I have rarely been so perplexed by a documentary film as by this one. It is 102 minutes long, and for much of that time Donald Rumsfeld is talking to the director/interviewer Errol Morris. However, despite that, I now feel that I know less about Donald Rumsfeld than I did before I saw the film. I almost preferred him as an unknown unknown to what he now is, an unknown known. Rumsfeld manages to talk endlessly in what appears to be a very candid way, without ever really saying anything. A few salient facts do emerge, but only a few. The most surprising one to me was the revelation that he and George Bush Senior evidently detest one another, although Rumsfeld thinks very highly indeed of 'W'. I also did not realize until I saw this film that Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are so close, and worked together for so many years, that they are like brothers. However, a slight trace of vanity appeared throughout the film as Rumsfeld was always very careful to describe Cheney on several occasions as 'my deputy'. Just in case little brother got any big ideas about forgetting who was the older brother, I suppose. Cheney was indeed Rumsfeld's deputy for a long time in office. When Cheney became Vice President, it was Cheney who recommended to George W. that Rumsfeld be made Secretary of Defence. So yes, some facts did emerge, and they are interesting. As for Rumsfeld himself, he remains an enigma in the highest degree. I was surprised to discover how astonishingly intelligent Rumsfeld was. One does not normally expect to find that in a public figure. But the most interesting aspect of Rumsfeld's personality is that a sense of ironical whimsicality seems to pervade everything he says, thinks, and does. Those grins that he makes are not normal grins, they are grins at the ironical whimsicality of situations and events. They are an invitation to those watching him to share his sense of irony and delight. Rumsfeld's grins do not say, as most grins do: 'Hello, I'm very friendly,' they say instead: 'Isn't that wonderfully whimsical, and don't you want to grin with me about it?' In other words, Rumsfeld is not like other men. I had no idea that Rumsfeld had commenced working in the executive branch of the Government during the Kennedy Administration, having previously been a congressman. This film says nothing whatever of his business activities, and does not mention his launching of the agricultural chemical spray Roundup upon the world, which in some opinions was an act more serious than the Iraq War, and may cause more deaths (deaths which cannot be defended on any 'just cause' basis, as the cause was only making money). No one could appear to cooperate more in making a film about himself than Donald Rumsfeld did, but the feeling afterwards is that he is a master at appearing to be transparent while all the while surrounding himself in a cloud of ink like an octopus. People often joke about eating Chinese food (in a bad Chinese restaurant), when they consume a lot but feel hungry immediately afterwards. Well! Where is the real meat on Rumsfeld, or is he all grissle? Nor is there any fat to chew on, only snowflakes. This man is a mystery, truly he is.
26 Reviews
Rumsfeld Unplugged
copyright9086 April 2014
The Unknown Known
There is a myth about the documentary film genre that it is some sort of quest for objective truth; when in fact there is no greater and often times no more effective means of subjective film making . No documentarian worth his salt is going to go forward with a project without a point of view.
And so it is with documentarian Errol Morris as he tries to pin down former defense secretary Don Rumsfeld to some objective truths about the war in Iraq. It's slow going.
For Morris this is not without precedent. In his "The Fog of War" he was able to get Lyndon Johnson's (and I should also add John Kennedy's) secretary of defense Robert Mac Namara, a chief architect of the Viet Nam war to show contrition, regret and even self pity about the advice he gave and decisions he made during that turbulent time. To those like Morris who believe that the Viet Nam war was a disaster, this must have proved satisfying. They gave him an Academy Award for it . Morris also believes the Iraq war was a disaster but in Rumsfeld he found a much tougher nut to crack.
The film documents Rumsfeld's rise to power as a career politician and bureaucrat in which he navigated through many a troubled water to become a trusted confidant and administrator for Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush the second, and given a certain set circumstances might have become President of the United States. But he made some enemies too, Nixon chief of staff Bob Haldeman, George Bush the first, and his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, as well as a very public feud with Condoleezza Rice. And these were his fellow Republicans! Richard Nixon called Rumsfeld "a ruthless little bastard" and I can't imagine a statement like that coming from higher authority.
The long and the short of it is that Rumsfeld has faced off against a lot tougher guys than Errol Morris.
Morris seems now to suspect that Rumsfeld might have got the best of him, since in his post release interviews he emphasizes how Rumsfeld "horrifies' him. However, that doesn't come off in the film. Rumsfeld appears to be a man of considerable charm and wit, with an easy humor about events and himself.
It is well to remember that Rumsfeld fully co-operated with this project, one might even say eagerly co-operated. He wanted his side publicly aired and decided to do it this way, even though he knew Morris's predisposition. To Morris's credit he gives Rumsfeld free reign and ample opportunity to make his case.
But Rumsfeld does not control the editing process and it here that Morris strikes back. Using cross cutting, graphics, and archival footage Morris exposes Rumsfeld's renowned candor as a smokescreen for obfuscation and evasion. Most particularly, in Rumsfeld's now famous, or infamous if you prefer, philosophical rumination on what could be known or unknown , or whatever the hell he said, in response to a direct question as to whether he (Rumsfeld) had any evidence that Sadam Hussein had participated or assisted in the 9/11 attacks. This was called by the press at the time (rather admiringly I might add) as "Rummy speak".
In the film Rumsfeld admits there wasn't then and isn't now any such evidence.
Even more telling to me was his mastery of expressing a limited truth and passing it off as candor. In summing up the Viet Nam War Rumsfeld says this: "Some things work out, some things don't .That one didn't." Hard to argue with that. True, as far as it goes, but it does not illuminate. Hell, I could have come up with that over a couple of Irish Whiskeys at the local tavern, and maybe even thought to be pretty profound by my fellow inebriates at the bar, but I think we have a right to expect more than that from our public officials. Did we learn anything? Would we do anything differently? In listening to Rumsfeld's echo the answer is apparently and depressingly, no. Given the perceived threats at the respective times in Iraq and Viet Nam, our policy makers did exactly the same thing.
Author Evan S. Connell in his book "Son of the Morning Star" recounts how General Philip Sheridan as one of the key policy makers leading to the destruction of the Plains Indian tribes after the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn, reflected on his role. Sheridan seemed to empathize with the Indians and implied that had the situations been reversed, he would have acted in the very same way the Indians had. He would have resisted. To which Connell comments: "Like other generals, bureaucrats and private citizens who contribute to some irrevocable disaster, he wondered about it afterward."
Not Donald Rumsfeld, no qualms, no regrets, no apologies. He did his duty and history can sort it out. And of course it will.
Morris ends the film with a shot of an empty ocean which I took to be metaphor and interpreted thus: It is shimmering and shiny, even magnificent to look at but who knows what horrors lie beneath the surface. Like Donald Rumsfeld, it covers the "Unknown Knowns".
There is a myth about the documentary film genre that it is some sort of quest for objective truth; when in fact there is no greater and often times no more effective means of subjective film making . No documentarian worth his salt is going to go forward with a project without a point of view.
And so it is with documentarian Errol Morris as he tries to pin down former defense secretary Don Rumsfeld to some objective truths about the war in Iraq. It's slow going.
For Morris this is not without precedent. In his "The Fog of War" he was able to get Lyndon Johnson's (and I should also add John Kennedy's) secretary of defense Robert Mac Namara, a chief architect of the Viet Nam war to show contrition, regret and even self pity about the advice he gave and decisions he made during that turbulent time. To those like Morris who believe that the Viet Nam war was a disaster, this must have proved satisfying. They gave him an Academy Award for it . Morris also believes the Iraq war was a disaster but in Rumsfeld he found a much tougher nut to crack.
The film documents Rumsfeld's rise to power as a career politician and bureaucrat in which he navigated through many a troubled water to become a trusted confidant and administrator for Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush the second, and given a certain set circumstances might have become President of the United States. But he made some enemies too, Nixon chief of staff Bob Haldeman, George Bush the first, and his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, as well as a very public feud with Condoleezza Rice. And these were his fellow Republicans! Richard Nixon called Rumsfeld "a ruthless little bastard" and I can't imagine a statement like that coming from higher authority.
The long and the short of it is that Rumsfeld has faced off against a lot tougher guys than Errol Morris.
Morris seems now to suspect that Rumsfeld might have got the best of him, since in his post release interviews he emphasizes how Rumsfeld "horrifies' him. However, that doesn't come off in the film. Rumsfeld appears to be a man of considerable charm and wit, with an easy humor about events and himself.
It is well to remember that Rumsfeld fully co-operated with this project, one might even say eagerly co-operated. He wanted his side publicly aired and decided to do it this way, even though he knew Morris's predisposition. To Morris's credit he gives Rumsfeld free reign and ample opportunity to make his case.
But Rumsfeld does not control the editing process and it here that Morris strikes back. Using cross cutting, graphics, and archival footage Morris exposes Rumsfeld's renowned candor as a smokescreen for obfuscation and evasion. Most particularly, in Rumsfeld's now famous, or infamous if you prefer, philosophical rumination on what could be known or unknown , or whatever the hell he said, in response to a direct question as to whether he (Rumsfeld) had any evidence that Sadam Hussein had participated or assisted in the 9/11 attacks. This was called by the press at the time (rather admiringly I might add) as "Rummy speak".
In the film Rumsfeld admits there wasn't then and isn't now any such evidence.
Even more telling to me was his mastery of expressing a limited truth and passing it off as candor. In summing up the Viet Nam War Rumsfeld says this: "Some things work out, some things don't .That one didn't." Hard to argue with that. True, as far as it goes, but it does not illuminate. Hell, I could have come up with that over a couple of Irish Whiskeys at the local tavern, and maybe even thought to be pretty profound by my fellow inebriates at the bar, but I think we have a right to expect more than that from our public officials. Did we learn anything? Would we do anything differently? In listening to Rumsfeld's echo the answer is apparently and depressingly, no. Given the perceived threats at the respective times in Iraq and Viet Nam, our policy makers did exactly the same thing.
