As a "film goer", or "somebody that has watched the film" just doesn't have the same context as what I meant by "film buff". I don't want a handle to get in the way of respectful discourse.
Scenes - I've read your posts over the past few months and you strike me as a man that has a deep respect for war heroes. I've run into many Civil War enthusiasts that have passionate and admirable respect for the leaders, troops and battles surrounding these events. The large elephant in the room when one talks about the South is whether it was about secession, the right to keep slaves, or many other debatable reasons. It is odd that many of the grunts on the Southern side were not slave owners and mostly fought for the more wealthy Southerners to keep slaves. Specific to the film "We should not be fighting to keep people in chains." and other debates were good points, but as the review I posted above said, it struck me as odd that none of the Southern troops held any negative feelings for blacks. Even "Django Unchained", as fictional as it was, tried to have realistic dialogue and situations reflecting the period.
Politics - What I meant by film buff is that I like to follow a movie in context to its development and creation. Kind of similar to someone that says they want to read the book before they see a film, it expands or creates a more enjoyable experience. To each his/her own. I followed the politics of fracking as well as the controversy over the funding of "Promised Land", but I didn't feel it framed, or interfered with my viewing experience. It gave me a greater context in which to watch the film. I actually enjoyed "Promised Land", as it presented both sides of a controversial, politically driven issue and let the viewers decide. This, is in stark contrast to "Field of Lost Shoes", which I felt tried to spoon feed revisionist history. This is what I found hard to accept and made me cringe. That's how it struck me. That's my opinion and as you say, we all are entitled to our opinions whether we are movie goers or we are film buffs.
Even though it seems like there were many, there were actually very few political films made. "Primary Colors" was a rare exception but that was more about the process than the ideology. Hollywood is very sensitive to an injection of politics, as they don't tend to do very well on the silver screen and have niche audiences. It is a purely business decision and Hollywood has done a great job of insulating the artists from the suits. Many with a strict political agenda are routed to HBO or another outlet. Viewing audiences are extremely sophisticated and pick up quickly on whether they are being spoon fed a viewpoint. Controversial subjects are best done with offering both points of view and letting the viewer decide, much like news.
Dominion - (or really large energy companies in general) I have parsed both sides of what is happening in this arena. The national politics are favorable right now for a land grab under eminent domain. This extends to not only power line transmission, but liquid natural gas (LNG). They can tap into the shale deposits, but they need the highway. The energy companies do not have to demonstrate need, so any expansion of infrastructure can be passed onto the ratepayer (i.e. you and I). Its a great deal for the energy companies -- expand your infrastructure at no risk to investment and if it is determined there is no need, well, you have the expanded infrastructure at no cost to you. Zero risk -- except for the ratepayer. Several larger projects that cross state lines have failed -- MAPP, PATH, TRAIL (to a large degree). Power companies have lost their taste for fighting grass roots efforts.
Does all this background play into my viewing and appreciation of the context surrounding the development and making of Field of Lost Shoes? Absolutely. Does it negatively impact my ability to honestly evaluate the film on its entertainment value? I like to think not, but I will take your observations about my post under consideration. Maybe you are right on this point.
Years ago, I had the opportunity to go to a screening of "Sideways" before its release. My girlfriend knew somebody that got us tickets. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and even laughed out loud on occasion. I did notice, however, that my girlfriend was not laughing, shifting in her chair and obviously not enjoying the movie as I was. When we were driving home, she chastised me for even laughing at such a "horrible" film. This reaction puzzled me so I asked her about why she was so upset. Her father had cheated on her mother and the marriage broke up when she was young. It was hard as the kids were shifted around and lived with the very woman that he cheated on his wife with, who became her step-mother. I had known about a little of this, but I was surprised that (or didn't give much thought to) she framed a movie with her experiences and thought they should never make a movie with that type of a theme. I offered that it allowed debate on the issue and one of the main characters even got his in the end due to his cheating ways, but this seemed to inflame her more that I did not hold the same opinion about the movie. That is a long way of my saying that I can appreciate the fact that we all bring a lot of experience and context to watching a film -- that's what makes it such an enjoyable experience, even when you want your money back.
I paid to watch Field of Lost Shoes, so I may be able to consider myself an investor and helped to bankroll it as well. Yeah, far stretch. ;-)
Hope this helps. Please let me know if I answered or evaded your questions. I hope I touched on everything. Great thread!