Documentaries always fill me with conflicting thoughts. I want to believe that the filmmakers have done their job, giving me a balanced view of both sides of whatever subject matter is presented, but I also understand that film, as a visual media, has its limitations and can easily be manipulated, often serving a filmmaker's agenda. I checked out No End in Sight from the library weeks ago, but didn't watch it until it was nearly due to be returned. Since no one else had a hold on it, I renewed it for another three weeks.
I finally watched it last night and was glued to the screen. The film was written, produced and directed by Charles Ferguson, a former Brookings Institution scholar with a doctorate in political science. Ferguson focuses not on the Iraq War of 2003, but its aftermath, what went wrong and why. Lest you think that Ferguson presents only one side of the story, key figures and players in the Bush administration are seen and referred to, often followed by the on-screen text, "_______________ declined (or I think the words were sometimes 'refused') to be interviewed for this film."
Yet Ferguson was successful in interviewing Walter Slocombe, former director of national security and defense in the Coalition Provisional Authority (the U.S. organization responsible for overseeing Iraq's reconstruction and transition to democratic rule). Slocombe's confident demeanor quickly crumbles as the interviewer presents him with facts, figure and quotes from other members of a transition team who were in Iraq far longer than Slocombe. The members of this team, including Barbara Bodine, an experienced Middle East diplomat, Paul Eaton, an Army major general, Seth Moulton, a Marine Corps lieutenant, and Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who served as head of ORHA (Organization of Recovery and Humanitarian Assistance). These were people who voluntarily went to work in support of the Bush administration, yet over and over related stories of the administration's lack of planning, poor preparation, blundering decisions, little support or resources and no tangible goals. When confronted with evidence from people who were there, Slocombe stumbles, repeating phrases like "I wasn't aware of that." Sometimes we just see a dumbfounded stare into the camera.
Perhaps Ferguson's charges of the administration's gross incompetence would have been stronger with more Bush supporters on camera, yet what can you say about the fact that so few of them chose to be interviewed?
And what of the images of destruction and looting in Baghdad? What of the footage of dead Americans being dragged through the streets of Fallujah? Yes, images can be manipulated for the purposes of pushing agendas forward, but how can you argue with what you see over and over? It's hard to imagine these images being taken out of context. What other context is there?
No End in Sight is essential viewing, regardless of your political beliefs. If nothing else, it will give you plenty to talk about. What bothers me almost as much as the content of the film is the apparent lack of interest in it. No one I have spoken to has seen the film and most have never even heard of it. (Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people.) The Anne Arundel County library system owns six copies of it, five of which are currently checked out, so I'm glad I'm not the only one watching. Rent it from NetFlix or Blockbuster. Just see it, even if you never watch documentaries, even if you hate films by Michael Moore (and this is nothing like Michael Moore), even if you never watch movies. See it and talk about it. There's a lot here to talk about.
No comments:
Post a Comment