Just before the election, a film about Iraq hit art house theaters around the country. Voices of Iraq claimed to be a groundbreaking film in which “150 DV cameras [are] distributed across Iraq for the Iraqi people to show the world who they are and what Iraq will be.” The results? People seem happy that Saddam is gone and optimistic… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (23)Page 1 of 1 pagesThis “documentary” has to be at least as objective as Moore’s was, don’t y’all think?
Posted by anyway on Dec 13, 2004 at 10:19 AM Any documentary is subject to intense scrutiny. What is nice is this film is showing the positive effects (maybe) as opposed to the press’ viewpoint of all the bad that’s happening. Although I believe that it’s not as bad as the press is making it out to be, I do believe the picture isn’t as rosy as the Bush administration makes it out to be. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, hopefully this film can help us achieve this balance.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 13, 2004 at 11:42 AM I somehow fail to see how propaganda from one side of a discussion can “balance out” propaganda from the other. Lies remain lies, and half-truths remain the worst kind of lies. Especially if such things are subsidized by my tax dollars.
Anyone remember when the Kuwaiti princess lied before congress about Iraqi troops removing babies from incubators? The Pentagon had something to do with that as well.
But then again, I voted against the fascist junta, so I’m biased against the empire, and my comments should be considered in that context.
Posted by J Powers on Dec 13, 2004 at 11:57 AM All I’m saying is that two people can see the exact same actions and draw two entirely different perception of the events, it doesn’t mean they’re lying it just means they saw them differently.
Like Bush, I don’t see him as fitting the description of a fascist junta but obviously you do. Oh and my comments are a little biased to.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 13, 2004 at 2:03 PM I will be very interested to see what kind of documentary films emerge from Iraq once the fighting has passed. When that will be I don’t dare to predict, but eventually, independent filmmakers from around the world will be able to enter the country and gather footage from a broader sampling of Iraqis than at present. As for objectivity, I wonder if such a thing really exists at all, but the added diversity of offerings may give a clearer picture. The challenge will be identifying the few groups that don’t have an obvious axe to grind in advance, as we’re stuck with at present.
Referring to Michael Moore, when I read the article it occured to me that the film may be aimed at inoculating the public against his book featuring letters from US troops whose tone are said to be critical of the administration. I haven’t yet read the book nor seen the film, it’s just speculation at this point.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 13, 2004 at 11:27 PM As they say, there are always 3 sides to the truth. Take a look at this: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/13/news/propaganda.html.
Posted by Rico on Dec 14, 2004 at 3:28 AM Voices of Iraq pretends to be a film “directed” by Iraqis and to represent typical Iraqis. Only the early scenes, however, are “directed” by Iraqis. According to a U.S. government poll (done by Bremer’s CPA), only 2% of Iraqis see the U.S. as “liberating” their country. Yet this movie just somehow manages to exclusively give a voice to that 2%. Hundreds of hours of raw footage were edited down to 90 minutes by the U.S. film makers. Many scenes are conducted in English! The essence of propaganda is dishonesty. If the film were titled, “Why 2% of Iraqis think the U.S. invasion and occupation is Swell” then they would be honestly representing their film. Michael Moore, in contrast, is entirely upfront that his film is an attack on the Bush Administration. Documentaries on contentious issues all have a perspective. The key questions seem to be, are they factual and are they transparent about their motives? ‘Voices of Iraq’ fails badly on both.
Posted by Randy on Dec 16, 2004 at 11:55 AM It just kills some of you (liberals) that something positive is coming out of Iraq.
Posted by Pat Seyford on Dec 17, 2004 at 6:04 AM I really would like to know where I could go to get a broader perspective about what is truly happening in Iraq. I mean when I come to websites like this it’s all gloom and doom and how bad this administration is. When I go to more conservative websites it’s a much better picture.
I was in a heavy combat engineering unit in upstate NY that is currently in Iraq and Afghanistan and all my buddies are telling me how much they are accomplishing and what they’re building. The overwhelming majority of people they run into truly are happy we are there. Whether the media is reporting it or not alot of good things are happening over there and the country in the long run if we persevere (sp?) will be better off. I do only talk to a select few of the troops and they tell me that when they come home on R and R they can’t believe the gross misrepresentation of the events. From my understanding the truth is closer to Voices of Iraq than Farenheit 9/11.
