It seems to be the season for political film-making, which is great because too much entertainment can rot your brains. :)
I had 'The Power of Nightmares' thrown my way by Pleiades. It's so interesting I thought it deserved a quick review.
The Power of Nightmares is a 3 part BBC documentary series that covers the evolution or rather devolution if you like of the ideas that led to 'September 11' and beyond. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11, this is a very un-polemical series of films considering its subject matter. It traces the origins of the Islamist thinkers to the 1950s, but also the Neo-Conservative thinkers back to the 1950s as well. From there, the film tracks how these beliefs bolstered actions that changed the course of public affairs that eventually led to the events of '9/11'.
What's it about?
First of all, it should be noted that the narrative of the film is in the tradition of British documentaries with the voice of God voice over going through it. The footage comprises of interviews with crucial members of groups who are central to the narrative interspersed with old news clips; yet in this film they come together in a more seamless telling. This is not a film that is trying to shock the audience into voting against George W Bush; it is a film that is trying to persuade the audience that perhaps the fear they have invested in the international terrorist network may have been way over the mark.
The film does not deny there are terrorists or that there are terror acts; the more important and perhaps contentious claim of the film is that perhaps that our very fear gives them more power and this in turn gives more power to our politicians to do things which compromise our rights.
The first episode traces the Egyptian Qatb through his stay in the USA and how he came to found the Islamist brotherhood in response to what he saw as the moral corruption of the liberal West. Parallel to this narrative is the story of Leo Strauss, who felt equally disturbed by liberalism and formulated a rather cynical prescription; that society needs to have its big myths such as Good Versus Evil in order to have moral cohesion. It's still the defining characteristic of 'Neo-Con' credo to thump the table with moral issues while doing some dirty stuff under the table.
The second episode covers how the Neo-Cons convinced Ronald Reagan into confronting the USSR and how it brought them together with the 'Freedom Fighters' of the Islamists in Afghanistan. From their transient alliance and through the fall of the USSR, they drew the same conclusion; that it was they who felled communism. Pretty funny when you think about the reality, but the show moves on from there into the third episode where the neo-cons go home to ally themselves with the Christian extreme right, then set about attacking Bill Clinton's presidency and then find themselves grossly out of favour with the public. In the meantime, the Islamists create wave upon wave of terror, only to find themselves marginalised and isolated.
Then, September 11 happens and both the Neo-Cons and the Islamists get their second shot. And so the politicians take to using fear of the terrorist as their electioneering tool. It's an interesting narrative that unfolds.
What's Good About It?
I guess what is most interesting about the films is that it seems entirely plausible that the force of ideas can shape history to the extent it claims. It's almost flattering to think that ideas could matter that much; that idealism can have one last go around before it gets dusted away where it belongs. You also walk away with a deep appreciation for the realism of such disparate men such as Henry Kissinger, George HW Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachev.
In turn you come to understand that the reason why the Neo-Con sitting next to you goes on and on about God is because they want you to believe in it so that they can sell you the battle between good and evil. In other words, the film exposes the deep cynicism and hypocrisy that the Neo-Cons love to use as their discourse of choice. The film makes you realise that the Neo Cons would sooner commit you to the crusade than give you stable government; because they need the crusade to feel important.
And the Islamists? They're not much better. They think that anybody in electoral politics is corrupt and fallen away from the true Muslim faith. Ergo they are no longer Muslim and can be killed outright. This logic then extends to anybody who votes in a democracy, because democracy itself is corrupt and un-Muslim. In fact the film goes into a lot of detail about Algeria in the 90s where the Islamist party ran for power with the electoral promise to ban future elections. How scary (and funny) is that?
The film covers each of these festering grounds with the sort of detached but almost anally retentive didacticism; and I have to admit it's good.
What's Bad About It?
I'm not much of a fan of these British documentaries that ploddingly tell stories. The story these films tell are abstract and interesting. The manner in which it unfolds is constrained by that style. What 'Fahrenheit 9/11' had was a stylistic panache rarely seen; a sort of reckless abandon towards stylistic consistency that was actually refreshing. Shame about the film. In this case, the content is so important, it seems to squash any ambitions for style the film could have had - at least that is the way it seems.
The other problem I have with this film is the fear that in trying to describe these abstractions, that perhaps the film maker might have simplified some of the ideas to the point that they have lost their subtle nuance. Now, I don't expect there to be a nuanced argument as to why it is good to have a 'Good Vs Evil' frame-work to couch wars; or why wanton, careless, provocative bombing civilians is somehow going to lead to a revolution; yet through the episodes I felt I was missing the more subtle point of why these thoughts and ideas that brought about such fanatical acts, were so persuasive to start with.
