'The Fog of War': Things to consider

•  Roger Ebert mentions Morris’ use of his ‘“Interrotron,” a video device that allows Morris and his subjects to look into each other’s eyes while also looking directly into the camera lens.’  (To get an idea, here’s a picture of what that looks like:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2113/1526404040_2df51d5847.jpg.)  What do you think of Morris’ technique – what are the effects for the audience, and what might the effects be for the interviewee?

•  Ebert remarks on Morris’ ‘ability to bring life to the abstract,’ using ‘graphics, charts, moving titles and visual effects in counterpoint to what McNamara is saying.’  Were these elements effective to you?  Did they make the film more constructed and less ‘real’?  Conversely, did they help you understand the claims and statistics better than you would have if you had simply read them?  For example, consider the howitzer/ atomic bomb visual construction: how does it affect you?  In what sense is it ‘real’?  Is it ok for Morris to include such constructions?  Or the analogizing of cities/ numbers (e.g., ‘Tokyo 51%/ New York 51%’); is it fair & useful, or is it misleading or manipulative in any way?

•  Ebert claims that ‘there is the uncanny sensation that [McNamara] is thinking as he speaks’.  Did you find this to be true?  Did you think of McNamara as honest, genuine, authentic in the interviews?

•  Conversely, McNamara says in the film, ‘I learned early on to never answer the question that is asked of you – answer the question that you wish had been asked of you.  And quite frankly, I follow that rule.  It’s a very good rule.’  Do you think it’s a good rule?  Have you ever noticed public figures following it?  Does this affect whether you believe he is making truthful statements in this documentary (of course, much of the time you don’t get to hear the actual questions)?

•  Jonathan Rosenbaum, in his review, responds quite differently than Ebert; evaluate his claim that the film’s ‘most impressive achievement may be its power to convince us that we're actually thinking (as opposed to brooding) along with McNamara, an effect achieved by Philip Glass’s throbbing score, rapid montages of charts and figures we aren't supposed to understand, and intertitles of 11 platitudinous lessons that structure and punctuate McNamara’s musings.’

•  Are the eleven purported lessons really lessons?  Here are the 11 ‘lessons’, on which you may comment if you wish:

1. Empathize with your enemy

2. Rationality will not save us

3. There’s something beyond one’s self

4. Maximize efficiency

5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war

6. Get the data

7. Belief and seeing are often both wrong

8. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning

9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil

10. Never say never

11. You can’t change human nature

•  Finally, if you wish to see a rebuke of several of McNamara’s claims, here is a critical article: http://www.slate.com/id/2092916/.