Posted by giantsox on Dec 17, 2004 at 5:13 PM I have been working with a mom, whose son was killed, serving in the Marines in Iraq. She recently had the chance to meet most of the guys in her son’s platoon. The meeting itself was good for her but what she learned was hard. They are going back soon for their 3rd tour. They did not, for the most part, have good things to say and she was surprised by that and by their honesty. She tells me of their growing anxiety about mounting losses to their buddies (some dead, many more with blown off limbs, etc.) as they tempt fate for a 3rd tour. They had a lot of concerns that equipment has significantly degraded. They seemed to her “burned out” on the mission but continued to be professional and...resigned to the task. There was not much positive except for their obvious loyaly/fellowship to one another.
Posted by 1MaNLan on Dec 18, 2004 at 7:15 AM oh yes, all the GOOD things coming out of Iraq. Like soldiers with missing body parts? Flag draped coffins? Fatherless and motherless children? Hm.
Oh yeah, all that oil that we’re getting. Well, we would be getting it if the pipelines weren’t being blown up every few days or so. Which is why Halliburton has to charge the Army so much for oil imported from outside Iraq. And why Halliburton’s security goons, I mean guards, get apartments and hot showers while the Army gets to sleep in the dirt. I guess that’s a good thing, builds character.
And you know, here’s another good thing: all those soldiers having to scrounge for scrap metal to build armor for their vehicles. That’s good, teaches them resourcefulness, yeah? Yeah, that must be it. And you know, watching their buddies get killed teaches them the reality of death, doesn’t it!
Yeah, I guess from my liberal point of view, I wasn’t seeing the good things about Iraq. I think I’m going in the kitchen now and stab myself in the leg with a fork. I’ll probably get something good out of that experience too, if I think about it.
Posted by Lew Cypher on Dec 18, 2004 at 1:15 PM Speaking only to a group of engineers who are rebuilding one specific (and obviously safe) area will not give the same picture as speaking to a group of infantrymen who are slogging through the death and destruction. Of course the citizens around the engineers are happy - they’re getting their homes, schools, and hospitals rebuilt! Ask the same of Fallujahs citizens (those that survived). I don’t imagine they’re too thrilled about the U.S. occupation and destruction of their country, especially after all the pre-war “justifications” have been proven to be wrong.
The same scenario applies to this “documentary” featuring 2% of Iraqis. Although I have not seen it, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it wasn’t filmed while ducking any incoming RPGs. That leads one to believe that the Iraqis interviewed were probably the same Iraqis who are so grateful to be having their neighborhoods rebuilt.
In this Bush-concocted era of preeminent war, let Russia or China (or a Russo/Chinese) coalition occupy and destroy the U.S., and then convince me that you could find an American to interview who would be showering the Russian/Chinese troops with roses. When they rebuild my house, sure I’d be grateful, but until then I’d be considered a “terrorist insurgent” for defending my country against these pigs - get it?
Oops - now I suppose I’m a liberal wacko, because I can see through propoganda, lies, distractions, and the like. Everybody duck....we have incoming facts: I’m a registered Independent.
Posted by Steven A. Hass on Dec 18, 2004 at 8:48 PM There is an analogy between how people feel about Iraq and how they feel about here in the US. Some here (especially at this website) feel that their civil liberties are all but gone, that the economy is in the dumpster, that we have a president who has not been elected and is tantamont to a dictator. Others feel the US is doing fine. Given such, um, diversity in opinions about a subject we all know well personally, it is no wonder that a subject that we all have much less personaly experience with (the situation in Iraq, for instance) is so controversial. Clearly many good things are happening in Iraq, and some bad things as well. Just like here in the US. But some only see one side of the story.
So if you want to calibrate someones opinion on Iraq, i suggest you start with the persons perception on their home country (for US citizens and residents). If they believe it is bleak here, then it is CLEARLY even worse THERE (duh!)! But those who think that way (and also those who think it is *perfect* here, for that matter) should be disregarded - they are merely malcontents (or Polly Annas).
