"Leave No Trace" - BSA Documentary

[ThenNow]

Interesting review that takes issue with some of the film's method, potentially narrow research and use of Nigel Jaquiss who, reportedly, is an interested party as a producer. The author says his concurrent role as the reporter and interviewer is a conflict. It I enjoyed hearing the perspective. 

 

‘Leave No Trace’ Film Review: Searing Doc on Boy Scouts Abuse Cuts Some Journalistic Corners

Tribeca Film Festival 2022: The material here is unquestionably powerful, but director Irene Taylor takes some questionable shortcuts in telling the story

Martin Tsai | June 15, 2022 @ 12:45 PM

https://www.thewrap.com/leave-no-trace-film-review-boy-scouts-abuse-documentary-2022/

[yknot]

23 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Interesting review that takes issue with some of the film's method, potentially narrow research and use of Nigel Jaquiss who, reportedly, is an interested party as a producer. The author says his concurrent role as the reporter and interviewer is a conflict. It I enjoyed hearing the perspective. 

 

I thought the point about Jaquiss was bizarre. Plenty of journalists, whistleblowers, producers cross back and forth over that divide. The viral documentary My Octopus Teacher did essentially the same.  It was just a less controversial subject. The point about lawyers having an economic stake in airing the abuse is also bizarre because... the Boy Scout representatives interviewed don't also have an economic stake in downplaying the abuse? 

[ThenNow]

10 minutes ago, yknot said:

I thought the point about Jaquiss was bizarre. Plenty of journalists, whistleblowers, producers cross back and forth over that divide. The viral documentary My Octopus Teacher did essentially the same.  It was just a less controversial subject. The point about lawyers having an economic stake in airing the abuse is also bizarre because... the Boy Scout representatives interviewed don't also have an economic stake in downplaying the abuse? 

Per usual, I don't disagree with you. I was drawing out commentary from the interested moviegoing public without commentary or witty banter. Thus, I found it "interesting," which term resides firmly in the vagary and opacity I dearly love. I am an objective party reporting as a neutral reporter.  

Non-caveat Caveat: I received no front row ticket to Tribecca, merchandise, remuneration, production credit, honorary degree from Columbia or signed autograph from Opie for this non-review of the review.

[skeptic]

Thanks for the share.  It touches on a couple of my concerns as to the approach.  One for me is taking for gospel, or at least suggesting, that the 82000 number is accurate, even though few have been vetted even a little it seems, and we know the fact exists some likely were harvested.

Another part is the time differentials of much of it.  One of the primery survivors notes the abuse was also a teacher and much of the abuse was in school settings.  Also there is admission that some did not bring it up until years later when the ads went out.  That does not mean they are not victim/survivors, it just means we do not know if anybody might have been able to be charged at the time.  The fact the files existed at all is not examined, especially in the context of the time when they started.  They also appear to not note or be aware that in a few instances the files DID identify a problem that had moved, which should be part of the larger investigation in order to be balanced.  I also have read that not sharing the files had more to do with libel laws of the time than the Red Scare issue.  Finally, I really see little reason for noting the Dale issue and the Gay turmoil in relation to this, as one of the criticisms of that in the first place was and is that Gays seldom are also child abusers, so what is the reason for doing that?

It remains though that much was not handled well, and some was simply completely botched.  Trying to cover up may or may not have been the reason, but it likely played a part.  And, no matter what, we know that the unwillingness of the victim/survivor and or his family to expose it in some cases, along with the societal position on such things in most of the time frames involved certainly had and have an affect.  

Going forward we need to stay on top of the YP program, finding a way to try to guarantee the parents actually pay attention to the available information and updating the youth in some manner.  The tenets of Scouting are even more in need today, and we need to strengthen it , not get rid of it.  Also we need to see the broader communities become more involved in confronting the rest of the iceberg.  

And we need closure to happen with the lawsuit so those in it are finally compensated in some manner.

[yknot]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Per usual, I don't disagree with you. I was drawing out commentary from the interested moviegoing public without commentary or witty banter. Thus, I found it "interesting," which term resides firmly in the vagary and opacity I dearly love. I am an objective party reporting as a neutral reporter.  

Non-caveat Caveat: I received no front row ticket to Tribecca, merchandise, remuneration, production credit, honorary degree from Columbia or signed autograph from Opie for this non-review of the review.

You are very funny, as always. 

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Thanks for the share.

Is this for me? 😮 I'm blushing. Also, I welcome your thoughts on my post above. (@JoeBob's downvote points the way.)

Edited June 17, 2022 by ThenNow
So flustered I forgot punctuation. /s/ e.e. cummings

[johnsch322]

27 minutes ago, skeptic said:

One for me is taking for gospel, or at least suggesting, that the 82000 number is accurate, even though few have been vetted even a little it seems, and we know the fact exists some likely were harvested.

The number of abused in BSA could even be higher than 82,000. If you were abused and are now mentally incapacitated, dead, or for some personal reason did not want to be part of the case then you are not a claimant. I will give that some of the claims are bogus but someone who constantly calls for balance to not mention these facts is very one sided.

 

32 minutes ago, skeptic said:

even though few have been vetted even a little it seems,

How do you know this? My case has been vetted and other cases from survivors within my network have been vetted. Just because a claim has not been vetted does not make it untrue.

 

35 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Also there is admission that some did not bring it up until years later until the ads went up. That does not mean they are not victim/survivors, it just means we do not know if anybody might have been able to be charged at the time.

There is nothing surprising that survivors did not bring this up until years later. I myself told no one for 50 plus years and only after I saw a couple of Facebook ads. Yet BSA knew that 11 plus youth in my troop had been abused by one of my abusers. No one approached me which really says BSA wanted to make as little furor over this as possible. 

