Lew Crippen
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Messages
- 12,060
Actually I just watched Fog of War last night again to think about this a bit. Other than the fact that Errol Morris is a far better filmmaker than Michael Moore, there are a few specifics that we might consider.
·Although the films sort of seem to be about the same type subjects (controversial wars), they are fundamentally about very different things and have very different objectives. In Fog of War, Errol Morris is considering the life (mostly public) f a major public figure of the mid-twentieth century. Not only that he is making a film where the focus is not biographical, but auto-biographical. Where the subject presents his own view of himself and his actions and their consequences.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film that is all about Bush and his (in Moore’s view) incompetence. More so, why he not the man to be running the country.
·This means that Morris allows McNamara to speak for himself and present his view of himself and his conduct in two wars. Along the way we get some fascinating views of other personalities—men like Curtis LeMay. So Morris, because is making a different film can let McNamara speak for himself.
But Moore is not starting out with an objective of letting Bush (or anyone) present his own story. His intent is to show Bush as Moore sees Bush, not as Bush sees Bush. Morris however is showing us how McNamara sees McNamara, not how Morris (or anyone) sees McNamara.
·But is Morris’ film balanced (I won’t even bother to consider Moore’s here, as we will accept that his film is not balanced). I would suggest that it is as unbalanced as Moore’s film. For example, although there is some recordings of meetings to back up McNamara’s claims, we never get any challenge to anything he says. What we are seeing is Robert S. McNamara’s view of his (and others’) conduct. And we are getting it from the most disinterested party possible. And so unchallenged that it hardly apparent that anyone is asking questions.
Who asks any questions of McNamara’s view of what Curtis LeMay wanted to do during the Cuban missile crises, for example. No one—we just take McNamara’s word for it and the movie goes on.
So in the end, while the movie is no more balanced than Fahrenheit 9/11, Morris does what he intends: he lets McNamara speak for himself.
·Now here comes the tricky part (and I think political persuasion makes no difference). One begins to wonder why a person like McNamara, who was so controversial and involved in so very many controversial decisions is not questioned more sharply. I sit on the edge of my chair wanting someone to say, ‘but wait, how about… ’. The opposite with Moore, where one wonders why everything is reduced to such black and white simplicity. This I think is one reason why Morris is the better filmmaker.
·Morris however, has it both ways. He lets McNamara present his own view, but as the movie goes along, we begin to be aware that there is someone else in the room asking questions. And the unseen interviewer’s comments become a litter bit more distinct as the movie progresses. Until at the end when McNamara either cannot or will not answer the final few, but most important points, we come to a very mixed view of the man. Even though he has presented his own case, we don’t necessarily believe that he has even been honest with himself the whole time (as introspective as he clearly is).
I did not bother to go into how the two filmmakers use outside graphical elements to make their points and other items. In the end, Moore has laid a charge at the administration’s feet that is a mixed bag: some things can be challenged for cause, but some things are hard to impossible for anyone to dismiss. Morris however has let McNamara charge himelf.
·Although the films sort of seem to be about the same type subjects (controversial wars), they are fundamentally about very different things and have very different objectives. In Fog of War, Errol Morris is considering the life (mostly public) f a major public figure of the mid-twentieth century. Not only that he is making a film where the focus is not biographical, but auto-biographical. Where the subject presents his own view of himself and his actions and their consequences.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film that is all about Bush and his (in Moore’s view) incompetence. More so, why he not the man to be running the country.
·This means that Morris allows McNamara to speak for himself and present his view of himself and his conduct in two wars. Along the way we get some fascinating views of other personalities—men like Curtis LeMay. So Morris, because is making a different film can let McNamara speak for himself.
But Moore is not starting out with an objective of letting Bush (or anyone) present his own story. His intent is to show Bush as Moore sees Bush, not as Bush sees Bush. Morris however is showing us how McNamara sees McNamara, not how Morris (or anyone) sees McNamara.
·But is Morris’ film balanced (I won’t even bother to consider Moore’s here, as we will accept that his film is not balanced). I would suggest that it is as unbalanced as Moore’s film. For example, although there is some recordings of meetings to back up McNamara’s claims, we never get any challenge to anything he says. What we are seeing is Robert S. McNamara’s view of his (and others’) conduct. And we are getting it from the most disinterested party possible. And so unchallenged that it hardly apparent that anyone is asking questions.
Who asks any questions of McNamara’s view of what Curtis LeMay wanted to do during the Cuban missile crises, for example. No one—we just take McNamara’s word for it and the movie goes on.
So in the end, while the movie is no more balanced than Fahrenheit 9/11, Morris does what he intends: he lets McNamara speak for himself.
·Now here comes the tricky part (and I think political persuasion makes no difference). One begins to wonder why a person like McNamara, who was so controversial and involved in so very many controversial decisions is not questioned more sharply. I sit on the edge of my chair wanting someone to say, ‘but wait, how about… ’. The opposite with Moore, where one wonders why everything is reduced to such black and white simplicity. This I think is one reason why Morris is the better filmmaker.
·Morris however, has it both ways. He lets McNamara present his own view, but as the movie goes along, we begin to be aware that there is someone else in the room asking questions. And the unseen interviewer’s comments become a litter bit more distinct as the movie progresses. Until at the end when McNamara either cannot or will not answer the final few, but most important points, we come to a very mixed view of the man. Even though he has presented his own case, we don’t necessarily believe that he has even been honest with himself the whole time (as introspective as he clearly is).
I did not bother to go into how the two filmmakers use outside graphical elements to make their points and other items. In the end, Moore has laid a charge at the administration’s feet that is a mixed bag: some things can be challenged for cause, but some things are hard to impossible for anyone to dismiss. Morris however has let McNamara charge himelf.