Unfortunately, humans seem mostly confined to black and white thinking. So this advice will undoubtedly fall of deaf ears (blind eyes? :) ).
Posted by wellll. . . on Dec 20, 2004 at 3:49 PM A response from one of the film’s producer…
“Voices of Iraq"was promoted as a project in which “thousands of ordinary Iraqis become filmmakers"”
Nobody promoted it as such, for it’s simply untrue. Thousands of Iraqis were captured on video; several hundred - I estimate - used the cameras, hence were filmmakes.
“as the cameras are passed hand to hand and – amazingly – all returned to the filmmakers. “
Wrong again. Nearly all returned. Some where lost. We stated that repeatedly to all the journalists who interviewed us.
“But Archie Drury, the Gulf War vet and actor who went to Iraq with the cameras, told me that he actually shot some of the footage himself.”
He did actually shoot “some” of the footage. Very little. A few times when he was at a location, he even supervised the shooting—after all, we are trying to teach people how to use DV cameras who never saw them previously. 95% of the footage in the film is shot by Iraqis.
“Drury also said that the Iraq Foundation was “extremely helpful” to him as he tried to figure out how to get around and who to give the cameras to.”
They were initially. So were taxi drivers, hotel workers, families, scientists, people on the street, Kurds up north, the Iraqi Dawa Party—and the mass of people you see in the film with cameras.
“The foundation also supplied the torture footage.”
Mostly incorrect. The Foundation provided the images of beatings and a hand being cut off. The remaining, majority of torture footage was riped from DVD’s being sold on the streets of Baghdad.
“The Iraq Foundation, based in Washington, is funded by the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy.”
The Dawa Party, as mentioned above, is backed by Iran. Would you therefore suggest the film is Iranian propaganda?
“Not surprisingly, Drury got uncommon access to Iraqis and Iraqi leaders favored by the U.S. government. Among the notables interviewed, but not identified, is Sharif Ali, the cousin of Iraq’s last king.”
Did you watch the film? I doubt it since Sharif Ali doesn’t appear anywhere in the movie. Like nearly all people who you mention above, they were excluded from the film becasue the movie was about the common people’s voice—not the politicians.
“Drury says that his commanding general from Desert Storm put him in touch with General Mattis, fighting in the Sunni Triangle, and General Amos of the Air Wing, and that he exchanged e-mails with these generals as he planned his trip.”
How does that influnence the film, you don’t say. Why? Is it guilt by association? If you ask Archie, he will tell you that neither Amos or Mattis assisted him while Iraq, as both Generals were too busy fighting. So they had zero influence on the film.
Also - if you’re an ex-Marine going into a war zone, wouldn’t get phone numbers of Marines you can call on if trouble starts? Archie - unlike most journalists—had the balls to travel around the whole country. That’s how he distributed the 150 cameras. That’s why you get a view in this film that journalists don’t provide.
“In an interview in Movie Maker magazine, another of the film’s producers, Martin Kunnert, said: “Getting a theatrical release for a documentary film is still rare. We lucked out in that our distributor, Magnolia Pictures, [which also put out “Control Room” and “Capturing the Friedmans"] was eager to get the film in theaters before the presidential election.”
If Iraq is a hot topic during the election, Magnolia would have to be dumb to wait until the elections over to release the film. Mark Cuban is not dumb. Magnolia Pictures, as you pointed out, also released Control Room, a left leaning film. Yet by implication, you suggest there’s something nefarious about Magnolia releasing our film.
“A call to Magnolia Pictures in New York was answered by a man who, lowering his voice when asked about “Voices of Iraq,” whispered, “Nobody here wanted to release this and we didn’t do any of the promotion on it. [Mark] Cuban steamrolled us on this.” (Cuban owns Magnolia Pictures, the Dallas Mavericks and much more.)”
Mark Cuban, who made over a billion dollars taking chances and owns the company, gambled on this film, while the guy answering the film didn’t want to. So what conspiracy does that prove other than Cuban has better business guesses than the dudes around the office.
