Anti-War Films 3 Years Too Late, Part II

In a follow-up to my post below, here is another example of an anti-war film being too late to the game.

This weekend marked the opening of a documentary titled "Meeting Resistance", which appears to delve into the 'root cause' of the insurgency in Iraq. (Trailer here)
"What would you do if your country was invaded? "Meeting Resistance" raises the veil of anonymity surrounding the Iraqi insurgency by meeting face to face with individuals who are passionately engaged in the struggle, and documenting for the very first time, the sentiments experienced and actions taken by a nation's citizens when their homeland is occupied. Voices that have previously not been heard, male and female, speak candidly about their motivations, hopes and goals, revealing a kaleidoscope of human perspectives. Featuring reflective, yet fervent conversations with active insurgents, "Meeting Resistance" is the missing puzzle piece in understanding the Iraq war. Directed by Steve Connors and Molly Bingham, this daring, eye-opening film provides unique insight into the personal narratives of people involved in the resistance exploding myth after myth about the war in Iraq and the Iraqis who participate. Through its unprecedented access to these clandestine groups, "Meeting Resistance" focuses the spotlight on the "other side" leaving the viewer with clarity as to why the violence in Iraq continues to this day."

Now, I will say this is an interesting premise, (and will overlook the fact that these US/UK filmmakers apparently had no interest in stopping their sources from killing US and British troops), but it is nothing we don't already know.

Let's see, they went and hung out in a former Husseini/Baathist stronghold, and consider it "eye-opening" that they would fight back against U.S.? That is "daring"!

Unfortunately, fate has thrown these filmmakers a big curve-ball.....

You see the production was filmed in 2003 and 2004, not recently. So the violence is high, but relevance of the testimony in it is now of diminished value. Much like most of the anti-war histrionics that have occured in Washington, the impact of this film was dependant upon continued and increasing violence from the 'resistance'.

It would appear to me that the filmmakers took their time in editing and releasing this documentary because they thought that by 2007 or 2008, it would serve to offer "unique insight" and "clarity" as to why the U.S. had lost the war. But as I said, fate can be a funny thing.

Somewhere along the way to the film's release, the very types of people who they feature as the 'resistance' changed their minds. If you want to see what many Baathist strongholds are actually like today, watch this, and then watch the trailer for the film again. Quite an interesting contrast, no? This film will serve to provide a first hand historical record of what went on between summer 2003 and summer 2006, but its intention to pass judgment on the war through a third party fails, since the pretext of 'resistance' has fallen dramatically. This film would have fit in perfectly in 2005/2006.

Want to take any bets on whether these filmmakers will go back an re-interview their subjects for "Meeting Resistance II: The Awakening"?

No comments: