How does this 2004 film, based on the book of the same title, portray the importance of High School football in the life of the town of Odessa Texas? How does the film contrast with the book, and what choices were made as to what to emphasize in the film, and why were those choices made? Why does the film downplay racial elements? How does the case of half-back Boobie Miles illustrate the tragedy of ‘placing all of one’s eggs in one basket’? Why do Boobie and his uncle downplay the nature of his knee injury? How do the recruiting practices of major universities that are courting Miles illustrate Kantian ethical principles with regard to using people as ‘mere means’ to their ends? How do the town influencers mirror this behavior with regard to balancing football’s power to drive Civic pride, and the academic well-being of student athletes? Does toleration of criminal behavior in the Carter football team illustrate this same principle? How have things evolved with regard to college players licensing of their likenesses? Should colleges treat their football teams more in line with practices in minor leagues of other sports, sponsoring teams, claiming naming rights, and providing salaries for players? We see this sort of arrangement in minor league hockey and basketball. Such a practice would no longer require players on sponsored teams to be students. Would this be a better arrangement, all things considered?

What does this 1980 film, based upon the true story of a series of courts-martial carried out toward the end of the Boer War at the turn of the 20th Century, tell us about the morality of guerilla war, and responses to such tactics? What defense is presented for the actions of the members of the Bushveld Carbineers in placing civilians at the head of trains, and for their summary execution of POWs? Does the film accurately portray the courts-martial as being carried out for primarily political reasons? Did the overall commander of British forces, Kitchener, actually order POWs shot, as the defense claims? How does the case resemble similar cases during WW II and the Vietnam War? Why has there been a tendency in Australia to excuse or Lionize Morant? Should he be lionized? What do Australian authors Peter Fitzsimons and Kit Denton now believe?

What does this 2023 tell us about its various characters, and the challenges involved in running the Manhattan Project, not only for Oppenheimer, but General Leslie Groves? How does the film explore the tragic flaws in Oppenheimer and his nemesis, Lewis Strauss? Why does the film focus more on this aspect of his story and its two main characters’ tragic flaws, rather than the moral questions surrounding the atomic bombs? Why does the film make short work of the Interim Committee meetings, where the decisions were made regarding ‘the gadgets,’ and why does it portray Truman and Stimson as being shallowly political and callous with regard to the decision? Were the concerns with Soviet espionage in the Manhattan Project justified? Were concerns for Oppenheimer’s loyalty justified? What does the success of this film tell us about audience demand for historical films?