I think I liked Morris better when he was less overtly political. I recently watched Fast Cheap and Out of Control and thought it was one of the best documentaries I've seen. Same goes for Gates of Heaven. At the same time, though, I'm glad he'a doing this. We need an intelligent political filmmaker to serve as a contrast to Michael Moore.
shareMorris is the real deal. He like Albert Maysles are what we call documentary filmmakers, unlike Moore who I consider to be an intellectual coward with a movie camera. He doesn't have the guts to make his films without treating the viewer with honesty and respect. I love Morris' "The Fog of War."
shareMorris had such a reputation and portfolio of great work, any subject he will do will be great. I think Morris should focus on political or serious issue's beucase he has proven that he can make powerful documentary. Look at 'The Fog of War', by far the best war doc ever made! I've studied the history of war for many years and hope that more doc's are made that teach people some truth about the world. A subject like abuse is military prison's is diffacult for someone to do in a non-bias way is hard in USA because of the military intervention in everything including film. Re-inactments are *beep* but the Govt. will never release any photo's, interviews, etc.. of any kind. Anyways... Morris is a master and anyone think's otherwise should be charged with a murder they didnt do.
sharenot this one, early reviews says it's bad
share'The Fog of War', by far the best war doc ever made!
Nope. Not by a long shot. I'd nominate Shoah for that honor, but I can think of a dozen more better than the McNamara hagiography.
http://ferdyonfilms.com
Your a republican, correct? LOL
shareI'm not sure if the "LOL" after your post means you are being sarcastic, for I am not really up on the subtle nuances of message boarding. But in case your question is in earnest: no, I am not a republican. I just generally prefer movies that are art rather than political sermons.
shareAll films are political sermons.
share"All films are political sermons."
Profound! You must have been to college to have such fancy ideas.
I can't wait. Morris hasn't made a dishonorable film yet. As for Michael Moore, I don't understand the backlash. He is basically responsible for making the documentary genre one worth seeking out on an opening weekend. There are millions of people now who love going to see docs when they open in movie theatres.
And as for Moore's films, "Roger & Me" is one of the best American docs ever. You can sense in every one of his films that he really cares about working-class Americans and how much it breaks his heart what happened in his hometown. His idea was that he wanted to make docs that could work as both essays and entertainments so that they could reach a broad audience. "Farenheit 9/11" is a very funny movie about serious things, and the facts in that movie are undisputed; the poor choice in relationships that the Bush family has is not made up. Maybe he gets mushy with the war-mom, but at the time, there were thousands of moms in that specific situation who trusted their gov't only to awaken to the sad truth that our leaders did not properly plan the war, sending our heroes on a fool's errand. Militaries are built to beat other militaries, not to go around the world trying to predict when civilians might attack.
"Sicko" is quite good, too, and very entertaining to boot. I just reject this whole whitewashing statement that he's disingenuous or dishonest. He makes entertaining essays that work.
well said.
share[deleted]
"Expelled" is a documentary? You sure a film trying to dispute scientific methods is best done by a failed comedic actor? "Expelled" has done nothing more than make a complete joke out of Ben Stein. Though I do find it interesting that Ben Stein completely overlooks the massive influence the Bible had on Hitler and his hatred of Jews and desire to abolish "inferior" races. Apparently its Darwin's fault. Strange, Ben manages to overlook all Darwin's contributions to science. In contrast, I forget Ben Stein's contributions to science. Also, even funnier to consider how complex Natural Selection is and Ben Stein continues to simplify these ideas to reach out to uneducated, religious conservatives. Creationism is not science. Period.
sharemate expelled is not a documentary. Its all fiction, no facts. Creationisms (or IE) is just as credible (scientifically) as the idea that aliens put on the earth.
shareMoore is a propagandist. His movies are entertaining, yes, but they are pure propaganda. And he doesn't REALLY care about "poor" people (he certainly isn't one himself despite the crappy clothes and stupid baseball cap), he just has figured out a particular schtick that sells movie tickets.
share******"All films are political sermons."
Profound! You must have been to college to have such fancy ideas.*****
i don't think that comment was made to aggrivate.
i think it was just a basic statement....a simple response.
but that's just me.
Okay, I admit that my reply was pretty silly. Of course I have no idea what the poster of that remark intended, since he/she just made a blanket statement without any explanation. I agree, though, in the truest sense, that it is a "simple" response. For I find it trite and meaningless, as all encompassing statements often (but not always) are.
In any case, it's nice to see that a thread I started nearly a year ago is still getting some traffic. That pretty much never happens.
If anybody's up for it, by the way, I would be happy to have a discussion about the relationship between film and politics. For I agree that all films (and art in general) are politically engaged in some way, but that does not necessarily make them "political sermons." The best artists and filmmakers, I think, are able to interrogate and explore political issues without sermonizing, giving the viewer something substantial to think about without telling him/her what to think. Errol Morris, in my opinion, fits this bill, but Michael Moore, on the other hand, does not.
Really - I saw Armageddon, and I'm still wondering if it had any point, let alone a political one.
