|
that there were real problems in florida last election is not in doubt.
that bush had a better, more aggressive legal team is not in doubt.
that he lost the popular vote in florida is not in doubt.
that bush "won" the election on the shakiest of grounds is also, sadly, not in doubt.
it is also true that simply saying "bush stole the election" may be crude, but it is not far from the fact of the matter--this was a real problem (the legitimacy of the bush regime) until they were handed 9/11/2001, which enabled a wholesale refashioning of bush into the very miltiary cartoon we now endure.
i have grown weary of the problems folk have with the notion of documentary film, what is is, how it is understood--i would suggest reading any history of the form and you will see that documentary is a form of film that is about making arguments conerning the world---there is no objective view of anything, anywhere, ever. there are only arguments. including this one.
what passes for war documentary in general is little more than collections of newsreel footage, edited together following the politics of the people doing the editing. the history channel is an appalling example of this.
my sense is that conservatives--who have been silent on the question of factual errors in the bush hagiography films that were produced as a counter to moore's--do not particularly care about the question of what a documentary is--they prefer myth that is consistent with their beliefs--one of these myths is that of objectivity, which of course they like to pretend they monopolize.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|