Author Evan S. Connell in his book "Son of the Morning Star" recounts how General Philip Sheridan as one of the key policy makers leading to the destruction of the Plains Indian tribes after the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn, reflected on his role. Sheridan seemed to empathize with the Indians and implied that had the situations been reversed, he would have acted in the very same way the Indians had. He would have resisted. To which Connell comments: "Like other generals, bureaucrats and private citizens who contribute to some irrevocable disaster, he wondered about it afterward."
Not Donald Rumsfeld, no qualms, no regrets, no apologies. He did his duty and history can sort it out. And of course it will.
Morris ends the film with a shot of an empty ocean which I took to be metaphor and interpreted thus: It is shimmering and shiny, even magnificent to look at but who knows what horrors lie beneath the surface. Like Donald Rumsfeld, it covers the "Unknown Knowns".
The fog remains
Camoo17 April 2014
Famously rigorous filmmaker Errol Morris sits a subject in front of him and the subject won't budge. This is, unfortunately, the takeaway from this documentary - a tremendous disappointment of a film in some way, but an extraordinary documentation of psychosis in another.
Rumsfeld apparently so annoyed Morris with his crafty replies that the director felt it necessary to follow up his film with a wild press tour apologizing for it - including a four part investigation into Rumsfeld's evasiveness in a New York times op-ed. In another article he called this film 'a horror movie'.
And it's understandable. Those who were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be infuriated- it gives us no new answers as to the motives behind the wars, no candid insights into Rumsfeld's tenure, and instead presents us with the same smirking blur of a man that we all got to know from his press conferences. Without a glint of uncertainty in his eye, he repeats essentially the same shtick as he always has. Direct questions are deflected with a grin and a wave.
Indeed, nobody deserves to be investigated more than Rumsfeld or his former compatriots, and Morris would ordinarily be the man to do it. But for an encounter to take place between two people, both need to be there. In this case one was absent. Those expecting a one on one - a whittling away towards the real substance - will leave empty handed because Rumsfeld is a ghost. There ain't nothing there. We've all been punk'd.
Rumsfeld apparently so annoyed Morris with his crafty replies that the director felt it necessary to follow up his film with a wild press tour apologizing for it - including a four part investigation into Rumsfeld's evasiveness in a New York times op-ed. In another article he called this film 'a horror movie'.
And it's understandable. Those who were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be infuriated- it gives us no new answers as to the motives behind the wars, no candid insights into Rumsfeld's tenure, and instead presents us with the same smirking blur of a man that we all got to know from his press conferences. Without a glint of uncertainty in his eye, he repeats essentially the same shtick as he always has. Direct questions are deflected with a grin and a wave.
Indeed, nobody deserves to be investigated more than Rumsfeld or his former compatriots, and Morris would ordinarily be the man to do it. But for an encounter to take place between two people, both need to be there. In this case one was absent. Those expecting a one on one - a whittling away towards the real substance - will leave empty handed because Rumsfeld is a ghost. There ain't nothing there. We've all been punk'd.
A fascinating look at an abuse of power
rogerdarlington18 March 2014
"There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know." This was the enigmatic quote from American politician Donald Rumsfeld that inspired the title of this interview by acclaimed documentary maker Errol Morris. Rumsfeld had an astonishing career working for no fewer than four US presidents and serving twice as Secretary of State for Defense - once as the youngest holder of the position (1975- 1977) and then later as the oldest holder of the post (2001-2006). In his second term as Defense Secretary, he was a principal architect of the so-called 'war on terror', sending troops into Afghanistan and then Iraq.
The fascinating testimony presented by Morris is both written and oral. Rumsfeld was famous for his blizzard of memos - known as "snowflakes" - and Morris managed to gain access to all the unclassified ones and to persuade Rumsfeld to read out the most relevant to the documentary. Additionally Morris posed a series of searching questions in an interview shot over 11 days and recorded using the film maker's trademark "Interrotron" device which means that Rumsfeld is seen staring straight into the camera. It has to be said that Rumsfeld is a fluent writer and an articulate speaker and, after eight decades, is as sharp as ever, so there is no revelatory moment like David Frost's interview with Richard Nixon, but it is precisely his evasiveness and the charming manner in which he accomplishes this that is so revealing of a bizarre and (when given power) frightening character.
I saw "The Known Unknown" at its UK premiere in central London's Curzon Soho cinema in the presence of Errol Morris who made some opening remarks and then, after the screening, took a question & answer session. He compared this documentary with "The Fog Of War", his 2003 interview with another US Defense Secretary when he questioned Robert McNamara on the Vietnam war, and called the two films "bookends". He noted that McNamara was "deeply reflective", but characterised Rumsfeld's performance as "deeply unreflective". He called Rumsfeld "a skillful obscurantist" who was "obsessive with language" and had "a complete lack of irony", highlighting his "infernal grin".
The banality of much of Rumsfeld's language - "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" - reminded me of Peter Sellers' penultimate film "Being There" (1979) in which he played a simple gardener whose bland aphorisms about nature led to him being co-opted by America's political power brokers. Morris has done us a service in capturing all this for history in the hope that we can learn from history. What is totally unclear is why Rumsfeld agreed to the interview. This was Morris's last question to him and he responded: "I'll be darned if I know".
The fascinating testimony presented by Morris is both written and oral. Rumsfeld was famous for his blizzard of memos - known as "snowflakes" - and Morris managed to gain access to all the unclassified ones and to persuade Rumsfeld to read out the most relevant to the documentary. Additionally Morris posed a series of searching questions in an interview shot over 11 days and recorded using the film maker's trademark "Interrotron" device which means that Rumsfeld is seen staring straight into the camera. It has to be said that Rumsfeld is a fluent writer and an articulate speaker and, after eight decades, is as sharp as ever, so there is no revelatory moment like David Frost's interview with Richard Nixon, but it is precisely his evasiveness and the charming manner in which he accomplishes this that is so revealing of a bizarre and (when given power) frightening character.
I saw "The Known Unknown" at its UK premiere in central London's Curzon Soho cinema in the presence of Errol Morris who made some opening remarks and then, after the screening, took a question & answer session. He compared this documentary with "The Fog Of War", his 2003 interview with another US Defense Secretary when he questioned Robert McNamara on the Vietnam war, and called the two films "bookends". He noted that McNamara was "deeply reflective", but characterised Rumsfeld's performance as "deeply unreflective". He called Rumsfeld "a skillful obscurantist" who was "obsessive with language" and had "a complete lack of irony", highlighting his "infernal grin".
The banality of much of Rumsfeld's language - "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" - reminded me of Peter Sellers' penultimate film "Being There" (1979) in which he played a simple gardener whose bland aphorisms about nature led to him being co-opted by America's political power brokers. Morris has done us a service in capturing all this for history in the hope that we can learn from history. What is totally unclear is why Rumsfeld agreed to the interview. This was Morris's last question to him and he responded: "I'll be darned if I know".
An interesting idea, but presented in a format that sometimes becomes quite boring
wellthatswhatithinkanyway8 August 2015
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
Former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld finds himself being grilled one on one by documentary maker Errol Morris in this follow up to his 2003 expose The Fog of War. A controversial figure as a result of being one of the key architects of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rumsfeld is called to defend his actions, and is put in the spotlight about some glaring inconsistencies in the thousands of memos, 'snowflakes', as he called them, that he was fond of writing that questioned the validity of the invasions. At the same time, Morris presents some of the background of his subject, from being the youngest and then the oldest holder of his post, as well as serving under no less than four US presidents.
Being remembered, as it will, as the first big war of the 21st century, the invasion of Iraq is still seen by many as a massive travesty, and a gross abuse of power, that many still want answers to. In some small way, Errol Morris here attempts a stab at this, by gaining access to one of the key figures at the heart of the matter. Throwing the spotlight completely on Rumsfeld, the man and his foibles are exposed for all to see, and with no escape. The title of the film is a part of one of the man's most confusing and tongue twisting uses of language, that probably makes a lot of sense to him, but just confuses (and infuriates) most others. He continues with this type of garble throughout, and often rounds it off with that questionable grin of his that will make him even harder to stomach for those already unconvinced by his rhetoric.
The film covers a lot of interesting ground, and has much back story to ponder over, but there's little to be distracted from than a man sitting down and talking to a camera, which is inevitably boring at times and causes your attention to wonder. It might also be a case of too much information to take in, at a running time stretching to just over an hour and a half. All the same, I can say I preferred it to The Fog of War, with Morris somehow managing to make it all just a little more digestible and affecting.
Rumsfeld doesn't come off as an entirely desirable guy, a man who clearly uses language designed to sound clever but obviously just with the purpose of confusing, whose nonsense is signed off with a patronising smile, and who leaves a lot of unanswered questions on the lips of those affected by the not completely kosher decisions he was part of making. For those who already weren't fond of him, it won't make them feel any better, whilst others will just see the man behind the suit, and have to make their own mind up. Morris has brought him out in a manner that has a lot of interesting material, but not the most thrilling execution. ***
Former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld finds himself being grilled one on one by documentary maker Errol Morris in this follow up to his 2003 expose The Fog of War. A controversial figure as a result of being one of the key architects of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rumsfeld is called to defend his actions, and is put in the spotlight about some glaring inconsistencies in the thousands of memos, 'snowflakes', as he called them, that he was fond of writing that questioned the validity of the invasions. At the same time, Morris presents some of the background of his subject, from being the youngest and then the oldest holder of his post, as well as serving under no less than four US presidents.
Being remembered, as it will, as the first big war of the 21st century, the invasion of Iraq is still seen by many as a massive travesty, and a gross abuse of power, that many still want answers to. In some small way, Errol Morris here attempts a stab at this, by gaining access to one of the key figures at the heart of the matter. Throwing the spotlight completely on Rumsfeld, the man and his foibles are exposed for all to see, and with no escape. The title of the film is a part of one of the man's most confusing and tongue twisting uses of language, that probably makes a lot of sense to him, but just confuses (and infuriates) most others. He continues with this type of garble throughout, and often rounds it off with that questionable grin of his that will make him even harder to stomach for those already unconvinced by his rhetoric.
The film covers a lot of interesting ground, and has much back story to ponder over, but there's little to be distracted from than a man sitting down and talking to a camera, which is inevitably boring at times and causes your attention to wonder. It might also be a case of too much information to take in, at a running time stretching to just over an hour and a half. All the same, I can say I preferred it to The Fog of War, with Morris somehow managing to make it all just a little more digestible and affecting.
Rumsfeld doesn't come off as an entirely desirable guy, a man who clearly uses language designed to sound clever but obviously just with the purpose of confusing, whose nonsense is signed off with a patronising smile, and who leaves a lot of unanswered questions on the lips of those affected by the not completely kosher decisions he was part of making. For those who already weren't fond of him, it won't make them feel any better, whilst others will just see the man behind the suit, and have to make their own mind up. Morris has brought him out in a manner that has a lot of interesting material, but not the most thrilling execution. ***
the day Rummy cried...
ronspencer54713 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Unknown Known is Errol Morris' biopic on Donald Rumsfeld, navy officer, congressman, special envoy, secretary of defense for two presidents(Jerry Ford and W.) Morris's previous work includes Gates of Heaven, Vernon, Florida, Thin Blue Line, A Brief History of Time and Fog of War all highly praised and, along with Chris Marker, he might be the most idiosyncratic picture maker of the post-modern era. Famous sequences: Rumsfeld explaining the "unknown known;" his early career in the Nixon and Ford administrations; the black and white time lapse sequences; the attack on the Pentagon; Rumsfeld constant smirk as he explains his actions before and after 9/11. this one isn't probably isn't up to par with his other work and it might not please the echo chambers on both sides of the political spectrum. however, it's worth a look.
slightly more informative than Sunday mornings
SnoopyStyle6 August 2016
Errol Morris tackles another former United States Secretary of Defense in Donald Rumsfeld with an in-depth interview. It starts mainly on the invasion of Iraq but covers his entire Washington career and his personal life. The Iraq stuff is not anything new especially if one had paid attention. Rumsfeld is as evasive as ever. His earlier work for previous Presidents holds some interest inside stories. The obvious comparison is Errol Morris' masterpiece "The Fog of War". In that one, Robert McNamara is much less a politician and more of a wise elder lamenting mistakes. That is a much more compelling watch. This one is an extended Sunday morning political talk show and a simple biodoc of Rumsfeld's career. Errol Morris' views are obvious from his questioning. The history is informative but nothing shocking. Maybe in another twenty years, Rumsfeld will have something more interesting and surprising to say.
Should be known
hte-trasme4 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
At the end of this film, Errol Morris asks its subject, Donald Rumsfeld, why he is participating in the film at all. The response he gets is, "I'll be damned if I know."
Morris has a particular genius for drawing and highlighting themes from the raw, direct interview material of his subjects. And prominent here is Rumsfeld's unusual and apparently absolutely comfort with uncertainty. "You can't know with certainty, he tells us. "When you say, 'How could you know?' the answer is, 'You can't.'" In old press conference film he misquotes Hamlet to assert that "there are some things neither bad nor good but thinking makes them so." He assures us with a glib grin that "All generalizations are false -- including this one."
But the film invites us to take note that Rumsfeld is not just comfortable with uncertainly, but comfortable with acting on that uncertainty in ways that lead to catastrophes like the Iraq War. For Rumsfeld, not only is absence of evidence that Saddam Hussein did have "weapons of mass destruction" not evidence that he did not -- but that lack of evidence that he did not is reason enough to go to war. Rumsfeld shows himself to be a dangerous man because not only is he aware that he can't reach absolute truth, he's profoundly incurious about approaching information that would approximate truth.
Morris doesn't narrate, but his voice here is a prominent one. Rumsfeld, often terse, impossible to pin down, and obsessed with definitions, is engaged in dialog with his interviewer, who through both sharp and naif questions as well as eloquent imagery and editing presents a counter-narrative that neatly undermines Rumsfeld's. Over the course of about 100 minutes of listening to Donald Rumsfeld, he allows himself to show himself to us as deeply self-contradictory -- and deeply satisfied with acting in an examined way.
This is a sharply intelligent and subtle film, dealing with and revealing a mystifying almost deliberately thoughtless subject.
Morris has a particular genius for drawing and highlighting themes from the raw, direct interview material of his subjects. And prominent here is Rumsfeld's unusual and apparently absolutely comfort with uncertainty. "You can't know with certainty, he tells us. "When you say, 'How could you know?' the answer is, 'You can't.'" In old press conference film he misquotes Hamlet to assert that "there are some things neither bad nor good but thinking makes them so." He assures us with a glib grin that "All generalizations are false -- including this one."
But the film invites us to take note that Rumsfeld is not just comfortable with uncertainly, but comfortable with acting on that uncertainty in ways that lead to catastrophes like the Iraq War. For Rumsfeld, not only is absence of evidence that Saddam Hussein did have "weapons of mass destruction" not evidence that he did not -- but that lack of evidence that he did not is reason enough to go to war. Rumsfeld shows himself to be a dangerous man because not only is he aware that he can't reach absolute truth, he's profoundly incurious about approaching information that would approximate truth.
Morris doesn't narrate, but his voice here is a prominent one. Rumsfeld, often terse, impossible to pin down, and obsessed with definitions, is engaged in dialog with his interviewer, who through both sharp and naif questions as well as eloquent imagery and editing presents a counter-narrative that neatly undermines Rumsfeld's. Over the course of about 100 minutes of listening to Donald Rumsfeld, he allows himself to show himself to us as deeply self-contradictory -- and deeply satisfied with acting in an examined way.
This is a sharply intelligent and subtle film, dealing with and revealing a mystifying almost deliberately thoughtless subject.
Morris returns to his favorite directorial conceits
jjrous16 April 2014
Overall, a pretty good treatment of an important subject for a documentary. Errol Morris does, however, return to his favorite directorial conceits over and over again.
One such tic of his is the sped up view of a skyline (with the clouds racing across the sky, day turning into twilight, then night all in a few seconds). I suppose some directors use this technique to indicate the passage of time, but in this movie most scenes opened with titles on the screen indicating the month, day, year, etc. Hence, no need for the fast-moving clouds.
Also, because Rumsfeld referred to his messages as "snowflakes," Morris over-used the glass ball snowflakes as a bridge between many scenes. Morris is an admirable documentary film maker and shouldn't fall into the habit of pro forma use of such conceits.
One such tic of his is the sped up view of a skyline (with the clouds racing across the sky, day turning into twilight, then night all in a few seconds). I suppose some directors use this technique to indicate the passage of time, but in this movie most scenes opened with titles on the screen indicating the month, day, year, etc. Hence, no need for the fast-moving clouds.
Also, because Rumsfeld referred to his messages as "snowflakes," Morris over-used the glass ball snowflakes as a bridge between many scenes. Morris is an admirable documentary film maker and shouldn't fall into the habit of pro forma use of such conceits.
Rumsfeld's lifetime of service to war plays out in The Unknown Known
texshelters28 April 2014
Donald Rumsfeld, The Unknown Known, and his Lifetime of Service to War
The Unknown Known is the latest documentary from Errol Morris. Like his interviews with Robert McNamara in his film Fog of War, he interviews another architect of war, this time the Second Iraq War.
Unlike former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara who pushed a continuation of the Vietnam conflict when he was in office, Donald Rumsfeld is not apologetic about his role in sending Americans off to die overseas. In his book In Retrospect, McNamara states in Time Magazine, "We were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."
Rumsfeld has no apologies to make, according to the man himself. And he learned no lesson from Vietnam except, as he would say, "it was a failure of imagination" that we lost in Vietnam.
Even Nixon apologized about his mistakes when talking to David Frost.
I am sure Director Morris was under legal contract not to ask tough, direct questions of Rumsfeld. Thus, he let Rumsfeld indict himself. Rumsfeld is narcissistic and unapologetic about the Second Iraq War. He sees no wrong in making the U.S. strong militarily regardless in how that strength is used. He does not, in The Unknown Known, see that the Second Iraq War was based on lies at all. He sees no lies. He submits that Saddam Hussein and Iraq did have WMDs, we just couldn't find them. He believes the U.N. weapons inspectors were duped and needed to keep looking. He does not agree that water boarding is torture, no matter what Human Rights Watch and others say. He sees know wrong except in our "failure of imagination."
Rumsfeld is a master of Newspeak, using phrases like "peace through strength", and "weakness is provocation." This all comes out in the movie, and it was no surprise to most of the audience. He lives in a world of lies, and the person he deludes the most is himself. Rating: Rent it. It is worth a view, and I would love to say that you should see it multiple times.
But there are no dramatic revelations in the movie, no sense of awaking. In fact, the lesson is that a beltway insider has many ways to deny the suffering of others, especially those we kill thousands of miles away for no cause. Rumsfeld sees war not as a destination, but a journey. As long as the U.S. stays on that journey, he is happy.
Peace, Tex Shelters
The Unknown Known is the latest documentary from Errol Morris. Like his interviews with Robert McNamara in his film Fog of War, he interviews another architect of war, this time the Second Iraq War.
Unlike former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara who pushed a continuation of the Vietnam conflict when he was in office, Donald Rumsfeld is not apologetic about his role in sending Americans off to die overseas. In his book In Retrospect, McNamara states in Time Magazine, "We were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."
Rumsfeld has no apologies to make, according to the man himself. And he learned no lesson from Vietnam except, as he would say, "it was a failure of imagination" that we lost in Vietnam.
Even Nixon apologized about his mistakes when talking to David Frost.
I am sure Director Morris was under legal contract not to ask tough, direct questions of Rumsfeld. Thus, he let Rumsfeld indict himself. Rumsfeld is narcissistic and unapologetic about the Second Iraq War. He sees no wrong in making the U.S. strong militarily regardless in how that strength is used. He does not, in The Unknown Known, see that the Second Iraq War was based on lies at all. He sees no lies. He submits that Saddam Hussein and Iraq did have WMDs, we just couldn't find them. He believes the U.N. weapons inspectors were duped and needed to keep looking. He does not agree that water boarding is torture, no matter what Human Rights Watch and others say. He sees know wrong except in our "failure of imagination."
Rumsfeld is a master of Newspeak, using phrases like "peace through strength", and "weakness is provocation." This all comes out in the movie, and it was no surprise to most of the audience. He lives in a world of lies, and the person he deludes the most is himself. Rating: Rent it. It is worth a view, and I would love to say that you should see it multiple times.
But there are no dramatic revelations in the movie, no sense of awaking. In fact, the lesson is that a beltway insider has many ways to deny the suffering of others, especially those we kill thousands of miles away for no cause. Rumsfeld sees war not as a destination, but a journey. As long as the U.S. stays on that journey, he is happy.
Peace, Tex Shelters
Morris expertly reveals a glimpse of nothing
tmacmanus-127 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Your instinct will tell you that Rumsfeld reveals nothing in this film. Criminal lawyers won't find any previously undisclosed testimony (or even evidential leads) for Hague prosecutions. For journalists, there are no obvious new headlines. But for criminologists (like myself and my colleagues at ISCI), the curious, and students of society, his performance is illuminating. Morris laments (at an ICA Q&A - 19th March 2014) the torturous process of interviewing this vacuous, irony free memo-maniac: "there's just nothing there!" But - to paraphrase Don - the presence of nothing does not mean everything is absent. The filmmakers expertly splice in documents and images to portray a relentless parade of dangerous and shady characters. Nixon, Ford, Regan, Kissinger, The Bushes and a diabolical pair who weaved in and out of successive administrations as if riding a macabre carousel: Rumsfeld and his trusty "assistant" Cheney. Thanks to Rumsfeld's predilection for recording and typing up his entire thought process, many converted to and sent as typed memos (available here: http://papers.rumsfeld.com/), Morris had the ammunition to potentially destroy Rumsfeld's self-constructed world. But he doesn't. Instead he allows us to observe Rumsfeld in his natural state, and in all it's frightening glory. Fog of War it is not. It is fine cinema. Ask yourself while you watch it: is Rumsfeld clever clever, or stupid clever? Or clever stupid?
A Masterpiece of Propaganda (Contains strong vocabulary).
HFLauritzen15 April 2014
This "amazing" documentary proves once more how the true potential of journalism and cinematography is utterly ravished by a point of view that simply uses rhetorical and inverse vocabulary and even lame psychology to explain the reasons why Neo-conservatism was right even though they were not. Clearly this person makes me hate Mr. Rumsfeld more than I already did. Now I have a totally new look towards him. Of more anger, betrayal and hatred. To a person that justified a war preemptively and then says that unknown known f*cking sh*t, to justify why he had to do it and, how innocent he is?
This is the lowest form of politeness I have reached in all my years. But after studying geopolitics, I find this documentary insulting to all those who lost their lives. To all the mothers who lost their sons. To all those kids who lost their fathers, and to all those innocent kids who are still dying in the name of "freedom" and echo of what these men have done.
Mr Rumsfeld f**k you very much.
H.F. Lauritzen
This is the lowest form of politeness I have reached in all my years. But after studying geopolitics, I find this documentary insulting to all those who lost their lives. To all the mothers who lost their sons. To all those kids who lost their fathers, and to all those innocent kids who are still dying in the name of "freedom" and echo of what these men have done.
Mr Rumsfeld f**k you very much.
H.F. Lauritzen
An Atypical Documentary Whose Amoral Subject Speaks for Himself
classicalsteve22 September 2014
There's something maddeningly chaotic about Donald Rumsfeld's logic in terms of US international policy. When he was in press conferences during the Iraq War under W Bush, Rumsfeld's answers to tough questions often rang of the so-called "double-speak", a term which is associated with but not explicitly used in George Orwell's "1984". He would respond with other questions or make unfunny jokes. He would use strange metaphors. Rarely did he simply answer direct questions. Errol Morris' documentary about Rumsfeld is strangely similar. He has Rumsfeld do most of the talking, and what comes out of the former Defense Secretary's mouth is a barrage of inconsistencies, untruths, and illogical conclusions. In short, Rumsfeld's whole way of thinking is a jumbled incomprehensible mess. And yet, he was one of the most powerful people in the W Bush administration during the first decade of the 21st century. You could argue W Bush had flawed judgment, Dick Cheney was immoral, but Rumsfeld is in his own realm. As Morris said in an interview, he was one of the most "self-deceiving" people he had ever interviewed.
The format of the documentary is one of the strangest you'll ever see in a film of this type. The subject himself is the narrator. He narrates and then comments on the different subjects covered in the documentary. He occasionally answers questions posed by Errol Morris who can be heard in the background. One of the former Defense Secretary's most interesting phrases is "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", a phrase coined by Carl Sagan when referring to the unknown realms of outer space. Rumsfeld is famous for composing 1000's of email memos, and recurring throughout the memos are his definitions of particular words and terms which are displayed on-screen. The film traces his childhood, his early years in politics under President Nixon and briefly under Gerald Ford. He was an adviser for Governor Reagan and later for President Reagan and George Bush Senior. Most of the documentary concerns the Iraq War and his tenure as Defense Secretary under George W Bush.
One example which highlights Rumsfeld own self-deception and denial is when Morris asks about the public perception concerning Saddam Hussein after the 9/11 attacks. Rumsfeld in the documentary claims people knew that Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The documentary then cuts to a Rumsfeld press conference clip of 2003 in which a reporter quotes Saddam Hussein: "I would like to tell you directly we have no relationship with Al Queada." Rumsfeld's reply: "And Abraham Lincoln was short." The reporter than asks Rumsfeld to respond to Hussein's statement and the Secretary of Defense simply says that Hussein "rarely tells the truth". The implication is clear: Rumsfeld wants the public to believe that Hussein and Iraq contributed to 9/11. If you read between the lines, and realize what is unsaid rather than said, Rumsfeld never actually states that Hussein is lying about having a relationship with Al-Queada. He makes the Lincoln analogy joke and he says that Hussein has a pattern of lying, but never once did Rumsfeld himself directly accuse Hussein of lying about having a relationship Al-Quaeda. This is the kind of double-talk, doublespeak which is how Rumsfeld's reasoning seems to work.
People have criticized the documentary as raising many more questions than it answers. This may be the point of the film. Rumsfeld comes off, at best, as a completely self-deceived person whose rationalities have no logic, and at worst an amoral international leader who got us into an unjust war. His logic, we "lacked imagination" to see the Japanese coming when they attacked Pearl Harbor and thereby justifies the War in Iraq. As Morris points out in an interview, if we can imagine our enemies doing anything in the future, then we can rationalize military operations for almost any reason at any time.
The format of the documentary is one of the strangest you'll ever see in a film of this type. The subject himself is the narrator. He narrates and then comments on the different subjects covered in the documentary. He occasionally answers questions posed by Errol Morris who can be heard in the background. One of the former Defense Secretary's most interesting phrases is "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", a phrase coined by Carl Sagan when referring to the unknown realms of outer space. Rumsfeld is famous for composing 1000's of email memos, and recurring throughout the memos are his definitions of particular words and terms which are displayed on-screen. The film traces his childhood, his early years in politics under President Nixon and briefly under Gerald Ford. He was an adviser for Governor Reagan and later for President Reagan and George Bush Senior. Most of the documentary concerns the Iraq War and his tenure as Defense Secretary under George W Bush.
One example which highlights Rumsfeld own self-deception and denial is when Morris asks about the public perception concerning Saddam Hussein after the 9/11 attacks. Rumsfeld in the documentary claims people knew that Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The documentary then cuts to a Rumsfeld press conference clip of 2003 in which a reporter quotes Saddam Hussein: "I would like to tell you directly we have no relationship with Al Queada." Rumsfeld's reply: "And Abraham Lincoln was short." The reporter than asks Rumsfeld to respond to Hussein's statement and the Secretary of Defense simply says that Hussein "rarely tells the truth". The implication is clear: Rumsfeld wants the public to believe that Hussein and Iraq contributed to 9/11. If you read between the lines, and realize what is unsaid rather than said, Rumsfeld never actually states that Hussein is lying about having a relationship with Al-Queada. He makes the Lincoln analogy joke and he says that Hussein has a pattern of lying, but never once did Rumsfeld himself directly accuse Hussein of lying about having a relationship Al-Quaeda. This is the kind of double-talk, doublespeak which is how Rumsfeld's reasoning seems to work.