PS - Blue - it's you're, or maybe even yer, but not your.
Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control is the best documentary ever made (IMHO). Errol Morris and Michael Moore are the best in their field. They make thought provoking entertainment, what more could you ask for!
"Now go home and get your *beepin* shinebox."
wow, i totally agreed with you until you put Michael Moore and Morris in the same league. They really aren't. Morris through his fascination with other's personal perceptions and truths allow his films to look more like "documentaries" rather than just filmed editorials with incredibly broad statements to make. And while Morris' the subjects are sometimes very delusional/scarily determined to prove their own points, his voice and vision is still clear. I'm not saying I don't enjoy Moore's documentaries, Roger and Me/Bowling were good, but he's so wrapped up into his own hype/voice that it gets really irritating.
That is actually what scares me a little about this one, I'm afraid Morris has gotten too political and perhaps focused too much on what he thought of the material (which is, of course, worthy of investigation) and forgotten the characters but we'll see. Thin Blue Line worked out pretty well, so I have faith. Where did you guy's hear that it was getting bad reviews? My fav site for critiques gave it an A.
Those willing to give up liberty for security, deserve neither
"those willing to give up liberty for security, deserve neither"
you are giving up you liberties everyday.
You are under your government, because you require security, security from natural disasters, security from thieves, etc.
The only way you can not give up liberties is by living as an anarchist.
I'm guessing your an American, but this is true for everyone.
So your statement is a little hypocritical, unless your an anarchist.
> you are giving up you liberties everyday. You are under your government, because you require security, security from natural disasters, security from thieves, etc.
I am afraid that is a very poor excuse for a government which is supposedly founded on the ideals of liberty, to ensure the liberty for all people, while constantly betraying that fundamental ideals for things that doesn't even concern at all the real security of its people at all in reality.
Was starting a war against Iraq really that relevant to the security of the United States? I don't think so. Was killing Saddam vital for the American security vital of the security of the United States? Absolutely not. Does American security need to be maintained by torturing and humiliating sexually these detainees in Abu Ghraib? Quite the contrary. That is only putting far more menace against the security of the United States, for sure.
What did you think this movie was going to be? It HAD to be political. The whole "War On Terror" is nothing but a political fiction.
shareAre you responding to me thomasdosborneii? Did I say that I didn't think this would be or should be political? The last post I made was more about the relation between film and politics in a general sense, not necessarily about this film.
sharedvg77--I got the impression that you were rejecting this film out of hand strictly because it was political instead of artistic (and maybe because underneath that, its politics didn't agree with your politics--although I don't really know that, but some were alluding to that by intimating that you are a Republican). I couldn't see how this film could be anything BUT political and that would be clear from the very beginning. Even its advertising poster demonstrates that with its tag line, "The War on Terror will be photographed", taking its cue from the concept out of the sixties and the Vietnam era of "The revolution won't be televised", where here Morris posits a political opposition between the War on Terror and the revolutionary act of photographing what was going on at Abu Ghraib.
I see that some reviewers or commenters (even those who have actually interviewed Morris) continue to view the soldiers who were punished as a few bad apples, rather than being those who revealed to the world that what was going on was systemic. How can they be "a few bad apples" when they were following orders from the highest level? Should they have started a revolution of their own right there in that prison? I hardly would have thought them capable of doing something like that, nor would most of us be.
To tell you the truth, though, I got so much more out of some other clips that have been shown on the Internet (connected with the New Yorker interviews and film festival) than I did from those relatively few that were selected for inclusion in this film. (I forget how many hours of interview footage Morris filmed, measured by dozens of hours, I believe). It seems to me that there was one clip I saw that was NOT included in the film, and to me it was key, and that was Sabrina Harmon (if I remember her name correctly) explaining that she felt that including herself in the photographs was required in order to make the pictures actual proof that what she had been describing in her letters to her wife (I know that word in that context bothers a lot of people) back at home was true, that she really was there and what she was describing truly was what she saw.
One of Morris's main points, I believe, is that maybe you are not really seeing in these photos what you THINK you are seeing, and your understanding of these soldiers is not correct. I remember when I first saw those photos on the Internet (how long ago, now?), it was quite easy for me to vilify those American soldiers who were grinning and doing the "thumbs up", and so on. They sure seemed to be going along the program, or maybe were even responsible for it. I think now, though, we understand that some of them, at least, were more involved in a confusing mess that they had very little control over. Imprisoning THEM and making them the fall guys for this whole thing was an injustice.
