FROSH: NINE MONTHS IN A FRESHMAN DORM
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 1995 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): ***
First, let me clear up a little confusion. There are now two movies in release in the US with almost the same names: FRESH and FROSH. The movie I saw is a documentary about the lives of a dozen freshmen in a dorm at Stanford. It is called FROSH and not FRESH (which is another of the life in the 'hood shows). Moreover, FROSH has the official subtitle of NINE MONTHS IN A FRESHMAN DORM. Clearly, it has the unofficial title of Academic Freedom Today--Believe and Say Anything You Want Provided It Is Official Politically Correct Dogma, but more on that latter.
In my opinion, documentaries are one of the highest cinematic art forms. They cover a wide spectrum of beliefs from TRIUMPH OF THE WILL to ROGER AND ME. The purpose of a documentary is to allow you to vicariously live in another world, but in the case of a documentary, it is a real world--full of warts, bad grammar, and bad hair days. A documentary, if it is good, will frequently enrage you. At a minimum, it should make you think. Three of my absolute favorite movies I have ever seen are documentaries: 28 UP, 35 UP, and SHERMAN'S MARCH. This documentary, although poorly made and constructed, nevertheless, is a full fledged descendent of this art form for it did enrage me, and it certainly made me think.
The directing, cinematography, and just about everything in the production of this documentary was done by Daniel Geller and Danya Goldfine. As far as the technical merits of the show, it was amateurish in parts. The camera was held fairly steady, but only one camera was used and hence there was too much panning and zooming. The colors were hopelessly faded. They needed a better camera, better processing or something. The editing was a little loose and although scenes had labels, they were pretty arbitrary and overall the documentary was not well organized and constructed.
The reason to see this movie has nothing to do with the above technical aspects. You want to see it for the content. In the rest of the review I will cover some of the high points to give you a flavor.
It starts and ends with the speech given to the freshmen on their first day at the school. They are told always to respect each other's opinions no matter if it differs from their own and that they will encounter a wide range of differing opinions while they are at Stanford. Based on what was presented in the documentary, the previous statement was a bold face lie. We find kids who almost all think exactly alike, total PC. Those who have even mildly differing opinions are put down until they give up and agree with the official norm. The parallels with this and the book "1984" are chilling.
We learn that Aristotle was evil. He was a "sexist pig" and that if he was black, they would not have been able to study him. The males are constantly put down by the women. Ditto the whites by the blacks. Interracial dating is also put down.
Two people go to church. We learn in detail from one how sexist the church is and how she is going to stop going soon. The other still believes in God, but he is constantly ridiculed by his peers until he finally relents and says, Okay, okay, you people are right, what can I say?
What do these kids believe in? Very little. One says that he has rejected religion as has everyone he knows, and that he thinks everyone's philosophy these days is "enjoy yourself and do as little as possible to hurt others." The only consistent value they have seems to be heavy drinking contests, some dope smoking, or lots of hanging around the dorm arguing what is PC and what isn't. I should point out that the term politically correct is never mentioned explicitly in the movie, but the philosophy is all over the place.
One girl talks about how certain thoughts and speech "must be suppressed." Her friend does muse aloud about who is going to make that determination. Reading the constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, does not appear to be part of the curriculum.
Studying is not high on the priority list for them. One girl on a financial scholarship keeps getting her grades reduced because she forgets to turn in her homework. She is also the chief motor mouth in the dorm. Walking over and turning in papers are not high on her personal priority queue.
On the surface the kids seem bonded to each other, but if you think about it for a minute you realize that there are almost no scenes where they do any actions that show they really care for each other. On the other hand, when they go home for Christmas break and meet their parents, with the exception of the one religious boy, they seemed totally unbonded to their parents.
One girl tells her mom she is switching majors to feminist studies and will be going to Washington to take a job as a political activist for minimal pay after college. Her mom advises she think about her future and says she knows of "no 52-year-old hippies". The girl thinks her mom is terminally stupid for telling her this.
The movie has no MPAA rating. For the drug use and the frequent use of F word, I would assume it would be rated R, but who knows. I would take my teenager to see it and discuss it with him or her about it afterwards. I rate this a MUST SEE for anyone with kids anywhere near or at college age. I recommend it to everyone and give it ***. It runs a bit too long at 1:33. Finally, I would love to see a sequel with the same people in their first real job in life.
**** = One of the top few films of this or any year. A must see film. *** = Excellent show. Look for it. ** = Average movie. Kind of enjoyable. * = Poor show. Don't waste your money. 0 = One of the worst films of this or any year. Totally unbearable.
REVIEWED WRITTEN ON: September 10, 1994
Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews