New Iraq War Movie. - Writers Forum

Vargus · 08-06-2007, 06:28 PM

Released this week in Los Angeles Indy theartes. SF next week.

Film: Occupying Iraqâ€”What Went Wrong - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

From Newsweek Review:

Quote:

Lucidly, and without partisan rhetoric, Charles Ferguson's not-to-be-missed documentary, "No End in Sight," lays out the disastrous missteps of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The magnitude of the errors perpetrated by the Bush administration—ignorance, incompetence, arrogance, bad or nonexistent planning, cronyism and naiveté—can make you weep with anger. We hear about jobs in Iraq handed to the sons of Bush campaign donors, of the young woman put in charge of managing traffic in chaotic Baghdad despite never having studied traffic control or Arabic.

Quote:

Though Ferguson is a former senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (and a political-science professor at MIT), "No End in Sight" doesn't enter the debate over the rights and wrongs of the invasion. The director has said he initially supported the war. This movie, his first, never raises its voice, yet it is bursting with the barely contained rage of the men and women whose expertise and best intentions were betrayed at every turn. This powerhouse of a movie should be required viewing for every member of Congress. The executive branch is likely to avert its eyes.

From LA Weekly:

LA Weekly - Film/TV - Surge This - Rob Nelson - The Essential Online Resource for Los Angeles

Quote:

As the movie’s more begrudging admirers will likely acknowledge, Ferguson is no Michael Moore. His background is as a scholar and a Brookings wonk, and No End in Sight — his first film, amazingly — is less a work of investigation (or activism) than history. There’s no psychology in the movie (e.g., Dubya has daddy issues), and neither are there conspiracy theories (e.g., the war is about redrawing the Middle East map and further fueling Halliburton’s tank). On some level, it even endeavors to be a film without politics — and might be that if such a thing were possible.

Quote:

In the film’s straightforward narrative, nonexistent or, at best, hasty planning before and during the start of the war leads to Iraqi lawlessness and looting, allowed if not encouraged by an administration acting nearly without military advice. Iraqi culture — indeed, the world’s record of early civilization — is essentially decimated. Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz insist on maintaining troop levels at two or three times less than those recommended by Army generals. Mass civil disturbance ensues. American soldiers apprehend Iraqi “suspects” and deliver many to Abu Ghraib, where prisoners are tortured and otherwise abused. The Shiite militia rises to fill the power void. Paul Bremer is appointed head of the Coalition Provisional Authority and, consulting no one with military experience, swiftly aids the Iraqi insurgency by halting the formation of a sovereign government and instituting a de-Ba’athification policy that disenfranchises hordes of people. Then Bremer summarily disbands the Iraqi military, apparently under the assumption that a half million unemployed and armed men will be content to watch the war from the sidelines.

Der_Parvenu_Meister · 08-07-2007, 12:35 PM

Jihadi news reviews gave it a whopping four out of five explosions!

ClancyBoy · 08-07-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der_Parvenu_Meister

Jihadi news reviews gave it a whopping four out of five explosions!

People like you still exist? Please tell me you're joking.

Der_Parvenu_Meister · 08-07-2007, 03:14 PM

people your age still read clancy? tell me you're joking like, totally, duuuude.

Vargus · 08-07-2007, 10:35 PM

This movie is supposed to be way more thorough and sophisticated than anything Michael Moore has done and comes from someone originally in favor of the war. The fact that he lets events speak for themselves is something I often prefer in films, as well as books. I can't wait to see it.

Drzava · 08-07-2007, 11:02 PM

It's a shame that when we watch documentaries from someone actually educated they have to come with a disclaimer such as this:

Quote:

As the movie’s more begrudging admirers will likely acknowledge, Ferguson is no Michael Moore. His background is as a scholar and a Brookings wonk, and No End in Sight — his first film, amazingly — is less a work of investigation (or activism) than history. There’s no psychology in the movie (e.g., Dubya has daddy issues), and neither are there conspiracy theories (e.g., the war is about redrawing the Middle East map and further fueling Halliburton’s tank). On some level, it even endeavors to be a film without politics — and might be that if such a thing were possible.

What have we come to as a people when we're prefer to learn from entertainers rather than scholars?