I think this is going to do well on DVD since it had such a short theater run.

Evan, Bell really is a talented filmmaker. The editing in this film is pure gold. It’s not surprising to me to learn he graduated from USC’s film school (he mentioned USC in the movie, but not film school specifically — I should have put two and two together).

You both make good points about drug use…I tend to think there’s nothing inherently wrong with any drug, as long as it’s used with good judgment — but then, drug use tends to impair judgment, so that’s kind of a paradox, isn’t it? (I didn’t mention it in my review, but there’s a segment in this film about the U.S. Air Force — apparently pilots in it are required to take amphetamines, which have been implicated in at least one scandal, in which some pilots in Iraq attacked friendly Canadian troops. Go fig.)

Daniel, I’ll have to take your word about docs, as I haven’t gotten around to catching too many of them this year (I’ve been busy with classics like Shutter). In fact, I think the only one I’ve caught besides this one is Expelled, and obviously, this one blew that one out of the water in terms of quality. But I read your review of this one just now (somehow I missed it when you published it), and it was quite good. (Actually I think you captured the feel of the film a lot better than I did…but now I’m just sucking up. )

I appreciated how Bell didn’t take the Michael Moore/Morgan Spurlock route. He was honest and humble. I read an interview with Bell before it came out here but now I forget what the publication was. Anyway, he’s a USC film school grad and is taking this for real – good for all of us.

Best scenes – Waxman’s meltdown and the in-house supplement making.

My interest has definitely been piqued, Luke (how could it not be?).

From what you say, it sounds like Bell is a filmmaker of consummate skill. Where, indeed, did this guy come from? Here’s hoping he manages to extend his career with equally insightful works in the future.

And Nathan, no quick answers to your questions, but on a practical level, there is a great difference between caffeine and steroids. No one can successfully argue that those two are on the same level (I dare you to try).

However, from a moral perspective (like you prefaced your list with), the two are really no different. You are using a drug (one that you can be addicted to) to enhance your performance in some way. The extent to which users are affected is completely different based on which drug is used, but the challenge then comes down to drawing a line. Both caffeine and steroids are drugs. Both enhance your body/mind in some way. Both are addictive. Both can have negative side effects. So where do you draw the line? What is the objective standard we hold up that tells us one drug is OK while another is not?

How many on this blog went to school at a time were student drug use for performance reasons was prevalent? Having only very limited experience with the “bigger, faster, stronger” crowd, I can’t relate a ton there, but I know adderall usage was *rampant* while I was in school. From speaking to some friends’ younger siblings, I know it hasn’t trended I wonder how many of the crowds booing at Barry Bonds have been guilty of the same crime? Is it primarily the older folks rather than the younger?

And, assuming the booing is less prevalent among the younger generation — what’s that say about the future of competition as our generation continues to grow older?

And to raise it to even another level: disregarding the legality question and discussing morality only, how and where is the line drawn between the below?

- Tylenol to make it easier to go back to being a mom or a dad
- Ibuprofen to make it easier to swing a tennis racket
- drinking coffee to make your more productive in the AM
- Adderall to help you study for the exam
- Alcohol to help relax at the end of a long day
- Steroids to let you hit a baseball farther
- Marijuana because you’re bored
- etc.