“Jeff Riechert, the Magnolia Pictures contact for “Voices of Iraq,” said that while his company is technically distributing the film, Manning, Selvage & Lee (MS&L;) is coordinating the publicity. MS&L;has the public affairs contract for the U.S. Army. The firm’s revamp of the Army’s image with the reality TV-style “Army of One” ad campaign is credited with enabling the Army to meet its recruiting goals after a long slump. According to MS&L;Managing Director Joe Gleason, he and his colleagues also deliver key targeted messages about the war in Iraq to specific constituencies.”
First - You could have discovered Manning, Selvage & Lee’s involvement by visiting the film website: www.VoicesOfIraq.com. They’re listed under “media contact”.
Second - Manning, Selvage & Lee is a massive, 64 year-old, internationl publicity company whose numerous clients include the US Army, General Motors, Nestle, Philips and Procter & Gamble. In 2003, they won the Holmes Report “Best PR Agency of the Year”.
“Is the government hiring documentary filmmakers to propagandize the U.S. population?”
Are makers of SUV’s, chocolates, and toothpaste hiring documentary filmmakers to propagandize the U.S. population?
Silly, no? So’s your dubious connection between the US Army and our film. Plus you are incorrect that a) MSL hired us. We hired them b) we are not documentary filmmakers. Google the producers name and you’ll be flood with information on who we are and the movies and TV shows we’ve made (hint, a not a single documentary prior to VOICES OF IRAQ).
“Nobody involved with the film is willing to say who initially put up the money for the film or how they ended up represented by the Army’s PR firm.”
How many people did you ask? Did you ask me? Because those reporters who did got an answer. We’re studio filmmakers—worked with Warner Brothers, Paramount, CBS, NBC, MTV, Columbia-Tristar, etc - who used our track record to raise financing for a slate of films. VOICES OF IRAQ is just one of the bunch.
As for how we ended up being represented by Nestle’s PR firm—we hired them.
“On Nov. 13, as Marines stormed Fallujah, the Marines’ Birthday Ball in San Francisco honored Drury for his work on “Voices of Iraq,” for “going back and living up to the standard of a Marine.”
What Marines consider “living up to the standards of a Marine.”, is that Archie risked his life to do good. What’s wrong with that?
Posted by Martin Kunert on Dec 21, 2004 at 1:39 AM Mr. Kunert,
Thank you for the film. Politics aside, at minimum it gave my kids a different perspective. More importantly, thank you for following up on the statements posted earlier.
It was certainly interesting to finally hear answers to questions too often asked in the absence of the one person with that knowledge.
Posted by Bert on Dec 24, 2004 at 6:03 PM The Iraq Foundation. Or “The Free Iraq Foundation” as on its tax return (see guidestar.com)
The foundation lists this movie as one of its projects on www.iraqfoundation.org
The Iraq Foundation, based in Washington, is 99% funded by the government. Its budget went from $500,000 in 2000 to $1.6 million in 2003 (99% government)-just in time for the invasion.
Amazingly (or not in this case) “The Iraq Foundation is pleased to announce that its Executive Director, Rend Rahim Francke, has been selected by the Iraqi Governing Council to be Iraq’s representative in Washington, DC.”
www.iraqfoundation.org/rend.htmlFinally, the PR group representing these guys,Manning, Selvage and Lee, has as its mission:
“Our firm is driven by a new and higher purpose. We’re not about simply changing perceptions, because perceptions can be fleeting. What we do, in every sense of the words, is this: Change minds.”
Posted by Paul on Jan 25, 2005 at 2:45 PM I’m glad that Martin Kunert took the time to defend “Voices of Iraq” and respond to Ms. Melzer. It’s always valuable to get insights and information from the filmmakers themselves. I co-directed a PBS documentary in Iraq, “Greetings from Iraq”, with Signe Taylor in 1992. We spent over a month traveling all over the country from Basra to Mosul. Although challenging work, the conditions were stable then and we were in no danger. It was a profound experience and I came away with a deep respect for the Iraqi people and their difficulties.
