The Unknown Known (Errol Morris)

[Stay Puft]

THE UNKNOWN KNOWN
Dir. Errol Morris

IMDb page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2390962/)

http://picturehouses.files.wordpress. com/2014/03/the_unknown_known_1600_1200_85 .jpg

[Stay Puft]

Forgot to make the thread after I saw this, so it's not as fresh in my memory now. But I enjoyed it. It's a fun labyrinth of words and definitions and logical contradictions. Also has the best tagline ever.

[D_Davis]

Morris was on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me last week, and in the interview portion he stated, multiple times, how much he grew to really, really dislike Rumsfeld. After he was done making the film, he couldn't stand the guy.

[Milky Joe]

Well, that's not exactly surprising considering Rumsfeld is a genocidal psychopath who ought to have been hanged by now.

[ledfloyd]

I read an interview where Morris said he felt dismissing him as a psychopath or sociopath is counterproductive and lets him/us off the hook too easily.

[Bosco B Thug]

I suppose this pegs me as an apolitical sonuvabitch (so not proud), but I saw this not as some "spot the rat" game regarding Rumsfeld's every word, but instead as a compelling look at the principles of uncertainty and "differing perspectives," as Rumsfeld puts it, to explain away the man's hawkish political views and toxic, tragic political decisions. Philosophically resonant film, if not a political bonanza. The nuances of bad decision-making, the inevitable nature of war and error.

[quido8_5]

Well, that's not exactly surprising considering Rumsfeld is a genocidal psychopath who ought to have been hanged by now.

Unlike Robert McNamara? In the interview that Davis noted from Wait Wait, Morris said that he actually came out the other side of Fog of War feeling more sympathetic toward McNamara. Sounded like there were just some real personality conflicts that compromised the film. I'm still interested in seeing it. In my estimation, Morris is still the greatest documentary filmmaker of our time and has yet to make a bad movie. I will qualify that; however, by saying that his output waned after Fog of War and became mediocre (if still engaging).

[Milky Joe]

I read an interview where Morris said he felt dismissing him as a psychopath or sociopath is counterproductive and lets him/us off the hook too easily.

It isn't a dismissal. It is naming the problem. It is far more common than you think. The world is literally run by psychopaths, which is simply a word for people who are incapable of empathy, more like shrewd self-preserving robots than humans.

[Pop Trash]

The world is literally run by psychopaths, which is simply a word for people who are incapable of empathy, more like shrewd self-preserving robots than humans.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahzNnXex5fY

[quido8_5]

Loved this. Caught me off guard, but Morris' visual sweep stitches a beautiful and deceptively honest portrait of a coldly intelligent and obstinately witty Rumsfeld. If Fog of War is a punch in the gut, The Unknown Known is a wink and a smile. I didn't want it to end, ***.5 for now but could easily go up.

[DSNT]

This was a letdown for Morris movies, most of which I adore and some are among my favorites of all time. I just thought he was trying to re-invent the Fog of War wheel, but Bob McNamara was not only a far better subject, but he was also a lot more frank and open. A lot of that had to do with the benefit of hindsight. I believe Rumsfeld was close to the same age as McNamara during filming, but McNamara had a lot more years to reflect on what had happened. He was basically the same old Rummy, guarded, would quibble on semantics, and was generally annoying. I almost wish that Morris would have abandoned the format and just done a documentary on Rumsfeld without the interviews.

[Kirby Avondale]

This was a letdown for Morris movies, most of which I adore and some are among my favorites of all time. I just thought he was trying to re-invent the Fog of War wheel, but Bob McNamara was not only a far better subject, but he was also a lot more frank and open. A lot of that had to do with the benefit of hindsight. I believe Rumsfeld was close to the same age as McNamara during filming, but McNamara had a lot more years to reflect on what had happened. He was basically the same old Rummy, guarded, would quibble on semantics, and was generally annoying. I almost wish that Morris would have abandoned the format and just done a documentary on Rumsfeld without the interviews.
This seems to mistake Morris' MO, which is to get inside people's heads, especially when those heads are hopelessly deluded. It's about the obligation and the impediments to "know thyself."

[DSNT]

This seems to mistake Morris' MO, which is to get inside people's heads, especially when those heads are hopelessly deluded. It's about the obligation and the impediments to "know thyself."

Agreed that is what he was after. The problem is I don't think he succeeded getting inside Rumsfeld's, but he blasted through McNamara.

In fact, I think the logically confounded title sums up the fact that he could not get inside Rummy, and that became the thesis of the film.

[Melville]

I actually preferred this to Fog of War. Rumsfeld's deluded (and/or purposely deluding) equivocating and focus on linguistic irrelevancies was pretty captivating, interspersed with revealing moments that are likely just more attempts to delude. I found his impenetrability more interesting than McNamara's openness.

[Kirby Avondale]

Agreed that is what he was after. The problem is I don't think he succeeded getting inside Rumsfeld's, but he blasted through McNamara.

In fact, I think the logically confounded title sums up the fact that he could not get inside Rummy, and that became the thesis of the film.
You say that like Rumsfeld's delusions aren't inside his head, but the movie makes it abundantly clear that they reach right down into the roots of his personality. They are him. And considering their pervasiveness, cachet and culpability in some of the worst foreign policy decisions of our lifetime, I'd say they're in vital need of dissection. McNamara offers us a posterboy for regret, but we shouldn't confuse that for us seeing him more accurately or deeply. It's just that the regret is part of his personality and isn't for Rumsfeld. Even if he lived another hundred years, Rum isn't a man of regret or second guesses. He's a bullshitter all the way through. And I'd also warn that McNamara doesn't wholly see himself or history in a clear light either; his "lessons" are still attempts to salvage some of that authority and pride that characterized his days as secretary of defense and many people were justifiably annoyed at the ways in which he let himself off the hook. Confession is a complicated thing. It's easy to let the whiff of redemption mistake us into thinking it's revealed the truth of a person more than a good old fashioned lie.