People have criticized the documentary as raising many more questions than it answers. This may be the point of the film. Rumsfeld comes off, at best, as a completely self-deceived person whose rationalities have no logic, and at worst an amoral international leader who got us into an unjust war. His logic, we "lacked imagination" to see the Japanese coming when they attacked Pearl Harbor and thereby justifies the War in Iraq. As Morris points out in an interview, if we can imagine our enemies doing anything in the future, then we can rationalize military operations for almost any reason at any time.
An important fingerprint in contemporary American history
CEBaum11 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Donald Rumsfeld is something of a prose writer, a philosopher and a thinker. He plays with language and was known in press conferences for his linguistic play during question times. Errol Morris questions whether playing with words is the best approach when their meaning decides war and the fate of a nation.
The lure of Errol Morris is, like his contemporary Werner Herzog, his ability to cut deep into his subject to find the juice. I cannot think of any documentary makers except the two of them that are able to craft facts and history into such a glorious narrative to the point that it feels like a beautiful, fictional screenplay.
Donald Rumsfeld is framed simply, in the same light blue shirt and tie throughout. He speaks with purpose and poetry as if he is convinced he is weaving historical quotes on every breath – he probably is.
Famed for his "snowflakes" in The Pentagon, philosophical memos typed on white paper which amounted to millions over his almost half-century career, serving in various senior roles from Nixon to W Bush. Using stock footage of war, presidential history and photos from within the sanctum of The Pentagon and The White House, Rumsfeld talks about the most important of those memos and what they mean.
A fantastic gem of a film deserving many awards; the icing on the cake here is a soundtrack by Danny Elfman no less to elevate this factual interview piece to a work of art. Thoroughly unmissable and an important fingerprint in contemporary American history.
The lure of Errol Morris is, like his contemporary Werner Herzog, his ability to cut deep into his subject to find the juice. I cannot think of any documentary makers except the two of them that are able to craft facts and history into such a glorious narrative to the point that it feels like a beautiful, fictional screenplay.
Donald Rumsfeld is framed simply, in the same light blue shirt and tie throughout. He speaks with purpose and poetry as if he is convinced he is weaving historical quotes on every breath – he probably is.
Famed for his "snowflakes" in The Pentagon, philosophical memos typed on white paper which amounted to millions over his almost half-century career, serving in various senior roles from Nixon to W Bush. Using stock footage of war, presidential history and photos from within the sanctum of The Pentagon and The White House, Rumsfeld talks about the most important of those memos and what they mean.
A fantastic gem of a film deserving many awards; the icing on the cake here is a soundtrack by Danny Elfman no less to elevate this factual interview piece to a work of art. Thoroughly unmissable and an important fingerprint in contemporary American history.
Misunderstood as a failure
jlroodt15 September 2014
Many reviews of this film decry the lack of any new revelations of note. Many commentators argue that Donald Rumsfeld is evasive and too smart for Errol Morris.
On the contrary I believe this is actually a better film, more revealing than "Fog of War". How, you may ask?
Simply this, McNamara was emotional and outspoken. He captivated the audience. Rumsfeld was "cold and measured". This is just as thrilling. If you look very closely, there are subtle clues in his evasiveness, even if to illuminate his extreme arrogance as a veil for something hidden beneath.
What that something is, we can only speculate on, but that is part of the film's appeal. We can learn more from the unknown knowns than what is clearly spelled out.
On the contrary I believe this is actually a better film, more revealing than "Fog of War". How, you may ask?
Simply this, McNamara was emotional and outspoken. He captivated the audience. Rumsfeld was "cold and measured". This is just as thrilling. If you look very closely, there are subtle clues in his evasiveness, even if to illuminate his extreme arrogance as a veil for something hidden beneath.
What that something is, we can only speculate on, but that is part of the film's appeal. We can learn more from the unknown knowns than what is clearly spelled out.
A Selfie: Donald & Errol
cchardon-923-31960413 February 2014
Donald Rumsfeld and Errol Morris are two senior men, not lacking success and self-esteem, Errol offering an audience and to Donald, to re-write his Historie.
What usually interests the film-maker is how people try so hard not to see the truth. Interesting angle. The movie was born from the numerous memos from Donald Rumsfeld, also a good Start!
The movie has a high quality production and the effects are great, the soundtrack is pervasive that is where all begins. It is produced like a Hollywood movie and formally gives the impressions of deepness. As spectator, it is embarrassing to see this long PR-Advertisement. Rumsfeld knows how to behave in front of a camera. He knows how to confuse, using pseudo-philosophical generalizations like The "unknown known". Unfortunately, the story-telling is full of inaccuracies and lies. The spectator is left alone, without anybody to counters or explains the infatuations of this guy.
Irak had been invaded because the FBI was delivering wrong information? I invite you to watch the movie "Fair Game" instead of "the Unknown Known" Rumsfeld pronounces the name of Dick Cheney, I would have wished his view about the privatization of the war through companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.
I wish I would have not seen this propaganda-movie. The only thing I learnt is to avoid the next movies from Errol Morris.
What usually interests the film-maker is how people try so hard not to see the truth. Interesting angle. The movie was born from the numerous memos from Donald Rumsfeld, also a good Start!
The movie has a high quality production and the effects are great, the soundtrack is pervasive that is where all begins. It is produced like a Hollywood movie and formally gives the impressions of deepness. As spectator, it is embarrassing to see this long PR-Advertisement. Rumsfeld knows how to behave in front of a camera. He knows how to confuse, using pseudo-philosophical generalizations like The "unknown known". Unfortunately, the story-telling is full of inaccuracies and lies. The spectator is left alone, without anybody to counters or explains the infatuations of this guy.
Irak had been invaded because the FBI was delivering wrong information? I invite you to watch the movie "Fair Game" instead of "the Unknown Known" Rumsfeld pronounces the name of Dick Cheney, I would have wished his view about the privatization of the war through companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.
I wish I would have not seen this propaganda-movie. The only thing I learnt is to avoid the next movies from Errol Morris.
Interesting due to the focus and subject, but not much beyond this and generally disappointingly unrevealing
bob the moo10 May 2014
Having very much enjoyed the similarly framed Fog Of War, I was of course very curious to see Donald Rumsfeld undergo the same sort of film since in his case his actions have been very much within my lifetime but of course most relevantly in the post-9/11 world. I recall that his frequent ducking and diving with the press during Afghanistan and Iraq saw him to be very nimble on his feet but also prone to flat out denial of things that certainly appeared to be true unless you took an absolute stand on the very specific point of definition. The film starts with Rumsfeld's love of the memo, of which thousands exist, and we jump back through his political career, with the first hour spent pre-Bus administration before the second half circles back very much to the 00's and his role as Defense Secretary.
In terms of the ground it covers, the film is inherently interesting and it does at least provide a concise walk through things, with the odd aspect that I was not fully aware. It achieves this not because the film is really interesting, but just because it covers the events and these in themselves are interesting. It helps to understand the players (as many will) but not too much, since the film really will do little for those that know the subject inside out. In terms of the type of reflection and investigation of Fog of War, forget it, none is here and Rumsfeld has no intention of straying from the line he has walked thus far. This makes the film ultimately disappointing – not because I wanted the film to "get him" or reveal him, but just because there is really nothing here to add to the hours of cspan and controlled statements over the past decade.
If the film could be said to reveal anything, it is that it reveals the steadfastness and the unwillingness to publicly reflect of Rumsfeld – he grins his way through the film, providing unconvincing defenses of anything put to him and quick to argue even on things about the specific meaning of his "known unknowns" speech. It is a great performance in that regard and the film only reveals how deep entrenched it is. Is this a surprise though? Is it enough to really consider enough to justify the film to find that a man who is a career politician is very good at politics? I think not and ultimately, although the focus of the film inherently provides material of interest, it does little to add to it or to get anywhere that could be said to revealing, insightful or to have made this specific film worthwhile.
In terms of the ground it covers, the film is inherently interesting and it does at least provide a concise walk through things, with the odd aspect that I was not fully aware. It achieves this not because the film is really interesting, but just because it covers the events and these in themselves are interesting. It helps to understand the players (as many will) but not too much, since the film really will do little for those that know the subject inside out. In terms of the type of reflection and investigation of Fog of War, forget it, none is here and Rumsfeld has no intention of straying from the line he has walked thus far. This makes the film ultimately disappointing – not because I wanted the film to "get him" or reveal him, but just because there is really nothing here to add to the hours of cspan and controlled statements over the past decade.
If the film could be said to reveal anything, it is that it reveals the steadfastness and the unwillingness to publicly reflect of Rumsfeld – he grins his way through the film, providing unconvincing defenses of anything put to him and quick to argue even on things about the specific meaning of his "known unknowns" speech. It is a great performance in that regard and the film only reveals how deep entrenched it is. Is this a surprise though? Is it enough to really consider enough to justify the film to find that a man who is a career politician is very good at politics? I think not and ultimately, although the focus of the film inherently provides material of interest, it does little to add to it or to get anywhere that could be said to revealing, insightful or to have made this specific film worthwhile.
"All generalizations are false, including this one."
Quinoa198419 April 2014
They say 'never forget 9/11'. Of course. I say never forget Rumsfeld, a man who at times seems fairly intelligent (cue up George Carlin's quick follow-up - "AH, he's FULL OF (bleep)!") and other times answers Errol Morris' questions in such a way where Morris just leaves the camera on him for a while afterward. There's almost that sensation looking at him like 'you stare at the abyss...'
