I had hoped to watch the documentary film "Why We Fight" (2005) by Eugene Jarecki in the theater when I saw the previews for it, but now I have finally watched it on dvd. Though it presents a variety of viewpoints, ranging from the pilots who dropped the first bombs on Iraq, to neocon pundits, like Richard Pearl and Billy Krystal, who support a policy of so-called premptive strike, to Chalmers Johnson, an East Asian scholar, who is now a critic of American militarism, it's evident the director sides with those who criticize American militarism.The tone of the film is moderate, not polemic, satiric, and confrontational, like Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911." Though less entertaining and humorous than Moore's film, Jarecki does a better job than Moore in dispassionately informing the viewer about what forces are compelling America to wage war abroad. Some of the politicians and people interviewed in the film claim war is waged for the sake of freedom, while critics argue it is either for the sake of power.
Jarecki focuses on how in America after WW II the weapons industry has itself become an invisible force that determines policy, that is, politicians don't dare question it for fear of losing voters. The film begins with old footage of President Eisenhower warning of the possibility that the arms industry will usurp political control, and includes a scene to illustrate its a fact, with one senator after another thankful that the arms industry is operating in their state. Addressing a largely empty auditorium, one senator, Byrd, observes that the issues of going to war have largely remained ignored, and it's obvious that virtually no does care to listen to him. Thus, Eisenhower, emerges as a hero of the film, or rather a politician like Eisenhower, someone who has the integrity to speak his mind, which no other American president has done, or been allowed to do so, regarding the collusion between the arms industry and American military and Congress.
And the best supporting actors or stand-ins for Jarecki's position are several commentators, who offer incisive remarks about American foreign policy--Chalmers Johnson, Gwynn Dyer, a military historian who is critical of American military, and Charles Lewis, the author of several books about American politics.
Jarecki also includes several individuals who lose their trust of the American government during the Iraq war from 2003 to 2005. One a retired policeman, who turns from a fervent supporter to doubter of the war, all the more because he lost a son in a Twin Tower, another a career soldier who balked at adding talking points in briefings about the causes of the war that were misleading, and so quit. With these individuals, Jarecki shows how supporters of American policy have come to question it, but unfortunately, the film also observes that there is little can and is being done to question and stop policies that aren't in the national interest.
Jarecki uses scenes that implicitly comment on other scenes quite effectively. For example, he interviews the air force pilots, who beam with pride about their bombing mission, though lose their smile when they explain that they just do their job which may kill innocent people, and then he offers scenes of the devastation wrought by the bombs dropped, which included innocent victims. It's especially moving to see the morgue director interviewed, and who can't hold back his own tears when talking about the people who died.
Some of the interviewees, I believe, could have been left out, like Pearl, on the right, and Gore, on the left, for both tend to make simplistic overstatements. While interesting in itself, the irony of a Vietnamese refugee who came to US, and who now works in the missile industry, could have been replaced with someone who provides us with more background information. Also, the young man who joins the military constitutes a well done portrait, but does not contribute directly to the film's underlying thesis of how the military-industrial-congressional complex is providing the means and impetus to fight.
Finally, and this may just be my personal reaction, but I think there is too much footage devoted to fighter planes in flight or on the ground. Doubtless, the director is engaging in a form of mock-critical appreciation, simulating awe, but in fact we sense that he is critical of the nefarious destructive force of these planes.
Perhaps to make his film more engaging and entertaining, with human interest stories and provocative statements, rather than a dry, but informative commentary, which some of it is indeed, Jarecki included this material. One realizes that is difficult to make a documentary that is both entertaining and informative, especially on a topic, like American foreign policy.
Moore was criticized for making Farenheit 911 too satiric and entertaining, but how else can a documentary feature film attract a large audience without making its message appealing? Jarecki was criticized for his film because it was too dry, more suited for showing as a television documentary, and too diffuse. Inevitably, Jarecki's fim was not a box office success, but perhaps, and hopefully, Jarecki's film will find a much larger audience distributed as a dvd; this format, I believe, is the most appropriate for viewing it.
A few links to the film and its director: Photo: Why We Fight was also the title of a series of US WWII propoganda films by the director Frank Capra.
news program of PBS Now:http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/jarecki.html#
more interviews at a conference: http://www.watsoninstitute.org/news_detail.cfm?id=346
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/gs/Transcripts/Jarecki-Transcript1.htm
interview BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/eugene-jarecki.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment