In 2004 director Morgan Spurlock unleashed Supersize Me onto the world. The film proved that documentaries didn’t have to be boring. Subtle humor, an engaging storyline and a likable hero were brilliantly intermingled with well-researched findings, stunning interviews and riveting realities of the fast-food industry. It was a proverbial gem that unfortunately gave rise to a slew of unworthy copycats. The documentary genre became riddled with first person narratives that were entertaining (King of Kong and the forgettable My Date with Drew) but devoid of educational value. Others promoted themselves as educational (Sicko and FarenHYPE 9/11) but were deluged by biased opinions that tainted all findings, no matter how “groundbreaking” they first appeared to be.

After six long years of “docutainment” Gerrymandering, a new documentary about the repercussions of corrupt district line-drawing, has hit screens, and its director, Jeff Reichert, finds a perfect balance between engaging narrative and research-based study.

Viewers are initially treated to a “Gerrymandering 101” course in which animated supplements, voice-overs, talking heads and dated news reels explain the ins and outs of district lines, and how these lines directly impact, or have the potential to impact, the lives of all Americans. As informative as this sequence proves to be, it is ultimately the film’s weakest. It comes off as disorganized and many points are washed out by obnoxiously loud music.

But I digress.

Essentially, what you need to know is the following: district reps (those who are elected to the house of representatives) have found a way to maintain their power for 10 years, making district elections a complete waste of time.  Why is this a problem? Well, American democracy becomes a complete hoax. Elections are pre-determined. The voter loses influence. Representatives care more about maintaining power than serving the people they are supposed to represent.

With that comes the introduction of the film’s hero: Kathay Feng, the Executive Director of California Common Cause. Feng, unlike many Americans, is perfectly aware of how Gerrymandering is rooted in corruption and attempts to take the power of district line-drawing away from incumbents by introducing Proposition 20. The bill, which is as lengthy as it is confusing, basically puts the power of line district writing into the hands of private citizens. The hope: to form districts that reflect the diversity of each region and promote fair competition during election season. Many politicians, including California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, championed Feng’s cause. Others, like every California representative who stood to lose power, challenged Prop 20.

This storyline, which is sufficiently absorbing, is abandoned for a majority of the film as the director leads viewers through a series of vignettes detailing the effects of Gerrymandering. The most interesting tells the story of a district rep who only garnered three votes (one being from his wife) and won the election. How could this have happened? His district contains a prison. Inmates, ironically enough, are counted as citizens of the district, but are not allowed to vote. In layman’s terms: prison districts may only have a literal handful of registered voters (four or five) but since prisoners are counted as part of the district’s general population, the elected official wins an uncontested two year trip to Capitol Hill. Yeah, it’s terrible.

These examples maintain interest, but what truly generated thought was when Reichert, responsibly and aptly, introduced the counter-argument(s):
1) Gerrymandering promotes diversity (many of the elected reps who originate from minority dominant communities would not have come to power if not for Gerrymandering).
2) By shifting the power and responsibility of district line-drawing to citizens the possibilities of failure and unmonitored corruption are heightened. Currently, Gerrymandering is a system of open corruption and controlled chaos. Things are bad, but they probably won’t get worse.
3) It ensures a level of consistency allowing reps to work toward their goals. Seriously, how much can one expect to accomplish in a two year term-limit?

All of these things are easily argued away, but it allows those who may disagree with Reichert’s argument to find a point of connection with the film. It also provides Reichert himself with a greater sense of ethos. You’ll find yourself wanting to trust him.

Eventually, the viewer is guided back to Feng and the fate of Proposition 20 (I won’t spoil the ending, and don’t spoil it for yourself by googling it). The result, however, is of no consequence. For if you pay attention and enter the theater with an objective mindset, you will leave with one thought: Gerrymandering is bad.

Overall, Gerrymandering will not shake you with suspense; it will not stir emotions that make you laugh, then cry; it will not take you on an exciting roller-coaster ride of action and adventure (even though Schwarzenegger has a lot of screen time). But remember: documentaries aren’t supposed to do those things. The responsible and well-trained documentarian tries to educate his audience, and that’s exactly what Reichert has done with this piece.

If you care about the future of America, see this movie.

To learn more about this wacky process, play the ReDistricting Game.

To read more articles by Matt Thomas, visit his blog or homepage.