And yet, he did offer up his resignation at the time of the Abu-Gharib scandal, which seems for me to be a new revelation - and by the way, this is as much if not more-so a follow-up to Morris' Standard Operating Procedure as it is the Fog of War, the story of the soldiers there doing the torture and the pictures, this time it's the "Captain" - though how genuine this was, and of course how awfully it makes Bush look for not accepting it, is up for debate. There are a lot of shots of the ocean here, at one point an 'ocean of words' even. I feel like this is a superb metaphor for the film and this figure - what do we see when we look at it? Why does it look so calm? Morris never shows an ocean in a stormy mode; just the very calm surface, at one point split right down the middle. But there's so much going on underneath it. Plus aerial shots of the swamps as well.
Morris' direction is impeccable as always, a fantastic, spot-on mix of news footage, many clips from Rumsfeld press conferences like when he first posited the 'known known etc' bit, as if he were giving out a portion of a script for a Jean-Luc Godard movie or some semantic babble (maybe poignant, but still babble). It almost has the effect, if only here and there, of the 'point-counter-point' method used on The Daily Show, showing him saying one thing here, another thing later. This isn't played for laughs, though, unless they are of the most highly uncomfortable, awkward, almost horror-movie variety.
This is someone looking head-on, and Morris has always been the great detective of documentary directors, seeing how the facts pile up. But even here, what's remarkable, is that Morris puts his voice more than I've seen him do in past films. And at one point in reaction to Rumsfeld saying he never read documents pertaining to a particularly egregious act of abuse on detainees, he says in incredulity "REALLY?" This film is a burning reminder what a slippery character Rumsfeld was and is. He also had a knack for being efficient back in the Ford and Regan era as an envoy - of course they make light of his meeting with Sadaam in 1983, but more telling is how much Rumsfeld wanted to meet with and did spend hours with one of his 2nd in command and, it's almost the sense, he kind of identified with him - but really his time in Bush Jr's Sec post was where he made his name for better and worse...
Actually, who really "knows" if it's for better, given with everything that he oversaw and approved of - or didn't approve but we can't really know what was approved or not approved (and then one gets into the "more you look the less you know" facet of things, which in this film and filmmaker carries as a an intense underlying ideology, but I digress sort of). It's fascinating to watch him and hear him talk, as much as it is almost creepy every time he gives his s***-eating grin. Not just the smile but the eyes as well.
What is he thinking when he says these things, responding to Morris as he did in his press conferences with questions that he answers himself? Morris uses a visual approach of dictionary terms at many points, as well as Rumsfeld's countless memos, and I got a sense of a man who was very much aware of what he was doing. And, at the end of it all, when Morris asks point blank "Why are you doing this, talking to me?" with "That's a vicious question... I guess you'll never know" I have to wonder if he does, or really doesn't.
The Unknown Known. I never have quite forgotten Rumsfeld over the years since he left his office in 2006, but this film brought back a flesh flood of memories along with that face and old but very much KNOWING eyes. At the end of the day, he is not a stupid man, or at least believes he isn't, has his own rigorous set of logic and follows it. That it also led it into two wars, one still going on, and so so so so many lives lost.... damn.
And yet, he did offer up his resignation at the time of the Abu-Gharib scandal, which seems for me to be a new revelation - and by the way, this is as much if not more-so a follow-up to Morris' Standard Operating Procedure as it is the Fog of War, the story of the soldiers there doing the torture and the pictures, this time it's the "Captain" - though how genuine this was, and of course how awfully it makes Bush look for not accepting it, is up for debate. There are a lot of shots of the ocean here, at one point an 'ocean of words' even. I feel like this is a superb metaphor for the film and this figure - what do we see when we look at it? Why does it look so calm? Morris never shows an ocean in a stormy mode; just the very calm surface, at one point split right down the middle. But there's so much going on underneath it. Plus aerial shots of the swamps as well.
Morris' direction is impeccable as always, a fantastic, spot-on mix of news footage, many clips from Rumsfeld press conferences like when he first posited the 'known known etc' bit, as if he were giving out a portion of a script for a Jean-Luc Godard movie or some semantic babble (maybe poignant, but still babble). It almost has the effect, if only here and there, of the 'point-counter-point' method used on The Daily Show, showing him saying one thing here, another thing later. This isn't played for laughs, though, unless they are of the most highly uncomfortable, awkward, almost horror-movie variety.
This is someone looking head-on, and Morris has always been the great detective of documentary directors, seeing how the facts pile up. But even here, what's remarkable, is that Morris puts his voice more than I've seen him do in past films. And at one point in reaction to Rumsfeld saying he never read documents pertaining to a particularly egregious act of abuse on detainees, he says in incredulity "REALLY?" This film is a burning reminder what a slippery character Rumsfeld was and is. He also had a knack for being efficient back in the Ford and Regan era as an envoy - of course they make light of his meeting with Sadaam in 1983, but more telling is how much Rumsfeld wanted to meet with and did spend hours with one of his 2nd in command and, it's almost the sense, he kind of identified with him - but really his time in Bush Jr's Sec post was where he made his name for better and worse...
Actually, who really "knows" if it's for better, given with everything that he oversaw and approved of - or didn't approve but we can't really know what was approved or not approved (and then one gets into the "more you look the less you know" facet of things, which in this film and filmmaker carries as a an intense underlying ideology, but I digress sort of). It's fascinating to watch him and hear him talk, as much as it is almost creepy every time he gives his s***-eating grin. Not just the smile but the eyes as well.
What is he thinking when he says these things, responding to Morris as he did in his press conferences with questions that he answers himself? Morris uses a visual approach of dictionary terms at many points, as well as Rumsfeld's countless memos, and I got a sense of a man who was very much aware of what he was doing. And, at the end of it all, when Morris asks point blank "Why are you doing this, talking to me?" with "That's a vicious question... I guess you'll never know" I have to wonder if he does, or really doesn't.
The Unknown Known. I never have quite forgotten Rumsfeld over the years since he left his office in 2006, but this film brought back a flesh flood of memories along with that face and old but very much KNOWING eyes. At the end of the day, he is not a stupid man, or at least believes he isn't, has his own rigorous set of logic and follows it. That it also led it into two wars, one still going on, and so so so so many lives lost.... damn.
Despite a dodgy subject, Errol Morris's aesthetic and techniques shine through
StevePulaski27 May 2014
Donald Rumsfeld has the power to fascinate some, alienate and irritate others, but mesmerize many, which makes him the perfect person to sit before Errol Morris's trademark device known as "the Interrotron" and provide us with a wealth of information on his life as the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the birth and height of the War on Terror in America. Morris's "Interrotron" is a device that allows the subject to look through a two way mirror and see Errol Morris, with a camera the subject can't see being pointed at them. This allows for a more conversational approach to an interview, and because Morris is such a confident documentarian (especially in this case), his style and approach to his subjects allows for something more impressive and entertaining than your average "talking head" documentary.
Immediately, any fan of Morris will compare The Unknown Known to his other film The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, which showed Morris talking to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, who served during some of the most critical times in American history, like the Bay of Pigs crisis and the Vietnam War. McNamara was a subject who you didn't need to make talk, for he always seemed to be alive and interested in sharing his ideas and his experiences with Morris. On this hand, Rumsfeld feels more interested in trying to find easy answers and dodge some of Morris's most biting questions (including whether or not having the United States involve themselves in Iraq's affairs and eventually engaging in a war with them was justified or miscalculated).
One can see Rumsfeld is a seasoned veteran when it comes down to giving cleverly-worded answers as opposed to straight ones. When looking to explain certain topics, Rumsfeld gets lost in cute words, unnecessary wording that's prime purpose is to be confusing (just look at the film's title, which is a direct quote from Rumsfeld himself), and inane sloganeering and simplifying. I was reminded of the documentary Nick Nolte: No Exit, where actor Nick Nolte decided to make a film about him interviewing himself in a weirdly-meta format. Nolte was less interested in answering the questions and more interested with simply talking around them, which made me question why he even bothered to make a documentary about interviewing himself when he was going to answer any questions he was going to ask himself in the first place. But at least Nolte didn't tack on a goofy and quietly infuriating grin at the end of his answers.
Rumsfeld isn't that bad when compared to Nolte, however. After all, he doesn't take the hugely-questionable route of interviewing himself with the film, but he still finds ways to dodge clear answers to Morris's serious questions and finds ways to confuse himself, and the audience for that matter, throughout the documentary. For example, an early scene in the film involves Rumsfeld defining the four levels of "knowns" in the world. He tells us "known knowns" are things we know we know. He says "known unknowns" are things we know we don't know. He says "unknown unknowns" are things we know we don't know. And finally, he acknowledges the film's title and tells us "unknown knowns" are things we thought we knew but didn't. This ridiculous way of phrasing concepts will only further make political concepts more abstract to the politically ignorant, probably enforcing the reason why they're lost all the more.
The concept of "knowns" came to be when Rumsfeld acknowledged the presence of weapons of mass-destruction (WMDs) in Irag in 2002 during a speech which went on to be known from the single line "there are known knowns." In other words, Rumsfeld was supremely confident that the then-ruler of Iraq Saddam Hussein was housing WMDs in Iraq and was up to no good. The Unknown Known explores Rumsfeld's duty as the Secretary of Defense during that time and the legacy he left on the cabinets he was employed under, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, respectively. During his time, Rumsfeld came to be known as someone who wrote and issued the most memorandums to other officials he worked with. Rumsfeld states that just from working at The Pentagon for a relatively short time he issued over 20,000 memos, so in his lifetime, he had to have issued well over a million, so he claims.
The Unknown Known is conducted at a brisk pace, with Morris's editing and confident filmmaking techniques taking prominence over Rumsfeld's detailed accounts on how it was to work in The Pentagon on the day of September 11, 2001 and his wishy-washy answers on methods of torture and the hugely controversial act of waterboarding. The one detail I noticed with the film is how Morris's editing seemed to play a bigger role than ever with this film to the point where I question whether or not Rumsfeld was dancing around questions or was Morris editing the interview together in such a strange way.
