theRepublicans and Democrats, a realization that compelled him to finallyrun in 2000 as a Presidential candidate on the Green Party ticket. Therest, of course, is history, with many Democrats, some formerly closefriends of Nader, choosing to blame their fallen idol for Gore'ssqueaker loss in Florida (and, consequently, the nation) on thatfateful election night.
Although "An Unreasonable Man" presents Nader in a generally flatteringlight, it does not shy away from the very genuine anger Nader's actionshave aroused in many of his former followers. Many blame him forensuring Bush's victory and, thus by extension, for eight years of whatthey would describe as appalling Republican leadership. Others take amore philosophical view, worrying more about how all this might taintthe very impressive legacy Nader built up over many decades of tirelesssocial activism. In true maverick style, Nader pooh-poohs this concern,claiming that fighting for people is what he truly cares about, not howhe will be viewed by future generations. The movie provides manyopportunities for Nader's faithful supporters to have their say, aswell, so we get a fascinating debate about whether ideological purityor steely-eyed pragmatism should be the key factor in determining one'svote in a presidential election. One of the most interestingly ironicmoments in the film comes when we see Michael Moore, who is usually theone doing the sandbagging in his own films, being sandbagged himself ashe is shown flip-flopping on his support for Nader between the 2000election where he spoke at Nader rallies and the 2004 election where hepleads with Nader not to run.
Even people who are still embittered by Nader's role in the 2000election may find themselves softening in their attitude towards him abit after watching this film. The movie certainly reminds us of thegreat debt of gratitude we owe him as a nation, and, even when he is athis most obstinate in the political realm, we sense that he is beingthat way for ideologically honest reasons, not out of ego or malice.It's awfully hard not to find oneself cheering him on as he attempts toforce his way into the audience for one of the 2000 presidentialdebates, after he and all the other independent candidates had beenofficially banned from the premises.
"An Unreasonable Man" provides a generous helping of archival footageto go along with the passionate interviews on both sides of the Naderspectrum (the movie does not, however, provide any real conservativevoices, except for Patrick Buchanan, who, on many issues is actuallymore aligned with Nader's positions than opposed to them).
Love him or loathe him, this is a fantastically interesting andinformative documentary about one of the most influential figures ofthe last hundred years.