I mean, why is a nut-bar like say, Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney so convinced they're on the side of the 'Absolute Good'? How did that stupid process begin? It must have started somewhere. Well, the film explores the spaces from whence the arguments came without really coming to a sophisticated assessment of those arguments. It just simply states them in order to tell the story. In that sense, maybe there isn't enough content for 3 one-hour episodes.
Which is an odd thing to say because you do walk away thinking, 'boy that series had a lot in it'.
So There's No Such Thing As The International terrorist Ring?
According to the film, not in the way that you were told.
Yes there are a lot of angry Arab males out there, but they're not all taking orders from Osama or Al-Zawahiri.
This is probably the most interesting claim of the film. The US FBI needed to fit the terrorists into the provisions of the RICO laws that were created to target the mob; so they needed to frame up Osama in a trial-in-absentia as a member of a 'group'; so the FBI invented the 'Al Qaeda', which ended up sticking as the moniker... And then when Osama bin Laden realised that's what the Americans were calling his group, went on to adopt the name. That's too funny; but the film goes onto bring on some good interviewees to support this point.
More importantly, by the time Osama and Al Zawahiri arrived in Afghanistan in 196, they're on the run and on the last legs because they're cause has been rejected by the Muslim world. They didn't have sleeper cells everywhere. They just were revolutionaries on the down and out... allegedly. It's an interesting account told by the film and certainly deserves a viewing; make up your own mind as to how persuasive that is. The part about how there were no super-hideout caves in Tora Bora is pretty hilarious all the same.
Anything Else? - Some Other Thoughts
Grievances motivate the most politically motivated. It's just a fact.
The more extreme the politics, the deeper the grievances seem to go. Hitler was motivated by his grievances. So were Pol Pot, Josef Stalin; Mao ZeDong; HoChi-Minh; Richard Nixon; Jacobinites in the French Revolution;Pauline Hanson, Jean-Marie LePenn; Having grievances is the defining colour of the extreme politician. Then there's sexual grievance and those are the makings of a profound anger.
With that schema in mind, watching this film, you can really feel the grievances of the Arab world. After all you look at Qatb and you see an ugly guy. He's in America in the 1950s and sees the mating rituals of American teens and finds MORAL DEGENERACY. Heaven forbid, teenage sex! Well, I figure he wouldn't be complaining about it if he got some; but alas he's the outsider, ugly to boot, with some pretty nasty ideas of his own. What straight-thinking American cheerleader is going to bed with a Qatb? One looks at his picture and thinks, "no way this guy got laid at college". It's kind of sad.
One of the 'Al Qaeda' leaders Al Zawahiri's a doctor, but he's balding, bespectacled and ugly. He probably didn't get laid either. In fact you look at these terrorists and none of them exactly look like celeb-posters on your teenage sister's bedroom wall. Even allowing for how unflattering mugshots are, these guys are real ugly. My guess is, a lot of these Islamists had girl troubles and got pretty angry; they felt too guilty to go to some hooker for release; heck they probably didn't even jerk off. Then, TSB - Toxic Sperm Build-up - and all that energy just had to explode. It's a really sad world we live in when ugly people who don't get laid, who feel too guilty to visit hookers or jerk-off, get guns and bombs.
Then I watched 'Revenge of the Nerds ' 1 &2 on late-night TV and realised that is exactly what these Islamists are doing. It's the 'revenge of the ugly and unlaid with nasty minds full of hate'. We live in tragic times.
UPDATE:
The film is causing a stir at Cannes.
Pleiades also pointed out that the film makes no mention of Israel, but I think that is partly due to the scope of the film. Still, zero mention is conspicuous given the topic, as modern Israel has to be considered another edifice of idealist politics.Cannes officials recruited Curtis to show the film, which begins in 1949 with events that culminate with the Sept.11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.
However, the documentary is not competing in the annual film contest and Curtis said he turned down an offer to get the red-carpet treatment for the special showing.
"I just think I'm a journalist. I do feel a bit like an animal in a zoo that's been put in the wrong cage, " Curtis told The Guardian.Curtis also objected to the comparison to Moore, whom Curtis described as a "political agitprop filmmaker.""The Power of Nightmares" carries an incendiary message in arguing that U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have used the fear of terrorism to restore their power and authority.
- Art Neuro
No comments:
Post a Comment