--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein <cellar47@y...>
wrote:
> No it's with the films. If you're interviewing
> McNamarra and allow him to get away with lying about
> the Gulf of Tonkin incidnet you're in a world of
> trouble -- with those who know th truth.

Perhaps you're right. I don't know as much about these events as
others including yourself so I can only take your word for it that
this Morris mis-represents the facts. My own take on this film is
that Morris tries to let McNamara speak for himself while at the same
time trying to expose fissures in McNamara's self-portrayal (via
startling jumpcuts in the interview footage mixed with floridly
assembled stock footage illustrations of McNamara's points, and of
course the "lessons" McNamara imparts that become increasingly
dubious and contradictory as they accumulate). Many of Morris' films
have tried to straddle the mystery of how people present themselves,
trying to be both sympathetic and critical at once. I don't think
McNamara gets nailed in the way you would like, but I don't think he
gets exonerated either... at least I find it a worthwhile argument
(if not a bit dour and pessimistic) that Morris is saying that the
McNamara's failings -- the limitations of human perception and
judgment -- could very well be anyone's.

> Well "Dogville" is a work of pure fiction whereas
> "Elephant" is a re-imagining of Columbine in Portland.
> Rather different things IMO.
>
True, but I don't think that was the point I was making. I was
saying that both films seem occupied with questions about perception
and narrative framing, and what moral implications these have for
both the filmmaker and audience (I still can't forget how the packed
NY Film Fest audience cheered the DOGVILLE massacre like a
bloodthirsty throng at a gladiatorial match -- it scared the crap out
of me but convinced me that von Trier was on to something).

shit, I'm going to be late for OSAMA.

Kevin