I think the premise of giving camcorders to Iraqis to shoot their own footage was superb. The problems that I see with “Voices of Iraq”, however, remain unresolved. Start with the brazen claim, shown on the opening credits, that the film was directed by the “people of Iraq”. Unless Archie Drury has recently applied for an Iraqi passport, then even Kunert’s comments here reveal that this is patent nonsense. The film starts with blatant dissimulation and then goes down hill from there. If Drury told Iraqis how and where to point cameras, then he was directing. I accept, nonetheless, that a large percentage of the footage was shot by Iraqis themselves. Most of that material, however, while interesting, is marginal to the political message of the film. Why are pro-invasion/occupation voices so prominent in the film when they are a tiny minority in Iraq itself? Some Iraqis, of course, do support the invasion and occupation as a necessary evil. But, outside of Kurdish areas, they are a minority. Why are so many key scenes filmed in English? (English is hardly, last I checked, the native language of Iraqis.)
It is important to remember the powerful role that editing plays in any film, especially where hundreds of hours can be selected and honed to present a pre-established political message. In this case, the message is that the vast majority of Iraqis are supportive of the American occupation. The occupation, in reality, has become increasingly violent and destructive with no end in sight. The film’s “upbeat” pro Bush Administration message is completely at odds with almost every reasonably objective source of information coming out of Iraq--from polls and interviews with Iraqis to analysis from the CIA and military intelligence reports. I can only conclude that this film was made to put a “happy face” on the ongoing disaster.
Posted by Randy Graham on Jan 26, 2005 at 2:00 PM Randy Graham wrote, “I’m glad that Martin Kunert took the time to defend “Voices of Iraq” and respond to Ms. Melzer.”
Thanks
“I think the premise of giving camcorders to Iraqis to shoot their own footage was superb.”
Thanks again.
“The problems that I see with “Voices of Iraq”, however, remain unresolved. Start with the brazen claim, shown on the opening credits, that the film was directed by the “people of Iraq”. Unless Archie Drury has recently applied for an Iraqi passport, then even Kunert’s comments here reveal that this is patent nonsense. “
Sorry you feel that way. As Archie’s not the director, his nationality is irrelevent. Few if any filmmakers would consider a producer or camera operator a director.
“If Drury told Iraqis how and where to point cameras, then he was directing. “
As you were not in Iraq with Archie, you have no clue what Archie told Iraqis. If you want to know, check on www.voicesofiraq.com and look for the Participant Guide which Iraqis used and Archie promoted. The Guide clearly states how and where the cameras were to be used by Iraqis’ choice. Hence making them directors.
“I accept, nonetheless, that a large percentage of the footage was shot by Iraqis themselves. Most of that material, however, while interesting, is marginal to the political message of the film. “
You see it as political film. I don’t. I see it as a film that humanizes the Iraqi people. For a person who sees this as a Disney film, most of the material is marginal too.
“Why are pro-invasion/occupation voices so prominent in the film when they are a tiny minority in Iraq itself?”
Mr. Graham, you were in Iraq ten years ago. How do you know who’s in the majority or minority? Through reading news papers? Which papers? Watching networks. From which continent? There are so many contradictory opinions.
I viewed several hundred hours of Iraqis talking. Iraqis of all social glass and from around their country. The film reflects the balance of views we recieved. If that balance contradicts your preconceptions, well what can I say. We’ve met with CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, etc. They all admited we got the cameras to a dramatically broader range, socially and geographically, they any of them did. (some, in fact, wanted to buy footage from us) That’s why they supported us so strongly during our theatircal run.
“Why are so many key scenes filmed in English? (English is hardly, last I checked, the native language of Iraqis.)”
Neither is English the native tongue of Germans, yet many speak it. English, as I hope you know, is an international language spoken around the world. Many Iraqis expressed similar thoughts. When that happened whe choose the most appropiate clip for our intended audience—English speakers.
“The occupation, in reality, has become increasingly violent and destructive with no end in sight.”
With so many different views emerging from Iraq, what gives you have a clue what the reality is? You can disparage what Iraqis in the film say, but don’t bandy the word, “reality” over the heads of people who live there. The _know_ reality.
