Artsculture

'American Zeitgeist': Top Iraq Doc

For its sweep and complexity, best of grim new genre.

By Crawford Kilian, 10 Oct 2006, TheTyee.ca

David Frum

David Frum defends role.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Dozens of books about terrorism, Iraq and the Bush administration have appeared since the beginning of the Iraq war over three years ago. Documentaries have proliferated also: Fahrenheit 9/11, Gunner Palace, Control Room, Beyond Good and Evil and Why We Fight.

This year's Vancouver International Film Festival has included what may be the greatest of such documentaries: American Zeitgeist: Crisis and Conscience in an Age of Terror. Writer-director Rob McGann clearly understands the conventions of this five-year-old genre, and has both respected them and gone beyond them.

Earlier "Iraq docs" have gained power by showing us individuals caught up in the struggle, whether in Iraq or in the U.S. The Al-Jazeera reporters try to cover the war in Baghdad while U.S. forces target them. Young GIs, living in one of Uday Hussein's palaces, party in Uday's swimming pool when not kicking in doors and arresting residents of humbler homes. American children learn how to shoot enemies in video games before moving on to similar games developed by the U.S. Army. The mother of a slain American soldier debates with another woman who is pro-war.

This personal approach is powerful, and millions of viewers have responded to it emotionally. McGann certainly gives us glimpses of individuals: a businessman sitting on a ledge near Ground Zero, covered in dust; an Arab firing a rocket-propelled grenade and then instantly shot dead.

But the overall intent of American Zeitgeist is not to make us feel for individuals. It wants to give us some perspective and to make us think about the vast movements that we as individuals have been caught up in.

America's bastard child

McGann's thesis is that al-Qaida is America's own bastard child, the direct result of U.S. funding of the mujahedeen who fought the Russians in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion of 1979. American dollars paid for the training, arming and deployment of fanatic Muslim splinter groups.

Their success legitimized them, attracting more and more supporters. When Afghanistan sank back into chaos with the departure of the Soviets, the sectarians eventually created the Taliban and imposed a brutal order.

This relatively long-term perspective is what makes American Zeitgeist worth watching. McGann makes it clear that 9-11 was not the start of the struggle, but a late development -- one that al-Qaida considered a defensive blow against an old enemy.

McGann backs this thesis with some formidable authorities: Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire; Richard A. Clarke, the boss of the U.S. anti-terrorism effort under Clinton and Bush; Eric S. Margolis, author of War at the Top of the World. They speak with knowledge and gravitas, as do many others who oppose the war.

But they don't speak alone. McGann also brings in plenty of pro-war advocates, including Christopher Hitchens, perhaps the strongest war supporter on the left; Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution; and David Frum, who used to write speeches for Bush.

Earlier Iraq docs would present such hawks (not to mention Bush and his cabinet members) in a bitterly ironic light. McGann does too. (It's almost impossible not to portray them ironically.) But he gives them plenty of time to make their case. They are highly articulate and passionately committed to their position.

Complex motives

The narrative ranges widely: from Afghanistan to 1990s America, from East Africa's embassy bombings to 9-11 and the return to Afghanistan before the fatal swing to Iraq. McGann uses al-Qaida video to show us the arguments offered by bin Laden and his supporters -- even the unpleasant and disturbing "video will" recorded by one of the 9-11 hijackers. They may not be quite as articulate as Hitchens and Clarke, but they aren't zombies. They have complex motives for their actions.

Any work that advances a genre makes us reconsider earlier examples. Michael Moore showed us not the falling towers, but the horrified faces of the onlookers. McGann uses the familiar images of the aircraft striking the towers, but for the most part they are in al-Qaida's videos -- images of triumph, not of tragedy. He shows the American side of the attack mostly in still photos, drawing us into the faces of the survivors.

Similarly, he gives us some horrifying footage of Iraqi civilian casualties, as other documentaries have done to contrast images of suffering with the sanitized images offered by U.S. networks. Much comes from Mexican news coverage, and the point is not just that we didn't get to see it. The real point is that the rest of the world did see it, and drew the appropriate conclusions.

The VIFF version of American Zeitgeist runs two hours and 20 minutes; speaking after a showing last week, McGann said the final release would be cut by 20 minutes. (It will be shown one more time, this Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. at Pacific Cinematheque.) He told the audience that his company is negotiating with distributors. But the film's website promises that the DVD will be available late this month, suggesting that its real audience will prefer to watch it at home or in classrooms.

