Chekhov's Mistress
Why You Should See “Why We Fight”
If you’ve ever thought the term “military-industrial complex“ was worn out or the product of liberal conspiracy theorists, you should see the film “Why We Fight.” You will feel the inevitability of our Roman-like militaristic expansion, ingrained as it is in the economic fabric of our country. You will – you should – be frightened by what you see here.
Eugene Jarecki, who also made “The Trials of Henry Kissinger,” is a great documentary filmmaker for the simple reason that he knows how to build an argument – dramatically but not sensationally – over the course of a film. In our almost comically polarized country filled with opportunistic pundits and personality based political gurus, it’s refreshing to see Jarecki’s films because they are dialectic instead of bombastic. I don’t believe that he presents any new information in this film, yet what he accomplishes, with an impressively broad list of interviewees, is to encapsulate over 45 years of history in such a way that today’s events lose any sense of randomness.
Why We Fight begins and ends with Dwight Eisenhower’s sober farewell address when he coined the term “military-industrial complex.” In between, Jarecki makes his case that Eisenhower’s prophesy has come true in even greater proportion than ever dreamed. While the film is centrally critical of the “Bush Doctrine” and the war in Iraq, it is not necessarily a partisan argument because all of our congress is indicted in the economic forces behind what seems like inevitable expansion. That is to say, Iraq is but one piece in a much larger puzzle, one that appears to have no end.
As well as make that argument, Jarecki shows our citizenry’s complacency and utter lack of understanding of world events. Reflecting the fantasy we live here in the US, one bomb-making factory worker says “I’d rather be making Santa’s toys.” Most others default to the standard calls of freedom and democracy with little sense of their meaning.
To be critical, you always have to wonder what footage was left out that might not have made the argument so cogently or contradicted the film’s central themes (as I always do when seeing a Michael Moore film), yet Jarecki is thoughtful and persuasive enough that you are left with a sense of wanting to know more, to feed your own knowledge of the subject. I might suggest Peter Smith’s Talons of the Eagle, which, although focused on the US’s relationship with Latin America, gives a broad framework and historical perspective of our attitude toward the outside world.
For a nearly opposite viewpoint on the film, see this review at IndieWire.
comments
No CommentsCreative Commons License Deed Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
You are free:
- to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
-
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
-
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
- For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
- Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
- Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.
This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license):
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/legalcode
This site employs rank-denial and other anti-spam measures.
Your link here will do nothing for your rankings or traffic. Off-topic comments will be deleted.
Previous entry: What’s Not to Love?
About this Post
- Posted by: Bud Parr
- Date: February 19, 2007
- Filed Under:
Dismal/Dismaler: Econ/Politics
- Comments:0
- Links to this Post: Technorati