“The film’s “upbeat” pro Bush Administration message is completely at odds with almost every reasonably objective source of information coming out of Iraq--from polls and interviews with Iraqis to analysis from the CIA and military intelligence reports.”
What is a “reasonable objective source” depends on a person’s bias. For every “Iraq is a mess” tidbit, I’ll show you one showing “Iraq is improving. That includes CIA and mil intel reports. (btw, we can agree the CIA’s record of knowing what’s happening in Iraq is dismal, right?)
“I can only conclude that this film was made to put a “happy face” on the ongoing disaster. “
Your entitled to your opinion—as are the Iraqis in the film. Their election is in a few days, so we’ll see, won’t we.
I was born in former communist country. For my countrymen, democratic elections after the overthrow of tyranny is never a disaster. You may think otherwise.
I also checked on your film - Greetings from Iraq. One synopsis states, “The Video gives Iraqi children and their familes the opportunitity to tell their stories to American audiences for the first time. Through their compelling voices, this video documents the largely unknown tragedies and difficulties caused by the Persian Gulf War and international embargo against Iraq.”
I hope your video included the difficulties Iraqi children faced being buried in mass graves. I suspect not. My film did.
Posted by Martin Kunert on Jan 27, 2005 at 9:01 PM Paul wrote, “ The foundation lists this movie as one of its projects on http://www.iraqfoundation.org”
The Foundation has a link to our movie’s website. They do not claim it as one of their projects. Check it yourself. Casual and causal relationships are not the same, Paul.
Then Paul added, “Finally, the PR group representing these guys,Manning, Selvage and Lee, has as its mission: ‘Our firm is driven by a new and higher purpose. We’re not about simply changing perceptions, because perceptions can be fleeting. What we do, in every sense of the words, is this: Change minds.’”
The purpose of PR firms are to change minds. That’s why they’re called “public relations” companies.
Posted by Martin Kunert on Jan 28, 2005 at 12:40 AM So what is the relationship between you and the Free Irag Foundation? Why does this pro-occupation government financed group support your movie? I did not see any links to “control room”....
Posted by Paul on Jan 28, 2005 at 7:53 AM Paul,
First of, note that the projects section of the Free Iraq Foundation website doesn’t list our film. The film’s link is on the top page, along with links to the Iraqi embassy in DC and other Iraqi related websites.
When Drury hit the ground in Iraqi, he didn’t know anybody. We decided early on that the film wouldn’t use American military or NGO sources to find Iraqis. Instead, Drury sought help from any Iraqis he could find. I think this organization was one. But so were other organizations and individuals, Sunni and Shia, pro and against American involvement. Drury would even go to the river bank with his translaters to pass out cameras. Over the first month, involvement of Iraqis mushroomed, especially as Iraqis started passing cameras to others. (that’s why the film’s first month only shows Baghdad).
As for why they linked to our movie.... People view this film through the prisim of their preconceptions. There are two exceptions, I found. Iraqis, and soliders recently returned from Iraq. These two groups claim the film is the closest representation to their personal experiences of Iraq. Iraqis, by far, reacted the strongest. So to me, it’s no surprise that a Iraqi group would link to our film.Also, the group is pro-democracy, not pro-occupation. I have yet to met an Iraqi who wants the American military in Iraqi, except to over throw Saddam and build stability. Once that is done, every Iraqi I came across wants the US to leave. (well, except for one, who video taped himself hoping Iraqi becomes the 51st state of the US). Most people see see VOICES OF IRAQ as saying that Iraqis have a chance at democracy—if the violance doesn’t consume it. The group is pro-democracy. No surprise they’d want people to see the film.
As for “Control Room” - there are many subjects we left out of the film (we only had 80min). One trend I saw is that Iraqis _dispise_ Al-Jazeera, believing the network promotes violance in Iraq. Again, no surprise an Iraqi group wouldn’t link to it.
Posted by Martin Kunert on Jan 28, 2005 at 12:09 PM btw, you read above what Melzer and Graham thought of the film. Below are a few quotes of what film critics thought.
“Voices of Iraq” is a must-see for anyone still coming to terms with the chaos in Iraq.
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLEIf this film cannot claim to represent the political “truth” about the war - what film could?