Is it propaganda? Of course. But it is propaganda for clear thinking and careful analysis, not for the good of one side and the evil of the other. McGann respects his audience's intelligence, and invites us to think more critically about the origins of the conflict between the West and Islam. As we lose more Canadian soldiers in that conflict, we need to think about why they are there, and whether they should remain.

Crawford Kilian is a frequent contributor to The Tyee.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Crawford Kilian is a contributing editor of The Tyee. He is the author of 20 books and many articles.

14 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Comments on "'American Zeitgeist': Top Iraq Doc"

    Killian writes: "McCann makes it clear that 9-11 was not the start of the struggle, but a late developement--one that Al Quida considered a defensive blow against an old enemy."

    So now we have Osama crahing planes into the wtc as a defensive strategy.

    I guess Osama would never have imagined that he'd have to spend the rest of his life in a cave, after implementing this "defensive blow," and that his Taliban supporters would be destroyed in Afghanistan; that he'd have to hide out forever, and that the Americans would get pissed off enough to invade who knows what.

    Funny, how I knew what was coming after 911, but Osama didn't.

    Some "defensive blow against an old enemy."

    Killian writes: "Is it propaganda? Of Course. But it's propaganda for clear thinking and careful analysis."

    And: "McCann respects his audiences's intelligence."

    No, he doesn't. He thinks everybody has as much insight as Crawford Killian.

    Wrong again, Killian. It's a dishonest propaganda film. The message is that the the conflict was NOT just invented by the international warmongers, and that the West and Islam actually DO have something existential to fight about.

    Which they don't! It's all fake.

    Maybe look up the meaning of the word, "propaganda," Crawford.

    It's not really about--as you strangely claim--to inspire, "clear thinking and careful analysis."

    But rather to propagate a dishonest message. It's pretty well over your head, Crawford.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Have you seen the film, Truman?

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    I haven't seen the film, but Crawford did an excellent job of describing it.

    I don't generally go to propaganda films.

    In fact, the last one I saw was Leni Reifenstahl's, 'Triumph of the Will.'

    Incidentally, I WILL give Killian his propers for at least smelling a rat as indicated by his admission that the film is propaganda.

    By the way, Crawford, Osama was invented by Richard Clarke who almost tearfully aplogized to the American people because his terrorism office and the CIA were just so, well, darn incompetent to have allowed those planes to crash into the towers--not to mention that donut-eating Norad who just couldn't seem to catch up with knowingly-hijacked flight 77 after it flew around the States for 45 minutes completely unmolested.

    Grow up, people!

  • Crawford

    5 years ago

    "All art is propaganda," Orwell told us, "but not all propaganda is art." So to avoid propaganda films would be to avoid films altogether--not to mention TV, radio, newspapers, and The Tyee.

    And propaganda doesn't have to propagate a dishonest message. In fact, the more honest and accurate it is, the better it serves as propaganda...at least if honesty and accuracy harmonize with the core beliefs of the audience.

    So I don't use "propaganda" as a pejorative. I can deplore propaganda that I agree with, if I think it's not going to influence the desired audience.

    I can admire propaganda whose message I detest, simply because it reflects the propagandist's understanding of the desired audience. And if I can learn from the opposing side, I can do a better job of reaching my audience.

    Rob McGann seems to me to understand his audience. It's not for everyone, and many North Americans would find it annoying and upsetting. But I wouldn't dismiss it sight unseen.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Killian's talents as a reviewer notwithstanding, I think it's at least arguable that one can't really have an informed point of view respecting a 2 hour and 20 minute film one hasn't seen yet after reading a review of less than a thousand words.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Propaganda is a systematic effort to spread opinions or beliefs; especially by distortion and deception; or any plan for spreading opinions or beliefs.

    Choose which ever you prefer; either the benign, objective spreading of ideas or the attempt to spread distortions.

    Our general usage of the word has been the spreading of misinformation, as the various media mouthpieces of the Soviets did during the entire communist era.

    Killian tells us what the film is all about. So together with his details and my own studies I've got a pretty good idea of the propaganda message McGann is trying to spread.

    And here it is according to Killian: "McGann's thesis is that Al Queda is America's own bastard child, the direct result of the US funding of the Mujahedeen who fought the Russians in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion."

    Is there something new in this claim? We've all heard it before many times.

    And then to give it a finer point: "McGann makes it clear that 911 was not the start of the struggle but a late developement--one that Al-Queda considered a defensive blow against an old enemy."

