The Fog of War

I approached this film with an open mind. I like to think that I am open to the truth not as I see it but as it is. Also, I was eager to watch a film by Errol Morris, a man who I had heard of for years, but I had seen none of his films.

The philosophical question of what makes a film a documentary is debated from time to time. Some say it must be factual (a critique I remember hearing a lot from the political right when Michael Moore's films are released). Some say they are simply the director's opinions set to film, and they needn't be factual in the strict sense, because that would eliminate artistry. I agree with the latter. After all, why make a film when a filmmaker could simply release a list of facts instead? The reason to me is that all of us as humans must find ways to express ourselves artistically.

As art, this film is extraordinary. It is built around a series of interviews with Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. He was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the Vietnam War, as well as a trusted advisor to Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The movie's point, it seems to me, is to cast shrouds of mystery around any supposed black and white morality surrounding the concept of war. Since war is only a result of the fallible nature of humanity, it seems only natural that this horrible action called war would contain numerous ethical dilemmas. In interviewing McNamara, Morris seems to want to show how we as a country have failed due to getting involved in different conflicts. At times, certain actions within a conflict are questioned (for instance, the dropping of the A-Bomb on Japan is dealt with, but the just nature of WW2 is not questioned) while other times a conflict itself is brought to trial (Vietnam is not seen as a justifiable conflict.).

It is not hard to make war a complex topic. It is hard to make a film that is so watchable and engaging, even when I may have different views than the filmmaker. I got the feeling that the military complex as a whole is under suspicion, as it should be. I wonder where the line is between conscientious objection and a realization that certain conflicts are unavoidable and we must be prepared for the worst. No one would love to see the world eradicated of weapons more than myself...but can we, given the nature of humanity? The great thing about this film is it gives its point of view, but allows the viewer (whatever point of view he/she brings) to wrestle with the ideas along with McNamara.

In closing, I also love the style of the film. Morris uses a device called an Interrotron, which allows him to look directly into the camera when answering questions. This gives the film more humanity. McNamara may have made questionable decisions in his career, but this film shows him as one small man dealing with an overwhelmingly complex world, and trying to make sense of it.