THE NEW YORK TIMESIn a season of political documentaries that take one side or the other on the war in Iraq, a film has emerged whose purpose is not to address American politics but the Iraqi people.
VARIETYBy turns heartbreaking, amusing and disturbing, the film features people from different regions, economic classes and religions, recounting stories that are sometimes bleak, sometimes encouraging, but always compelling
LOS ANGELES TIMESPerhaps the sharpest commentary on years of suffering, hope and the wages of war are the children in front of and behind the cameras.
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTERAt a time when shrill political diatribes dominate the documentary scene, along comes an authentic work that dares to let the subject speak for itself – literally.
THE WALL STREET JOURNALAn extraordinary, up-to-the-minute tapestry that ranges all over this country of 25 million people and carries the force of revelation.
DALLAS MORNING NEWSIraqis create a masterful portrait of themselves
TWIN CITIES PIONEER PRESSFrom the Tigris to the marshlands, Fallujah to Abu Ghraib, mourning to celebration, the overall effect is scintillating and very engaging—literally history in the making
RIVER FRONT TIMESFascinating little documentary compiled almost exclusively from digital video footage shot man-in-the-street-style by real Iraqis using 150 free DV cameras
WASHINGTON POSTA rare look at daily life in Iraq
NPRTwo former MTV producers have accomplished what the entire mainstream media thus far has not: they’ve captured the real life and times of the Iraqi people.
FRONTPAGE MAGAZINEA gripping glimpse inside the present-day lives of the Iraqi people
ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTIONA riveting 80-minute film with images of Iraqis.
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTERThe remarkable “Voice of Iraq”… [is a] picture of life in Iraq today is very different from what those whose expectations have been shaped by the press might expect.
THE NEW YORK SUNFascinating, sometimes funny and often moving.
STAR-TELEGRAMThe portrait [of Iraq] that emerges is a rich, varied, and startling one.
THE MERCURY NEWS“Voices of Iraq” is an invaluable contribution to the debate on Iraq.
CINEMOCRACY“Voices of Iraq” is neither partisan nor conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. However, as an attempt to get behind the filter of the main stream media – as a picture of reality unmediated by editorial commentary – it’s a more potent negation of Michael Moore, Craig Unger, Noam Chomsky and Co.
THE WASHINGTON TIMESVOICE OF IRAQ is an unprecedented film. This new documentary genre offers a unique window into that is happening in Iraq. VOICE OF IRAQ has allowed Iraqis to tell their own story.
AOL JOURNALS
Posted by Martin Kunert on Jan 28, 2005 at 4:49 PM If anyone else has read this far down the blog, congrats.
I just watched the film and wouldn’t be typing here if I hadn’t suspected something fishy--a few google searches and here I am reading the co-producer’s desperate sounding defense of his film.
I haven’t been in Iraq, but I read about the situation there, listen to what soldiers returning say about it, and have watched several television programs and documentaries about the U.S.’s current occupation there. I think any person who has been awake for the past 12 years would find it simply incredible that the Iraqi people could be so positive about their current situation--whether the future for Iraq is bright or not, it simply is not human nature for a people to be that upbeat about a foreign country rolling in, destroying the government, killing military personel and civilians by the thousands, and then sticking around and wearing out their welcome in oh so many ways.
But even of all of the striking connections between the film’s principals and the government’s PR machine are inaccurate, the film, through the use of on-screen newspaper quotes, english language interviews, the token “things were better under Saddam” comments, and the insertion of outside footage, smacks of a particular bias--be that politically motivated or not; what bothered me was not the presentation of a particular viewpoint, but that the film portrayed itself as an objective “slice of life” sampling, but instead delivered a message designed to “change my mind.” The original idea behind the film was so appealing that it was dissapointing to see it slanted toward a particular viewpoint.
--At least with Michael Moore, I know what to expect and he doesn’t leave me wondering whether big brother was behind his movie.
My 2 cents.
C.H.
Posted by C.H Waterman on Mar 3, 2005 at 9:18 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Eartha Melzer
- Trafficking in Politics
Bush's strong rhetoric on sex slavery masks policy failures. - A Dubious Doc
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
