akeason1 Reviews

Remote Control War (2011 TV Movie)

Raises good questions but they are buried under several problems

[4/10 · 23 January 2012]

This documentary does bring up some important issues of using remote control and autonomous weapons, especially issues of accountability and oversight. However, many of these issues seem to be drowned under rather disjointed arguments and heavy focus on bigger issues that are not unique to drones. For example, much is made over the fear that insurgent fighters get from the buzzing Reaper Drones, though I fail to understand any appreciable difference between being killed from miles above and away by a drone compared to being killed manned helicopter gunship or a cruise missile. Also, the issue of accidental civilian deaths caused by manned war machines and the reduction in accidents that pure machines could bring about is hardly discussed. All of these have great levels of detachment.

As to the faceless victims the documentary initially speaks about or Taliban fighters who claim drone usage is cowardly, one can also argue that booby-traps and tripwire IEDs are just as anonymous and immoral and significantly older, and therefore the issues of faceless warfare they bring up are indeed older than drone warfare. The issue of just or unjust war is important, but not limited to the field of drones.

Had the documentary ended at 45 minutes I still would have given it 6 stars for raising some real issues over how and if drones should be used, but I am docking it 2 stars for the last few minutes. The image of a swarm of drones descending on New York City was frankly ridiculous and looked lifted from a bad scifi movie.

The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (2011)

Excellent look at a controversial historical topic

[9/10 · 22 April 2011]

The Pruitt-Igoe housing projects are currently remembered as one of the worst disasters in federal housing history. There has been ample debate among academics as to why, ranging from architectural problems to poor planning to demographic shifts in the city of St. Louis. This new documentary mostly looks at the latter two ideas and does not interview architects but rather former residents of the projects. Their stories vary from uplifting to tragic and detail the many problems with Pruitt-Igoe. Mostly the film suggests that the depopulation of the city following the explosion of suburban society in the 1950s is to blame for the project's failure. With fewer people there was less of a need for the massive buildings and with a smaller tax base it was impossible to maintain the expensive structures. What the film does show is that most of the people who lived there were decent folks hoping to make a new life, and that it was mostly the outside world that undermined the projects. The director uses several excellent shots including the image of the collapsing towers (they were demolished in the 1970s). Overall he does a superb job of telling a very intriguing and moving story while stimulating a debate on the future of federal housing.

Hell and Back Again (2011)

A great documentary that will bring out different things from different people

[9/10 · 22 April 2011]

Many documentaries have some sort of bias, whether it be "pro" or "anti" something or other. "To Hell and Back Again" is different in that it will probably expose one's opinions without really having one itself. The documentary follows the life of Sgt Nathan Harris and his wife Ashley who live in a small town in North Carolina. Nathan is a marine who, on his third tour of duty, is wounded in his leg and has to go through extensive and painful therapy. Danfung Dennis cuts between these images and those he took earlier of Nathan leading his platoon in an intense tour in Afghanistan. The contrasts are incredible and help emphasize everything that a marine goes through both abroad and at home. Some images are severe, such as the deaths of an American LCP and an Afghan soldier (both die off screen but you do see their bodies moments after)

The footage of Nathan at home, however, is what may bring out very different responses. He is obviously in extreme pain and has a harder life, yet is still very gung-ho and dreams of a full recovery and return to the front line (which got a gasp of disbelief by some in my theater). He also is very interested in firearms, and there are several shots of him and his pistols which he keeps near his bed and which he trains his wife how to use. She, meanwhile, must deal with the stress of caring for an injured husband while still performing her daily routine. Together, they see people in their community (who are quite positive), the marine doctors (who are hopeful for his recovery), and attend a very sad memorial for recently KIA soldiers at the base.

To anyone who is staunchly pro-military, the footage should be quite uplifting. Nathan is determined to recover (and he does noticeably improve though as of April 2011 is not fully healed) and the support of his community and especially his wife is heartwarming. Those who are not so gung-ho will probably be shocked by the footage. In the Q&A with the director and Ashley after the screening, one woman asked Ashley if she was scared for her life at all (a reference to Nathan's constant gun wielding, which she wasn't). Regardless of your leanings though this is an excellent documentary and should not be missed.

The War on Democracy (2007)

Strong images and stories encapsulated in bad writing

[3/10 · 7 January 2011]

The War on Democracy is a bit hard to follow, both because of some intense story and thanks to a somewhat confusing execution. The idea behind the work is that it is an examination of mostly-American backed efforts to undermine popular movements in nations throughout Latin America.

It is no secret anywhere that the United States, like any major power in history, has intervened in foreign affairs in the name of its own national interests. In fact, Pilgir interviews a retired CIA agent who argues just that. The retired agent claims the USA did brutal things for what Washington would argue was a greater good. Many other individuals interviewed, especially those that suffered like an American nun who was tortured and raped by 1980's central American government squads, would argue that stability was and is not worth cruelty and death. Had Pilgir based his film on that argument and explored it much further (with more in-depth arguments on both sides), I would have doubled the number of stars despite his rather vocal and frankly preachy opinions and regardless of the the fact he delves no deeper in history than 1948. But he doesn't.

Instead, Pilgir devotes the first half of his film to an overly rosy depiction of a modern politician, Hugo Chavez, and modern Caracas. After a while one may wonder of "South America" just means "Venezuela." Whether he is good or bad, Chavez is a modern politician and pushing him so hard so early does not help the film (a shorter explanation of the coup and counter-coup in 2002 would have worked better). Eventually, Pilgir does go into some history on American involvement in Guatemala and Chile, but hardly in any detail save for the tour of Pinochet's stadium turned torture chamber. He has a couple of very short and edited interviews cut against his own, much more explained, opinions. His perspective is inconsistent too. Chilean poor are written off because their government is friendly with the west, but Bolivian and Venezuelan poor are considered heroes because they are fighting the good fight against capitalism. Brazil, Argentina (which fought open war with Britain in the 1980s), Mexico (invaded by the USA in 1846, 1914, and 1916), and Colombia are all ignored save for ominous implications that the US supported non-democratic governments there at one time or another. There is no mention of historically vital points like the Monroe Doctrine and the Cold War is quickly dismissed as American paranoia. Even the still active and divisive issue of the drug wars is forgotten.

Instead we get fuzzy camera lenses, a few sound bites from Fox News, quick cuts to what we are supposed to believe is either a brutal fascist scene (armed guys in fatigues) or an uplifting socialist one, heavy pull-on-heartstrings editing, and a frankly self-righteous and paternalistic tone that in some ways undermines the very people its trying to support by placing far more on their shoulders than they want or need. The poor of Latin America have been mistreated for centuries, by indigenous empires, Spain, Creole caudillos and juntas (which are common in Latin American History but never mentioned by Pilgir), Europe, and especially the USA, but I do not believe this film gives a good or even adequate account of that.