Errol Morris: Where's the Rest of Him?

[question everything]

The New York Times
January 18, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Where's the Rest of Him?
By ERROL MORRIS


(snip)

To me, John Kerry's heroism encompassed both his actions in combat and his willingness to change his mind and stand up for what he thought was right. He realized that soldiers and civilians were dying in a war that wasn't accomplishing its objectives. Yet he never tied this crucial piece of his biography into his campaign for the presidency. And in failing to do so, he left a blank space in his personal story - a blank space that made it possible for the criticisms of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be alarmingly effective.

(snip)

And then there was the president. Though George W. Bush's military record was arguably less impressive than his opponent's, the Republicans never misrepresented who he was. Mr. Bush never pretended to be a war hero. He never pretended to be anything but a ne'er-do-well who turned his life around when he became a born-again Christian. His life story made sense; it was recognizable and easy to understand. There was no point in attacking him about his war record (or lack of one): he had already conceded the point. He had never claimed to be a hero. John Kerry had.

(snip)

What's disconcerting here is that Mr. Kerry had an out. He could have explained why he went to Vietnam and then opposed the war, and then he could have used this explanation to help people understand why he voted for the Iraq war and then voted against it. His experience with the changing nature of a war could have shifted those critical swing voters, convincing them that he was just the person to lead them at this juncture in our history.

(snip)

But these people miss the point. John Kerry lost because he concealed something that was completely honorable, even heroic: his opposition to Vietnam. George W. Bush told the truth about something that, to my mind, was not honorable: he supported that war but found a way to stay home. Mr. Kerry was forthright about almost everything except himself - and in this election that was not enough.

Errol Morris, a filmmaker and director, won an Academy Award last year for the documentary "The Fog of War: 11 Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara." In the 2004 campaign, he produced political commercials for MoveOn.org.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/opinion/18morris.html?ei=5070&en=78ce733cdedf2e91&ex=1106715600&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

Also

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5192897.html

[gottaB]

1. I like Morris' films, but....

The criticisms he's making are misdirected. They sound like they should be directed towards Spielberg.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=errolmorris.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=stevenspielberg.htm


I don't know. I'm a member of the public, and my view of Kerry was not so onesided as Morris' appears to be. Also, my view of Bush was not as he described. I thought the convention bio of Kerry was great. I also enjoyed Butler's Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry. It had some flaws, but it was still a good narrative.

Actually, Morris is flat out wrong. Campaigns, especially those of Democratic challengers, must negotiate a hostile terrain dominated by news media, whose members often seem to take a diabolical pleasure in setting up obstacles and ambuscades, anything to impeded the progress of a campaign. And the news media don't traffic in full stories. You can give them the full story, but there's no guarantee that the impression they give to their audiences will resemble the full story in any essential way.