This documentary has been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. So far, I've only seen two of the nominees, so I really cannot speculate who is the odds-on favorite.
Last year there was a lot of hubbub in the US about the nomination of "Zero Dark Thirty" in the Best Picture category. Many disliked how it glorified war and some thought it endorsed torture. Well, "Dirty Wars" is like the opposite of the jingoistic "Zero". Instead of endorsing the war on terrorism, it is very, very critical and voices concerns for the sort of shadow government that has developed. Much of it really made me think.
The film begins in Afghanistan. Jeremy Scahill is a reporter and decides to leave the safe confines of the US forces-escorted press corps and look into what the natives think of this war. He discovers a family whose family members were mowed down by accident and investigates what happened and why. This was by far the most compelling and best made portion of the film and was a great way to capture the viewers' interest.
Later, Scahill looks at the war on terror in a MUCH broader sense. Some of this was very compelling (such as assassination contracts on some Americans as well as how far-reaching American hit squads have gone). Some of this just seemed too broad and should have been eliminated in order to make the topic more specific and focused (such as the time he foolishly spend recently in Somalia--a crazy dangerous place and it wasn't needed for the documentary). While I didn't always agree with all of Scahill's concerns, quite a few bothered me as well and I found the film worth my time. My biggest complaint, by the way, isn't that some of the stuff was irrelevant or hyperbolic but that too often the film seemed all about Scahill and not the victims of this war on terror or about how aggression breeds a new generation of jihadists. Still, as I mentioned above, it is worth seeing--warts and all.
By the way, a better film covering some of this same material was last years' Oscar nominee in the same category, "The Gatekeepers". This one is a must-see picture. And, while it's about Israel and not the United States, it draws the same conclusion that you CANNOT wipe out jihadists and trying to do so only creates new generations. And, it makes this argument far more convincingly as it's not the opinion of one reporter but by many past leaders of Israel's Shin Bet--their elite anti-terror squad. And, while my opinion carries no weight at all, I think "The Gatekeepers" should have gotten the Oscar.
Last year there was a lot of hubbub in the US about the nomination of "Zero Dark Thirty" in the Best Picture category. Many disliked how it glorified war and some thought it endorsed torture. Well, "Dirty Wars" is like the opposite of the jingoistic "Zero". Instead of endorsing the war on terrorism, it is very, very critical and voices concerns for the sort of shadow government that has developed. Much of it really made me think.
The film begins in Afghanistan. Jeremy Scahill is a reporter and decides to leave the safe confines of the US forces-escorted press corps and look into what the natives think of this war. He discovers a family whose family members were mowed down by accident and investigates what happened and why. This was by far the most compelling and best made portion of the film and was a great way to capture the viewers' interest.
Later, Scahill looks at the war on terror in a MUCH broader sense. Some of this was very compelling (such as assassination contracts on some Americans as well as how far-reaching American hit squads have gone). Some of this just seemed too broad and should have been eliminated in order to make the topic more specific and focused (such as the time he foolishly spend recently in Somalia--a crazy dangerous place and it wasn't needed for the documentary). While I didn't always agree with all of Scahill's concerns, quite a few bothered me as well and I found the film worth my time. My biggest complaint, by the way, isn't that some of the stuff was irrelevant or hyperbolic but that too often the film seemed all about Scahill and not the victims of this war on terror or about how aggression breeds a new generation of jihadists. Still, as I mentioned above, it is worth seeing--warts and all.
By the way, a better film covering some of this same material was last years' Oscar nominee in the same category, "The Gatekeepers". This one is a must-see picture. And, while it's about Israel and not the United States, it draws the same conclusion that you CANNOT wipe out jihadists and trying to do so only creates new generations. And, it makes this argument far more convincingly as it's not the opinion of one reporter but by many past leaders of Israel's Shin Bet--their elite anti-terror squad. And, while my opinion carries no weight at all, I think "The Gatekeepers" should have gotten the Oscar.