Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018)

So I finally got to see the documentary "Won't You Ne My Neighbor?" directed by Morgan Neville.  I had heard a lot of good things about the film, so I was excited to finally see it.  What I can say is that it is an emotional piece about a man who literally helped many children understand about growing up.   Roger's became an advocate for children and fought for good educational programming that would help children through the perils of growing up.  In the film we learn when and how "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" came into existence, and how Fred Rogers developed the concept.  It is quite moving to see how Roger's comes up with the concept of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood".  I can say that I was one of the kids "Mister Roger's neighborhood" was preaching to.  I remember vividly sitting down and watching Fred Roger's go through his day and learning new things.  All before I even set foot into a classroom.   Roger's was our guide into growing up, and he tackled problem like death, anger management, and how to not be scared of the world around us.  I am reminded now today how civility and just plain caring has gone out of fashion.  Mister Roger's Neighborhood taught us that someone cared for us, and that we were all special.  The documentary tells me a lot of things about the program but not about the man.

What I was disappointed in was that I really did not get to know who Fred Roger's was?  Why did he do the things he did?  I am given an individual who is well meaning, and very civil, but I do not know anything about him.  We are told that he grew up a privileged child, and that he may have been bullied due to his size, but I did not hear why he did what he did.  I understand he was in divinity school where he was training to become a priest.  That's about all I know, and I'm afraid that's all we get to know.  I understand that Rogers had passed away, and that the documentary is about him through the eyes of others, but because of this I get a picture of only one side of the man.

I would think that the filmmaker could have gotten a more detailed picture of Fred Rogers through other people.  Classmates, friends, and or teachers could have shed more of a light on the character of Fred Roger's. 

Sure it seems as though "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" is a program out of time, and that such a program would not work in today's society with social media, and commercialism of children's TV.  But Fred Roger's was the linchpin of the show and that speaks to the power of Roger's character.  Roger's made the show a success because of his communication with children.  He had an uncanny act of understanding what children were feeling and what they wanted.  That's what I was interested in, and what makes Roger's such a unique individual.

I wanted to know more about him, and why he did the things he did.  Roger's character seemed to be framed by the question of "was he always that nice"?   That questions seems to define the character of Fred Roger's, yet it does nothing to really tell us anything about him.  We see Roger's wife, and his two son's but they do not say anything about him that would give us a definitive look into the man's character and his motives. 

At one point in the documentary we're told of Roger's anger at programming for children, but we are not given anything to tell us why.  Instead we are given clips of Saturday morning cartoons, and other shows like the "Banana Splits, or "The Soupy Sales show" which were successful kids shows that were unlike "Mister Roger's Neighborhood".  No critics, no teachers, no professors on media are given a chance to talk about children's programming, and what Fred Roger's was doing.

There isn't enough on Fred Roger's to make me care. We're told he did not see doctors, and that he had stomach ailments, and he eventually got sick and passed away.  There is footage of Roger's early on when he begins "Mister Roger's Neighborhood", but again there is no really definitive interview of him.

It's as though we want to create a mythic figure of Fred Roger's when in fact he was a human being like al the rest of us who had challenges.  It is those challenges that I would like to see.   Instead Roger's himself is glanced over superficially and it hurts the film.

I did find Roger's life interesting, and wanted to know more.  But more the personal Roger's then the public figure.  Maybe that will come out in the biography that Hollywood is doing of him starring Tom Hanks, but I still feel that I'm being forced feed this image of Roger's that may not be all too true.  I still think that the most definitive film about the man is yet to be made, and I hope to see it someday because the man is worth more exploration then this film gives him.