[Kirby Avondale]

Also worth noting the extent to which dropping the interviews in place of making a third person documentary about Rumsfeld is anathema to Morris' style. He's made this point in interviews about Unknown Known, btw. He talks about a Cheney documentary he watched that was precisely that, and it bored him to death. If you want Morris' MO, I'd recommend his series First Person (relevant title!) and his NYT blog (he wrote a two-parter on Rumsfeld, fwiw).

[DSNT]

Even if he lived another hundred years, Rum isn't a man of regret or second guesses.

This I have to disagree with. I made it a point to watch The Fog of War with my father who was in Vietnam, and he said he felt the exact same way back in the day about McNamara. If that movie had been made in 1978, it would have been a completely different movie. Time can do a lot of things to a man's psyche, and whether out of a sense of pride or rationalization, they can second guess themselves. We'll never know with Rumsfeld because his legacy took place at an older age.

I do agree that Rumsfeld is a Grade A bullshitter, and that does come out. Morris probably wouldn't be able to crack Cheney or many other of the core people in that administration right now, but especially not Rumsfeld. I think he had to use that as the thesis of his film because Rumsfeld didn't give him anything else. I think that if Rumsfeld had broken down and declared he was wrong, like McNamara did, Morris would have been thrilled.

Aside from that, you make fair points and I don't feel strongly enough to argue the film. I didn't hate it and would probably rate it 5 or 6 out of 10. He is still a tremendous filmmaker, but this one doesn't hold up to the other Morris documentaries that I've seen (which is just about all of them including some of the First Person series).

On a lighter note, if appears The Thin Blue Line is coming to Criterion soon. I'm hoping for a full Morris box.

[Kirby Avondale]

This I have to disagree with. I made it a point to watch The Fog of War with my father who was in Vietnam, and he said he felt the exact same way back in the day about McNamara. If that movie had been made in 1978, it would have been a completely different movie. Time can do a lot of things to a man's psyche, and whether out of a sense of pride or rationalization, they can second guess themselves. We'll never know with Rumsfeld because his legacy took place at an older age.
That's one of the big questions of Fog, interestingly. To what extent is he a different person? What does this change entail?

It was widely known well before 78 that McNamara had turned pessimistic about the war and that this inspired his resignation. There were rumors before his resignation and confirmations after of his doubts, and as early as 69 Halberstram was dissecting McNamara's turn matter-of-factly in The Best and Brightest. Where are all these indications with Rumsfeld? You're right that people can change, but often enough they don't. I think it's clear Rumsfeld is a much different person than McNamara, and there's good reason to doubt that time would ever change that. Rumsfeld had just as much time to turn around in Vietnam as McNamara did, and had much less incentive to keep from doing so. But he says himself that McNamara had no reason to regret anything.



I do agree that Rumsfeld is a Grade A bullshitter, and that does come out. Morris probably wouldn't be able to crack Cheney or many other of the core people in that administration right now, but especially not Rumsfeld. I think he had to use that as the thesis of his film because Rumsfeld didn't give him anything else. I think that if Rumsfeld had broken down and declared he was wrong, like McNamara did, Morris would have been thrilled.
I think you're totally off of Morris' wavelength. In interview on McNamara, Morris was asked what he thinks about critics who say that they don't think that Bob really ever apologized. Morris says he couldn't care less. He wasn't after an apology and didn't want one. What would it accomplish, he asks? Can one really apologize for such a massive tragedy? That's not what he wants. He wants to get at McNamara's perspective, right or wrong. He wants to see his mind at work. You think that because Rumsfeld equivocates like a fish sucks water that this isn't getting at the man or his perspective, but that seems profoundly misguided. Equivocation isn't an appendage to our perspectives, but frequently enough, its substance. He does buy into the bulk of this bullshit, and that his buying into it is directly related to his conduct as secretary of defense makes it doubly relevant.

You don't watch The Rise and Fall of Fred J Leutcher to get an account of the Holocaust or see a guy come to terms with his denial. You don't watch Tabloid to figure out once and for all what happened to the manacled Mormon in the cabin. You watch these to see the denial and the delusion in practice, to see the deep and gnarled contortions of the human mind. And all that without the false comfort of a confession to digest the event for us, smooth it out and soften it up. Who, after all, thinks we learn nothing about Nazism from Eichmann on trial because of his dishonesty?

And all that aside, even in the cases where we might doubt his buying into the bullshit, does this leave us with irrelevances and Morris noodling after themes? I don't see how anyone familiar with Morris would think so when the pervasiveness, complexity and consequences of such indeterminacy has been one of his defining subjects. That's why it's the FOG of War, after all, because one can't get at a full view of a subject without getting at the senses in which, at the time, and even now, we might not have a clear view of it. The put-on is the show and blindness the subject. Often a self-blindness, but also our blindnesses.



Aside from that, you make fair points and I don't feel strongly enough to argue the film. I didn't hate it and would probably rate it 5 or 6 out of 10. He is still a tremendous filmmaker, but this one doesn't hold up to the other Morris documentaries that I've seen (which is just about all of them including some of the First Person series).

On a lighter note, if appears The Thin Blue Line is coming to Criterion soon. I'm hoping for a full Morris box.
That would be pretty sweet.

And anyway, I know I'm giving you a hard time, but these are subjects close to my heart!