Just a note, I wasn’t actually able to see what an Interrotron is… But I believe I have understood the general concept, and as such I will focus more on the effect rather than the setup. With that said, to me, this is an extremely effective technique that helps yield a humane quality to the person being interviewed. While one strategy of interviewers to have that “off-set” perspective, where the speaker never looks at the camera (due to the latter’s actually offset placement), having the speaker look directly into the camera forces the audience to focus on what that individual is saying, as opposed to showing the interviewer as a distraction. It also makes it seem like McNamara is directly talking to the audience, and not even to a filmmaker, and its as if he is in the same room as us sharing some personal advice. This is an effective method to get the film’s messages across.
Moreover on that point, McNamara himself is portrayed as the humble man who was just in the wrong place (in my opinion). Though he sharing some vital and valuable life lessons, it seemed that he was not apologetic for some of the things that he has done, justifying them by the same “fog of war” reference. In that sense, while he may seem like an honest character, he is not actually one who can be trusted. He is telling the “truth” perse, but offers no further explanation for his actions in response to threats. This only enhances the audience’s (possibly) pre-held notions about him, as a person and as a character, and can either heighten the former’s positive or negative opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I couldn't help noticing your claim that McN was 'telling the “truth” per se', Miheer, and wondering what that might mean exactly. One possibility is that he was there for the events he described, and thus was able in the film to give a specific account of what happened. On the other hand, some of the stuff he claimed turns out to be inaccurate (see, eg, the 'Slate' article).
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should think of McN as 'telling the truth' if he said what he truly believed -- this is often how we use this phrase. But the phrase itself suggests something about the way things REALLY are. Am I 'telling the truth' if I sincerely say that Illinois won this past weekend (perhaps I read the score erroneously) even though they, in fact, did not?
Perhaps more importantly, what's the 'truth' about whether we should have ever been in Vietnam in the first place? Or the 'truth' about whether we should have firebombed cities if it would prevent future deaths (by shortening the war)? Is there a 'truth' in these cases?
What I mean by the "truth perse" comment is that he may be speaking about a certain event that did actually happen, but muddying up the waters by leaving out important details that he himself may now (classified information). In that sense, he is not giving the full extent of the situation, and in this case, it is entirely possible that the information that was hidden is so important that it would totally change what we percieve as the "truth".
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I think that we can establish that truth is defined as something that is considered a universal fact that is approved and determined by multiple individuals. In that case, saying that Illinois won on the weekend is not truth but rather a misinterpretation. Just saying we played would be truth.
I'm not so sure if we can define what is truth in the Vietnam War. Truth should not be confused with the results of decisions. If we say that truth is something that is interpretation, then it is no longer objective and "group-thought", but rather subjective and opinion-based.