I'm glad I saw this. It was heartening to see dozens Iraqis express such optimism and determination. I'd recommend the movie to pretty much anyone, along with "Control Room," "9/11" and pretty much any other documentary or reportage on America's roles in the post-9/11 world.
Just make sure you have some idea of who made the movie and why, and with whose money.
Given what we know about Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon, is it really so hard to believe that Bush administration or some arm of the US government was involved in shaping the message in "Voices of Iraq"? One IMDb user suggested this and got shouted down with something like "Michael Moore something something something U.N. Oil-For-Food Program something something something anti-Bush liberal media bias." Come on, guys, if you want to talk about bias and undisclosed motivations, you've got to do more than call names. The PR firm pushing the movie did the same thing for the "Army of One" commercials. That may not be damning evidence of a connection, but it does seem interesting enough to check out.
One of the producers, Archie Drury, is a Democrat and a former Marine, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. If you want to read into his motivations, I suppose you could go in either directions with him.
What I found suspicious was several Iraqis repeating the theory that democracy in Iraq would spread throughout the Middle East. That's not a harebrained pipe-dream, and it's possible that dozens or even millions of Iraqis believe it, but it's also strikingly similar to what the Bush administration is saying. It's similar enough at least to make me want to do a little more research.
And what's up with, like, 95% of the people in the film saying that America's so great? Jeez, man, the U.S. gets even better ratings in Iraq than it gets here at home. Sure, it's plausible. Iraqis are right to thank the U.S. military for freeing them from Saddam's regime. The important questions here, though, are whether they ARE actually thanking the U.S. for this, and whether or not they THINK they're better off. Obviously, at least 50 people out of 20 or 30 million say they're better off.
But a lot of them think that Saddam was great and the U.S. sucks. They may be wrong or even delusional, but you've at least got to put their comments in your "Voices of Iraq" film alongside the positive comments if you want to call it a real documentary. A survey conducted by Gallup in April 2004--the same time as the cameras were going around--found that the numbers of Iraqis who said the U.S. presence had improved their lives was about the same as those who said it hadn't. (Unless you're convinced that the Christian Science Monitor is a front for Michael Moore Inc., you may want to brush up on recent history at www.csmonitor.com/2004/0429/dailyUpdate.html).
A film that includes those voices but explains why they're wrong is a documentary with a clear point of view. A film that leaves them out in a wildly disproportionate way is propaganda. Including only one or two complaints in a propumentary doesn't reflect reality, guys. Somebody had an agenda here. That's fine--it was Somebody's prerogative. I just wish Somebody had revealed his own identity. "The People of Iraq" starred in this film. They probably did so at some risk to their lives. Bless them. But the producers and editors, presumably the ones who chose what interviews to include, were named "Drury," "Kunert," "Manes," "Robison," "Mark," and "Russell." Iraqis? Give me a friggin' break.
Just make sure you have some idea of who made the movie and why, and with whose money.
Given what we know about Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon, is it really so hard to believe that Bush administration or some arm of the US government was involved in shaping the message in "Voices of Iraq"? One IMDb user suggested this and got shouted down with something like "Michael Moore something something something U.N. Oil-For-Food Program something something something anti-Bush liberal media bias." Come on, guys, if you want to talk about bias and undisclosed motivations, you've got to do more than call names. The PR firm pushing the movie did the same thing for the "Army of One" commercials. That may not be damning evidence of a connection, but it does seem interesting enough to check out.
One of the producers, Archie Drury, is a Democrat and a former Marine, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. If you want to read into his motivations, I suppose you could go in either directions with him.
What I found suspicious was several Iraqis repeating the theory that democracy in Iraq would spread throughout the Middle East. That's not a harebrained pipe-dream, and it's possible that dozens or even millions of Iraqis believe it, but it's also strikingly similar to what the Bush administration is saying. It's similar enough at least to make me want to do a little more research.
And what's up with, like, 95% of the people in the film saying that America's so great? Jeez, man, the U.S. gets even better ratings in Iraq than it gets here at home. Sure, it's plausible. Iraqis are right to thank the U.S. military for freeing them from Saddam's regime. The important questions here, though, are whether they ARE actually thanking the U.S. for this, and whether or not they THINK they're better off. Obviously, at least 50 people out of 20 or 30 million say they're better off.
But a lot of them think that Saddam was great and the U.S. sucks. They may be wrong or even delusional, but you've at least got to put their comments in your "Voices of Iraq" film alongside the positive comments if you want to call it a real documentary. A survey conducted by Gallup in April 2004--the same time as the cameras were going around--found that the numbers of Iraqis who said the U.S. presence had improved their lives was about the same as those who said it hadn't. (Unless you're convinced that the Christian Science Monitor is a front for Michael Moore Inc., you may want to brush up on recent history at www.csmonitor.com/2004/0429/dailyUpdate.html).
A film that includes those voices but explains why they're wrong is a documentary with a clear point of view. A film that leaves them out in a wildly disproportionate way is propaganda. Including only one or two complaints in a propumentary doesn't reflect reality, guys. Somebody had an agenda here. That's fine--it was Somebody's prerogative. I just wish Somebody had revealed his own identity. "The People of Iraq" starred in this film. They probably did so at some risk to their lives. Bless them. But the producers and editors, presumably the ones who chose what interviews to include, were named "Drury," "Kunert," "Manes," "Robison," "Mark," and "Russell." Iraqis? Give me a friggin' break.