If Errol Morris wanted to make a film about perception and reality with regard to photography, he should have picked a less explosive topic. I saw the film and talked with Morris, and his presentation, by focusing as it does on the subtlety of photography as both the truth and a lie, misses the point that whether or not these MPs were scapegoats (and surely they were), they participated in some very unsavory acts that two of them (Frederick and Graner) thought up. Piling naked men into a pyramid is not written in any Army manual. The photos may be a lot of things - evidence of a cover-up, evidence that these MPs are depraved, evidence of a murder, a means to railroad the MPs - but they also are a humiliating thing for the subjects of the photographs to endure. That was one thing Morris didn't talk about.
http://ferdyonfilms.com
I think you made a very good point, Pokerface11, when you said "participated in some very unsavory acts that two of them...thought up" and "photos may be...evidence that these MPs are depraved...." Your comment made me remember a few photographs shown in the movie that have absolutely nothing to do with showing the world the awful things that were being done to the Iraqis in that prison. Instead of humiliated prisoners, these few photos were of some of the MPs fooling around with EACH OTHER, feigning sexual acts between them with bananas coming out of their zippers and kneeling down as if one were giving oral sex to the other (to the banana) and having some kind of cream smeared all over the kneeling one's face. It gives the impression that these soldiers were bored out of their minds, left unsupervised, and how they passed the time was play with physical sexual innuendo and take pictures of it...MOSTLY with the prisoners, but also with themselves.
The only thing I can conclude from that is that this was yet one more example of how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now I am thinking that since this prison had an atmosphere that came from the higher ups that "we can really do anything we like with these prisoners" ("we don't care about the Geneva Convention, etc.") and since the MPs apparently were given the task of doing things to help break these prisoners down (maybe), they took advantage of their low-level power by playing these depraved and humiliating games with the prisoners like wanton boys might act out with plastic toys or play with helpless small animals.
I very much agree with you. Although Morris tried to make the point that these naive young people did what they did because they had gotten the message from higher up that it was standard operating procedure, what came through strongest to me was their vacuity--their lack of moral resources or higher ideas (Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil"). Most of them claimed that they had had some qualms, but it never occurred to any of them to do something about it, and several said that they can't imagine how they could have reacted differently since they were just doing their jobs. What does it say about our culture that we have raised children like this?
At least one young person did react differently, someone who was doing his job. I I would have liked to hear the whistle-blower's story in this film.
Anyway, while I am starting to get tired of some of Morris's stylistic mannerisms--the sinister Danny Elfman score, the reliance on overly-dramatic, odd-angle or blurred re-enactments--I thought the fact that the film otherwise relied exclusively on footage of the people involved having their say was powerful.
thomasdosborneii:
I started this post a while back, before I knew anything about the film other than that the imdb plot description. I was not dismissing the film by any means or expecting it to be anything but political. I was simply expressing nostalgia for some of Morris' earlier movies like Gates of Heaven or Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control. The title of my post, however, was "I'm sure this will be good," so that should make it pretty obvious that I was not dismissing it.
As far as my own politics go, they are pretty leftish, and I am sure I would agree with most of Morris's views; I just worry that he may be preaching to the choir a little bit. People on this board have suggested that I am a republican because, I think, they are morons who have bought in to this left/right, redstate/bluestate dichotomy that seems to be omnipresent everywhere now. One can hardly express criticism these days without being called a soulless liberal or a crazy conservative by someone.
Anyway, I plan to see this movie, and I expect to like it. I just doubt that I will like it as much as Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control, which is one of my all time favorite movies.
dvg77--see what you started! That's one of the things I enjoy about these message boards, how a comment one wrote years ago may be resurrected and commented on years later. That especially happens with independent or foreign films that people don't get around to seeing right away like they do the blockbusters.
I agree with you about the assumed branding on ones political persuasion. I have gotten that, too, and people are amazingly wrong almost always. For example, I, like many, many people, I think, tend to be socially liberal while economically conservative, so it is almost impossible for me to make a decision between "Democrat" or "Republican" (although these days I figure they turn out being mostly the same, but that's another story).
It would be interesting to read how you actually like Standard Operating Procedure once you have a chance to see it. The more I think about it, and discussions here on this board with various points of view have helped me, the less I feel I understand what Morris IS saying. To me, the whole Iraq war is actually an enigma. While I can view the U.S. as an invader and aggressor and we are destroying too many lives and spending way too much money on an agenda that doesn't seem to profit us, the people, or help our standing in the world, on the other hand, there do seem to actually be terrorist cells in the world and they do represent some kind of potentially dangerous force. I am not a military man, so I really don't have a lot of good ideas as to how to combat a "hidden" and very spread out enemy, if that is, indeed what we are facing.
Morris's movie did not really solve anything for me concerning Abu Ghraib. Because of his film I think we now know more isolated facts about the situation, but not yet enough to help us come to a conclusion to help us out of the conundrum of it all.
While I liked the movie, I liked other clips better that were shown on-line on the New Yorker Magazine website, and I hugely enjoyed the discussion and interview with Morris that was conducted by his colleague and co-writer of the book coming out on the subject. THAT whole thing struck me as brilliant, and I have pre-ordered the book, because it is a fascinating subject and Morris did end up with tons more film footage than he could ever have put into one movie.
I can't believe people are contrasting Errol Morris to Michael Moore, they are both COMPLETELY different. That's like saying, I do prefer Ang Lee's dramas much more than Rob Zombies's.
As for Errol Morris, I contend his best film is his most conservative; The Thin Blue Line.
"The whole "War On Terror" is nothing but a political fiction."
Somebody gets it.
"Dont burn the flag; wash it."
-Norman Thomas