 

44 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The fact the files existed at all is not examined, especially in the context of the time when they started.  They also appear to not note or be aware that in a few instances the files DID identify a problem that had moved, which should be part of the larger investigation in order to be balanced. 

The fact that the files existed at all speaks volumes that the BSA knew there was a problem, tried to keep the public unaware of it and most grossly tried to keep it out of the hands of survivors until the Oregon Supreme Court compelled them to.

 

46 minutes ago, skeptic said:

And, no matter what, we know that the unwillingness of the victim/survivor and or his family to expose it in some cases, along with the societal position on such things in most of the time frames involved certainly had and have an affect.  

How many more times are you going to keep beating on this worn out carpet of an excuse?  The verbiage "unwillingness of the victim/survivor or his family" is victim blaming in extreme. You cannot and should not use "societal positions on such things in most of the time frames" as even in todays society there is shame in being a victim.  Most victims told no one because of the guilt, shame, and confusion.

 

54 minutes ago, skeptic said:

And we need closure to happen with the lawsuit so those in it are finally compensated in some manner.

Hypocrisy at it's greatest. For you "some manner" means very little compensation. Look deep inside your self and you will find that the only true reason you want this bankruptcy to end is because you think the stench that surrounds the BSA will go away.

Earlier today I asked you to please do not speak on behalf of survivors and I would like to explain that a little further, it is not your story or your journey in life. You have not lived with the mental turmoil or the physical issues that were caused by members of the BSA. You have not lived with the awakening, the sorrow nor any other aspect of how the bankruptcy has affected us the survivors. 

Feel free to speak on how this issue and all that it is has affected your own personal life. Feel free to speak about how you see all of this affecting the Boy Scouts as that is your personal journey. 

I would never try to speak on behalf of a Holocaust survivor as I was never in that situation. 

The end of the bankruptcy I believe will not end the suffering, mental anguish, or the difficulties that I and most of my brethren are going thru. It will not erase the memories of what happened to us or the fear of what may lie ahead for us. Death itself may not be the end because if there is a heaven or a hell and if we still have memory than all of this will never go away.

So please do not speak for us.

[RememberSchiff]

A moderator reminder, members can express their differing, diverse opinions in a courteous, kind, and helpful (scoutlike) manner and receive the same in discussion. Opinions can be right, wrong, informed, experienced, well-stated, less so, a mix. No credentials or experience are needed to express an opinion, hopefully the ensuing scoutlike discussion will educate all.

One can advise and express his/her wishes for others, however in reality, one can only speak for oneself unless others have given their consent.

Around our virtual campfire, we will agree to disagree in a scoutlike manner while working together to keep our scouting campfire glowing - bright with knowledge and wisdom and welcoming warmth. Less tinder, more kindling of diverse ideas - fuel for thought.

Thanks.

~ RS

@MattR@Eagle1993@T2Eagle@elitts@gpurlee

Edited June 17, 2022 by RememberSchiff
grammar

[SiouxRanger]

7 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Less tinder, more kindling

Being--

"More light-less heat."

I think?

So elegantly stated.

Phrases are art.

(Old and old-school scouter who can actually build a fire under any conditions.)

[JBWest]

On 6/17/2022 at 3:13 PM, ThenNow said:

Thus, I found it "interesting," which term resides firmly in the vagary and opacity I dearly love. I am an objective party reporting as a neutral reporter.  

It's interesting inasmuch as overall journalistic standards have declined in a way that dwarfs the membership decline in BSA.  When your #1 interview subject is also a producer of the film, it is the cinematic equivalent of an infomercial.  The imprimatur of Hulu and ABC News will obscure this for most.

[RememberSchiff]

13 minutes ago, JBWest said:

It's interesting inasmuch as overall journalistic standards have declined in a way that dwarfs the membership decline in BSA.  When your #1 interview subject is also a producer of the film, it is the cinematic equivalent of an infomercial.  The imprimatur of Hulu and ABC News will obscure this for most.

Sadly agree. Journalism here started its decline about the same time, though for different reasons, well except money.

My $0.03 (inflation)

Edited June 24, 2022 by RememberSchiff

[JBWest]

Apparently there are two more films in the works, one from Netflix and one from the owner of Starz.  Stepping back from my role as a Scouter and looking as an investor, the subject matter is fairly compelling.  Lots of mom and apple pie type "America's fall from grace" narrative, piggybacking on the MeToo movement and the CSA scandals in the Roman Catholic Church.  Expect these to be more widely viewed than this one.

At one of the legal briefings during the bankruptcy case an expert summed it up best.  We had a sexual revolution in the 1960s, precipitated by the birth control pill's release in 1960 and culminating in the "summer of love" circa '69.  It was a tsunami, and as often happens after a tidal wave the wreckage is not revealed until the water recedes.  HIV/AIDS, drug resistant STDs, child sexual abuse, and the bullying of women in the guise of liberation are the unfortunate side effects of a movement that was ultimately empowering to the human race in its quest for equality.

During the Ch. 11 trial the bell curve distribution of claims was clear; the majority of abuse ended in the 1980s and early 90s.  Scouting will survive.

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, JBWest said:

Apparently there are two more films in the works, one from Netflix and one from the owner of Starz. 

And a limited docuseries from WintersRock/Lionsgate titled, Be Prepared. 

[JBWest]

Yes, that was the second one I mentioned.  Lionsgate and Starz share common ownership.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, JBWest said:

When your #1 interview subject is also a producer of the film, it is the cinematic equivalent of an infomercial.  The imprimatur of Hulu and ABC News will obscure this for most.

That was raised in one of the review articles but it's basically not relevant. There are a host of documentaries where sources are also part of the producing team and vice versa. That's not unusual. You can say you don't like how they covered the issue, but that particular point is kind of a bizarre criticism by the reviewer. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by yknot