    Interpretation: 911 came out of Osama's hatred and lust for revenge, not out of the imagination of other, so far unknown conspirators.

    Do I really need to see more blood and guts on film to understand McGann's message? I don't think so.

    And what's this, Crawford: "So I don't use "propaganda" as a perjorative. I can deplore propaganda that I agree with if I think it's not going to influence the audience."

    You might not understand what you just written, but let me interpret for you:

    'The truthfulness of the message is not the main consideration, but rather the value that it has as propaganda.'

    Do you realize that you have placed yourself firmly in the camp of Himmler, Goebbels and Goering, not to mention their master?

    And this: "I can admire propaganda whose message I detest, simply because it reflects the propagandist's understanding of the desired audience. And if I can learn from the opposing side, I can do a better job of reaching my audience."

    So, Crawford, you can "admire propaganda whose message I detest," eh. That could only be because you're an unethical man.

    Personally, I never admire propaganda whose message I detest.

    These are the words of the immoral man, Crawford, the hollow man--the hack writer; the Machievellian deceiver, whose prime goal is not the arm's length provision of information but the realization of private goals.

    I think you should be ashamed of yourself!

  • Crawford

    5 years ago

    Give me a break, Truman. Propaganda works, when it works, because it understands the way people think. If someone promotes clean water and respectful treatment of women, but does it badly, it's bad propaganda.

    If someone promotes violating the UN Charter and killing scores of thousands in an illegal war, and does it slickly and effectively, I'd damn well better understand what that tells me about the opposition and the people we're both trying to reach.

    Doesn't give me the right to lie to those people, but it tells me something about their state of mind. If I don't take that into account, my own message, however sweet and saintly, will go nowhere.

    So I decline to feel ashamed in the slightest. All our lives, you and I have been lied to by champions. If our response is just to wrap ourselves in our superior morality, we'll go on getting our butts kicked. Feeling superior to the kickers will be cold consolation.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Crawford, you're a writer. Words are your stock in trade. You wrote this:

    "I can admire propaganda whose message I detest, simply because it reflects the propagandist's understanding of the desired audience."

    All psychopaths understand their victims and their audiences. That's THEIR stock in trade.

    You suggest that you "admire" their ability, whether their message was truthful or not.

    And you described such a message as possibly "detestable," or at least, "a message I detest."

    Trust me, Crawford, this is the mantra of every immoral person on earth: admiration of the liar's prowess.

    If it wasn't your intent to express this kind of psychopathic admiration, then, as a writer, dealing with words, perhaps you should be more careful with the words you choose to express your ideas.

    Personally, I'll take you at your word.

    As far as having my butt kicked, and "feeling superior to the kickers," I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    And what about this: "I can deplore propaganda that I agree with, if I think it's not going to influence the desired audience."

  • Truman Green

    5 years ago

    Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels from Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will.'

    l934

    Google: Goebbels at the l934 Nuremberg Rally.

    "If propaganda is to succed it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. It's moral value is determined by the goal it seeks."

    Sound familiar?

  • siamdave

    5 years ago

    1. I don't think any propaganda can ever be 'benign' - it is by definition an attempt by one small group of people to influence the beliefs and/or actions of others through lies of one type or another, and the suppression of conflicting ideas and information. Reducing the ability of any people to think for themselves and make their own decisions based on accurate information is not a good thing. IMO.

    2. If this guy is promoting the Official Conspiracy Theory of 911, then the whole thing is suspect. IMO

  • Frank

    5 years ago

    Sounds like it'd be a very interesting film to watch.

  • anarcho

    5 years ago

    I don't know what all the hassel is. It's no conspiracy. Most literate people know 911 was blowback from the US funding the Afghan guerillas. It is good that a doc has been made about it to maybe convince the 40% of the US population who still think Saddam did it. But then people so gullible probably can't be convinced of anything reasonable.

  • wiley

    5 years ago

    anarcho, probably the hassle is that 9.11 was a conspiracy, involving more than cavedwellers and boxcutters. There's been some savage beatings of wingnut theorists of late, but a mere read through the "credibility list" at http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
    makes you realize there's a lot of genuine suspicion by those trained in such matters that some aspects of 9.11 were clearly "inside job", if only the "stand-down/let it happen/read about pet goats/then go to endless war" parts of the narrative.

    I look forward to seeing this movie however, preferably uncut, since it'll help keep the central subject of state terrorism alive, because IF it goes dead, we're all bloody toast.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.