Despite the film being easy to compare to Morris's The Fog of War, I find that the film could also easily be compared to one Morris's more recent efforts by the name of Tabloid, an underrated documentary concerning a former Miss Wyoming model who allegedly kidnapped and raped a Mormon missionary. I find both The Unknown Known and Tabloid to be two of a kind because they both show how people can come to their own conclusions and work hard to establish the truth that they want to believe. Even The Fog of War had truth-seeking undertones in the regard that it showed McNamara's perspective on certain issues, showing that history isn't so objective after all. If Errol Morris's films thus far have a moral to them that connects each one in some way, I'm pretty confident in saying I have found something within them all.
Starring: Donald Rumsfeld. Directed by: Errol Morris.
Immediately, any fan of Morris will compare The Unknown Known to his other film The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, which showed Morris talking to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, who served during some of the most critical times in American history, like the Bay of Pigs crisis and the Vietnam War. McNamara was a subject who you didn't need to make talk, for he always seemed to be alive and interested in sharing his ideas and his experiences with Morris. On this hand, Rumsfeld feels more interested in trying to find easy answers and dodge some of Morris's most biting questions (including whether or not having the United States involve themselves in Iraq's affairs and eventually engaging in a war with them was justified or miscalculated).
One can see Rumsfeld is a seasoned veteran when it comes down to giving cleverly-worded answers as opposed to straight ones. When looking to explain certain topics, Rumsfeld gets lost in cute words, unnecessary wording that's prime purpose is to be confusing (just look at the film's title, which is a direct quote from Rumsfeld himself), and inane sloganeering and simplifying. I was reminded of the documentary Nick Nolte: No Exit, where actor Nick Nolte decided to make a film about him interviewing himself in a weirdly-meta format. Nolte was less interested in answering the questions and more interested with simply talking around them, which made me question why he even bothered to make a documentary about interviewing himself when he was going to answer any questions he was going to ask himself in the first place. But at least Nolte didn't tack on a goofy and quietly infuriating grin at the end of his answers.
Rumsfeld isn't that bad when compared to Nolte, however. After all, he doesn't take the hugely-questionable route of interviewing himself with the film, but he still finds ways to dodge clear answers to Morris's serious questions and finds ways to confuse himself, and the audience for that matter, throughout the documentary. For example, an early scene in the film involves Rumsfeld defining the four levels of "knowns" in the world. He tells us "known knowns" are things we know we know. He says "known unknowns" are things we know we don't know. He says "unknown unknowns" are things we know we don't know. And finally, he acknowledges the film's title and tells us "unknown knowns" are things we thought we knew but didn't. This ridiculous way of phrasing concepts will only further make political concepts more abstract to the politically ignorant, probably enforcing the reason why they're lost all the more.
The concept of "knowns" came to be when Rumsfeld acknowledged the presence of weapons of mass-destruction (WMDs) in Irag in 2002 during a speech which went on to be known from the single line "there are known knowns." In other words, Rumsfeld was supremely confident that the then-ruler of Iraq Saddam Hussein was housing WMDs in Iraq and was up to no good. The Unknown Known explores Rumsfeld's duty as the Secretary of Defense during that time and the legacy he left on the cabinets he was employed under, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, respectively. During his time, Rumsfeld came to be known as someone who wrote and issued the most memorandums to other officials he worked with. Rumsfeld states that just from working at The Pentagon for a relatively short time he issued over 20,000 memos, so in his lifetime, he had to have issued well over a million, so he claims.
The Unknown Known is conducted at a brisk pace, with Morris's editing and confident filmmaking techniques taking prominence over Rumsfeld's detailed accounts on how it was to work in The Pentagon on the day of September 11, 2001 and his wishy-washy answers on methods of torture and the hugely controversial act of waterboarding. The one detail I noticed with the film is how Morris's editing seemed to play a bigger role than ever with this film to the point where I question whether or not Rumsfeld was dancing around questions or was Morris editing the interview together in such a strange way.
Despite the film being easy to compare to Morris's The Fog of War, I find that the film could also easily be compared to one Morris's more recent efforts by the name of Tabloid, an underrated documentary concerning a former Miss Wyoming model who allegedly kidnapped and raped a Mormon missionary. I find both The Unknown Known and Tabloid to be two of a kind because they both show how people can come to their own conclusions and work hard to establish the truth that they want to believe. Even The Fog of War had truth-seeking undertones in the regard that it showed McNamara's perspective on certain issues, showing that history isn't so objective after all. If Errol Morris's films thus far have a moral to them that connects each one in some way, I'm pretty confident in saying I have found something within them all.
Starring: Donald Rumsfeld. Directed by: Errol Morris.
The World's Best Documentarian Looks at Rumsfeld
gavin694223 September 2014
Former United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, discusses his career in Washington D.C. from his days as a congressman in the early 1960s to planning the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
An interesting technique, having Rumsfeld read his own memos (of which, he estimates, there are millions). This method allows for the historical record to be compared to Rumsfeld's own memory of events.
Rumsfeld says he is not "obsessive" but "cool and measured", and his interest in Iraq is the daily reports he was receiving from men in the Middle East. Others, of course, see it differently, and believe the administration actively pursued an excuse to invade Iraq. Morris suggests to Rumsfeld that the American people believed there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld says, "I don't think so... I don't think the American people were confused." Some interesting comments are made. Rumsfeld says, "We don't assassinate leaders of other countries." This is a way to justify invasions, even if it is not entirely true. Regarding his personal life, he comments, "I didn't want to get married, I just didn't want her to marry anyone else." That is an honest statement people can identify with.
An interesting aside is when a tape is played where Nixon, Kissinger and Haldeman talk of Rumsfeld as not being loyal and being too close to the media. This ended up being to his advantage, as he left before the stain of Watergate could reach him. In fact, it seems that under President Ford, Rumsfeld got his revenge by encouraging Ford to fire the Nixon appointees. This also lead to the promotion of folks like George Bush and others who would be influential for the next thirty years.
Ultimately, the film makes Rumsfeld out to be human rather than anything his critics might want to throw at him. He may not be able to explain away his bad decisions and possible lies, but he presents himself honestly and Morris shows him fairly. This is as balanced a look at a divisive character as anyone could ask for.
An interesting technique, having Rumsfeld read his own memos (of which, he estimates, there are millions). This method allows for the historical record to be compared to Rumsfeld's own memory of events.
Rumsfeld says he is not "obsessive" but "cool and measured", and his interest in Iraq is the daily reports he was receiving from men in the Middle East. Others, of course, see it differently, and believe the administration actively pursued an excuse to invade Iraq. Morris suggests to Rumsfeld that the American people believed there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld says, "I don't think so... I don't think the American people were confused." Some interesting comments are made. Rumsfeld says, "We don't assassinate leaders of other countries." This is a way to justify invasions, even if it is not entirely true. Regarding his personal life, he comments, "I didn't want to get married, I just didn't want her to marry anyone else." That is an honest statement people can identify with.
An interesting aside is when a tape is played where Nixon, Kissinger and Haldeman talk of Rumsfeld as not being loyal and being too close to the media. This ended up being to his advantage, as he left before the stain of Watergate could reach him. In fact, it seems that under President Ford, Rumsfeld got his revenge by encouraging Ford to fire the Nixon appointees. This also lead to the promotion of folks like George Bush and others who would be influential for the next thirty years.
Ultimately, the film makes Rumsfeld out to be human rather than anything his critics might want to throw at him. He may not be able to explain away his bad decisions and possible lies, but he presents himself honestly and Morris shows him fairly. This is as balanced a look at a divisive character as anyone could ask for.
Boring, maddening, ultimately a failure by Errol
maxwalters306 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I want to first say that I thought Errol Morris' previous film - the fog of war - was excellent. I am a fan of his style and also of his ambition to take on such large characters of history. However, I think he failed this last attempt quite dramatically. The movie was boring, redundant, un-insightful, and - worst of all - wasted an hour and a half of my life.
In my opinion there are only a few reason why this turned out to be a failure: 1) Don is actually a pretty honest guy (but boring) and remembers quite a lot which takes Errol by surprise 2) Errol didn't pull the trigger on (i.e. address on camera) some big inconsistencies in his memos and his interviews 3) Errol goes into this thinking he has Don with the millions of memos and hours of interview time but then gets completely dismantled by Don in his questioning thus resulting in wasted time/film
While I cannot tell you which is true, the result is a failure by the director to really provide the audience any sort of substance for his money/time. I wish Errol would have either asked Don about more or not marketed the film as something a history buff may like.
Lastly some of my many questions from the movie: Honestly, who really cares about how the words unknown and known are put together in a sentence?? Out of all the interesting stuff this man knows why did you consistently highlight (i.e. use film time for) the fact that hes a word freak and wrote millions of memos? So this guy is pedantic...we get it but who cares??? Why did you show hundreds of newspaper headlines but really not get the bottom of any of them? How did you not find one slip up in those millions of memos? Why did you choose Don if you knew how smart/clever/boring he was?
Do yourself a favor and go watch fog of war and don't waste your time on this like the director did.
In my opinion there are only a few reason why this turned out to be a failure: 1) Don is actually a pretty honest guy (but boring) and remembers quite a lot which takes Errol by surprise 2) Errol didn't pull the trigger on (i.e. address on camera) some big inconsistencies in his memos and his interviews 3) Errol goes into this thinking he has Don with the millions of memos and hours of interview time but then gets completely dismantled by Don in his questioning thus resulting in wasted time/film
While I cannot tell you which is true, the result is a failure by the director to really provide the audience any sort of substance for his money/time. I wish Errol would have either asked Don about more or not marketed the film as something a history buff may like.
