Rocket Science (2007)

I was in policy debate in high school and while I have seen (The Great Debaters) and been aware of (Listen to Me) films about college debate I had never encountered a film before about high school debate before. That and the presence of Anna Kendrick made me curious to see Rocket Science, and while the film isn't just about debate exactly, though the parts that are were pretty accurate to what I remember from 20+ years ago, it is central to the story line, which could loosely be described as the efforts of a boy with severe stutter (Reece Thompson) to use debate as a means of getting close to a girl on whom he has a crush (Ms. Kendrick). Again that is a "loose" description of the plot because this is a film that does not want to be pigeon hold, in fact it deliberately mocks and misleads in its efforts to obscure simple answers or traditional dramatic narrative, especially those clichés and arch types we associate with "the 'high school movie.

 It is a comedy, don't get me wrong, and a smart one, I finished watching it the first time liking almost everything about it, but not quite liking it, enjoying the parts more then the whole. I am largely about structure in film, at least in the first sitting of any particular movie. This movie deliberately  misleads, telling you pretty flat out that things are going to go a certain way, and I kept waiting for them to go that way and they never did, it was frustrating but also kind of liberating. I had to watch it a second time a week or two later. The cast of odd ball characters, the quasi aimlessness of things, the stubborn refusal to conform to expectations, makes it kind of brilliant. But at the same time that aimlessness and the uncertainty of dramatic intent leave it kind of wanting as cinematic experience, structure again, it can be hard for me to get past it some times. Moore then anything though your ability to enjoy this film will depend on your tolerance for Reece Thompsons chronic stuttering, which he does well, but can be grating in its persistence. The film its self is sort of a stutter, you know there's more inside it but it has a hard time getting it all out, which is simultaneously why it works and why it doesn't. A second viewing concentrating on the 'moments' more then the 'whole' was more satisfying, but like high school itself awash in an inherent sense of frustration. ***