Lastly some of my many questions from the movie: Honestly, who really cares about how the words unknown and known are put together in a sentence?? Out of all the interesting stuff this man knows why did you consistently highlight (i.e. use film time for) the fact that hes a word freak and wrote millions of memos? So this guy is pedantic...we get it but who cares??? Why did you show hundreds of newspaper headlines but really not get the bottom of any of them? How did you not find one slip up in those millions of memos? Why did you choose Don if you knew how smart/clever/boring he was?
Do yourself a favor and go watch fog of war and don't waste your time on this like the director did.
Chilling Portrayal of Men Behind Our Wars
vsks3 January 2015
This Errol Morris documentary grew from 34 hours of interviews with former White House chief of staff, ambassador to NATO, head of the Office of Economic Opportunity, special Mid-East envoy, and twice Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "Rumsfeld—in case you've forgotten his prominent public persona as a star of Bush-era press conferences—" Slate reviewer Dana Stevens reminds us, "tends to express himself in koan-like platitudes that hover in midair somewhere over the divide between timeless wisdom and obfuscatory bullshit." The film's title is based on one of his better-known riffs, the evasive and insufficiently serious response to a reporter's question in 2002 about the evidence for Iraq's link to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Rumsfeld responded that there are "known knowns" (stuff we know that we know), "known unknowns" (stuff we know that we don't know), and unknown unknowns (stuff we don't know that we don't know). The premise of The Unknown Known is there also was stuff Rumsfeld thought he knew, and didn't. Which sums up the whole stated justification for the Iraq war.
It's hard to watch this movie without being distracted by one's own political views, as Rumsfeld, ever the cagey communicator, genially evades and stonewalls where he has to, especially regarding the use of torture. Yet he is capable of showing uncertainty—and would that he'd done so a dozen years ago. The interviews are interspersed with news clips, excerpts from news conferences, and on-the-ground footage of the time, so you do see some misremembering. His then-conviction about whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction is quite a contrast to his "I guess time will tell" shrug regarding whether the Iraq war was a good idea or not.
His evasions degrade political language, Forbes reviewer Tim Reuter suggests, and by constantly redefining difficult issues, Rumsfeld erases their meaning, rather than clarifies. In his New York Times review, A. O. Scott says Morris gives Rumsfeld "plenty of rope, but rather than hang himself, Mr. Rumsfeld tries to fashion a ladder and escape through the window." One problem he couldn't slip out of was Abu Ghraib, because shocked Americans had seen the terrible pictures. As head of the Department of Defense, he offered President Bush his resignation—twice. But Bush didn't accept it.
Rumsfeld's many memos were called "snowflakes," and he blanketed the Department and his fellow Cabinet members with some 20,000 of them during his six years in the Bush Administration. In the film, he reads from a number of them, now declassified. Yet the viewer, like the recipients of that blizzard of memos sees only the Don Rumsfeld he wants us to see. Given his penchant for verbal legerdemain, he must have enjoyed the idea of snowflakes. Of snow. And of snow-jobs.
UPDATE: In January 2015, I saw Morris's other documentary on a former Secretary of Defense, The Fog of War, created from interviews with Robert McNamara. While, like Rumsfeld, he sees history from his own particular vantage-point, unlike Rumsfeld, McNamara seemed to have learned some significant intellectual and emotional truths from the experience. The film in fact is organized around 11 "lessons." The difference in affect between the two men is remarkable. Although there were questions (mostly personal) McNamara declined to answer, he wasn't trying to obfuscate and he wasn't insufferably smug.
It's hard to watch this movie without being distracted by one's own political views, as Rumsfeld, ever the cagey communicator, genially evades and stonewalls where he has to, especially regarding the use of torture. Yet he is capable of showing uncertainty—and would that he'd done so a dozen years ago. The interviews are interspersed with news clips, excerpts from news conferences, and on-the-ground footage of the time, so you do see some misremembering. His then-conviction about whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction is quite a contrast to his "I guess time will tell" shrug regarding whether the Iraq war was a good idea or not.
His evasions degrade political language, Forbes reviewer Tim Reuter suggests, and by constantly redefining difficult issues, Rumsfeld erases their meaning, rather than clarifies. In his New York Times review, A. O. Scott says Morris gives Rumsfeld "plenty of rope, but rather than hang himself, Mr. Rumsfeld tries to fashion a ladder and escape through the window." One problem he couldn't slip out of was Abu Ghraib, because shocked Americans had seen the terrible pictures. As head of the Department of Defense, he offered President Bush his resignation—twice. But Bush didn't accept it.
Rumsfeld's many memos were called "snowflakes," and he blanketed the Department and his fellow Cabinet members with some 20,000 of them during his six years in the Bush Administration. In the film, he reads from a number of them, now declassified. Yet the viewer, like the recipients of that blizzard of memos sees only the Don Rumsfeld he wants us to see. Given his penchant for verbal legerdemain, he must have enjoyed the idea of snowflakes. Of snow. And of snow-jobs.
UPDATE: In January 2015, I saw Morris's other documentary on a former Secretary of Defense, The Fog of War, created from interviews with Robert McNamara. While, like Rumsfeld, he sees history from his own particular vantage-point, unlike Rumsfeld, McNamara seemed to have learned some significant intellectual and emotional truths from the experience. The film in fact is organized around 11 "lessons." The difference in affect between the two men is remarkable. Although there were questions (mostly personal) McNamara declined to answer, he wasn't trying to obfuscate and he wasn't insufferably smug.
Being smart is not the same as being right
crowed-8489916 July 2021
I think the simple display of History is enough. No need to Mansplain , no need for a word warrior here. Look Rumsfield in the eye and accept what you see. The lingering thought I have , as a result of this documentary,
is why do people who are unqualified for the job delight in their mere presence instead of what they have done. Now if you don't mind, I'm off to get a Covid vaccine.
Morris as absent as Rumsfeld
nstobor5526 April 2014
This documentary was just as gratuitous and ridiculous as our government. Morris thought he was smart and clever with this documentary but really answered no questions and made himself look as silly and absent as any politician. His tactics were narcissistic and self righteous and he fits right in with any ambitious capitalist trying to "up" someone, making him seem more intelligent, when he really showed he is lacking in film making and story telling. All Morris did was show commonalities with himself and Rumsfeld. If he wants to create a documentary, maybe he should take interviewing classes instead of trying to massage his own ego.
A disgusting individual, disgustingly having it his way throughout
vostf6 August 2016
Either Errol Morris underestimated Donald Rumsfeld or he was overly confident about the power of his medium, but the result is far below The Fog of War.
Sure McNamara had had time to mellow and he wouldn't deny mistakes while Rumsfeld won't move an inch, except for the staged emotional bit, so in the Unknown Known we only have politics at its worst: unabashed dissimulation, total rejection of any form of empathy (while it was one of the Eleven Lessons from Robert S. McNamara, Empathize with your Enemy) all wrapped up in the flag and under the pretence that "We, the Best Breed of Politicians, have to make important decisions that are way too complex for you, Little Man, to begin to understand".
Watching Rumsfeld having it his way, no less than during his own press conferences where he toyed around with journalists, is a profoundly disgusting and distressing vision. He unflinchingly tell us "Ok, eventually there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Irak, intelligence was flawed, but going after Saddam Hussein has made the world a better place all the same". Intelligence was not just flawed, it was distorted and even fabricated to please the warmongers.
Bad things (like torture) just happens. Even when you are doing a heck of a job. That is Rumsfeld definitive argument and Errol Morris gets stuck in the "beauty of evil rhetorics" like a deer in the headlights. It is distressing to think that someone watching this without knowing all the subtext would think of Rumsfeld as a role model for Statesmen. The only redeeming part is that the documentary succeeds in suggesting how big a SOB Rumsfeld has been during his career, so much so that Reagan picked his rival George HW Bush as his running mate, sparing the World the disaster of having Rumsfeld President in the 80s. Then he had to work for Bush Jr and his former deputy, yet maybe that gave the same general disaster (geopolitical, economical...) as having Rumsfeld officially in the Oval Office.
Sure McNamara had had time to mellow and he wouldn't deny mistakes while Rumsfeld won't move an inch, except for the staged emotional bit, so in the Unknown Known we only have politics at its worst: unabashed dissimulation, total rejection of any form of empathy (while it was one of the Eleven Lessons from Robert S. McNamara, Empathize with your Enemy) all wrapped up in the flag and under the pretence that "We, the Best Breed of Politicians, have to make important decisions that are way too complex for you, Little Man, to begin to understand".
Watching Rumsfeld having it his way, no less than during his own press conferences where he toyed around with journalists, is a profoundly disgusting and distressing vision. He unflinchingly tell us "Ok, eventually there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Irak, intelligence was flawed, but going after Saddam Hussein has made the world a better place all the same". Intelligence was not just flawed, it was distorted and even fabricated to please the warmongers.
Bad things (like torture) just happens. Even when you are doing a heck of a job. That is Rumsfeld definitive argument and Errol Morris gets stuck in the "beauty of evil rhetorics" like a deer in the headlights. It is distressing to think that someone watching this without knowing all the subtext would think of Rumsfeld as a role model for Statesmen. The only redeeming part is that the documentary succeeds in suggesting how big a SOB Rumsfeld has been during his career, so much so that Reagan picked his rival George HW Bush as his running mate, sparing the World the disaster of having Rumsfeld President in the 80s. Then he had to work for Bush Jr and his former deputy, yet maybe that gave the same general disaster (geopolitical, economical...) as having Rumsfeld officially in the Oval Office.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
