Documentaries are definitely being used as a political weapon (I’ve talked about this phenomenon here and here). From today’s New York Times:

At first glance, it would be hard to imagine a movie more immediately topical than “The Caiman,” Nanni Moretti’s new film about Silvio Berlusconi, the media tycoon turned politician who has dominated Italian public life for at least a decade. Indeed, “The Caiman,” which was released in Italy a few weeks before the recent Italian elections and which screened for the press here Monday morning, may risk pushing timeliness to the point of obsolescence, given Mr. Berlusconi’s narrowly achieved and grudgingly conceded defeat last month by a center-left coalition led by Romano Prodi.

It was therefore perhaps inevitable that the first question asked of Mr. Moretti at the post-screening news conference was whether the election had changed his perception of the movie—which some in Italy believe may have influenced the outcome—and its political message.

“On the contrary,” he replied. “Nothing has changed over the past few weeks in Italy.” Mr. Moretti observed that Mr. Berlusconi did not go quietly, and that he retains control over several newspapers and television channels.

Nothing modest about the filmmaker’s ambitions. He seems disappointed that Berlusconi is still breathing.

Old Al has taken the media world by storm. I don’t think there’s one mainstream news outfit that hasn’t fawned all over him. Here’s Arianna gushing about the gushing:

The film is an environmental punch in the gut. Gore 2.0 is a revelation, and a critical smash. When asked at his press conference how he should be addressed, he replied “Your Adequacy.” “Hanks himself could not have delivered the line more smoothly,” gushed The Guardian. The Washington Post’s Sebastian Mallaby labeled him “a hero.” Time’s Anne Marie Cox called him “a rock star.” New York magazine touted his “amazing comeback.” And even Fox News’ Roger Friedman described him as “funny and relaxed.” Talk about killer reviews….

Here’s where she goes dead wrong:

The pressure on Gore to run will continue to grow because watching him speak out so eloquently, so passionately, and so personally on this issue — in other words, displaying real leadership — is like suddenly being served a steak after a steady diet of fast-food burgers. It’s a stark reminder of just how far we’ve lowered the bar on what we expect from those we elect.

Speaking out passionately and eloquently is not leadership. It is rhetoric.

Leadership is being demonstrated by Howard Dean—who is dividing the Democrats in order to unite them (or so it seems to me: if I read him right, he’s saying, “no more identity politics”). Leadership was demonstrated by Bob Kerrey when he did the unpopular thing and invited “the enemy” John McCain into “our” territory.

I agree that America wants a leader. Not a preacher, Arianna. A leader.

The IDF caught a big fish—Israel’s most wanted man in the West Bank. They’ve been after him since 1998.

Among the attacks Hamed is believed to have helped plan and direct were:

A car bombing in Zion Square in the heart of Jerusalem five years ago, an attack which killed 11 people.

A March 2002 suicide bombing at the Moment coffee house adjacent to the Prime Minister’s official residence in the city, in which 12 people were killed.

A double suicide bombing in September 2003, which killed a total of 17 people at the Hillel cafe in Jerusalem’s German colony, and adjacent to the Tsrifin IDF base.

A December 2001 double suicide bombing in Jerusalem’s Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall, in which 11 people died.

A July 2002 bombing at the cafeteria of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem that killed five Americans and four Israelis.

Here’s where the not-so-secret weapon comes in (emphasis mine):

Local resident Mohammed Azzam, 48, said he watched the arrest from his balcony facing the two-story building where Hamed was holed up. The ground floor of the hideout consisted of shops with large iron doors. Two apartments were on the floor above.

Azzam said that at the start of the operation, an IDF bulldozer rammed the iron shop door. Over the loudspeaker, troops then called out Hamed’s name in accent-free Arabic. They told Hamed they would demolish the building with him inside if he didn’t surrender, Azzam said.

Israelis who are able to “pass” as Arabs are the not-so-secret weapon, and Israel uses them to great advantage.

As I mentioned in this post, New York City is now making use of Arabic-speaking undercover officers. This is dirty work, and very dangerous. But it works.

Just trying it out to see how I like it. Excuse the fiddling.

I just watched the second episode of the immensely entertaining British show The Thick of It, TiVo’d from last Friday.

It is such a corrosive “comedy” that I don’t know why I would ever believe even one word that comes out of the mouth of a politician after watching it…but Tony Blair continues to impress me with his determination to make the case for anti-totalitarianism and liberal humanist values. His forum this time was a joint news conference in Iraq with the new Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

And the answer to your Question is it worth it, is the fact that we are even here, having this conversation and discussion, as people in a country that is now a democracy and for all the challenges which we have to overcome, that is better surely than people living in dictatorship and we should refuse absolutely to believe that Iraqis are not entitled to the same rights and the same freedoms as people in our country or throughout the rest of the world

(via Andrew Sullivan)

Interestingly, John F. Burns of the New York Times provided some color commentary of the same news conference. The color is Revealing:

At one point, a BBC reporter asked him if he accepted that his “legacy as prime minister” depended on “the man standing next to you,” Mr. Maliki, implying that a failure of the new government would doom Mr. Blair’s standing in history. Another British reporter asked if Mr. Blair or Mr. Maliki “could honestly say” that Iraqis were better off than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Blair’s tone hardened. Proof that it had been worth it, he said, was evident because “you are able to put me, the British prime minister, and the Iraqi prime minister, under pressure” in a place where any challenge to authority was potentially fatal under Mr. Hussein. “The answer to your question, is it worth it, is the fact that we are even here having this conversation, in a country that is now a democracy.”

Interesting indeed. Is John Burns critizing his press colleagues for their belligerence?

The terrible injustice that is being done to Ayaan Hirsi Ali—turned out of Holland, rejected by polite society in America—reminded me of a rousing speech given by the film director Milos Forman at the National Press Club in 1997.

Forman is one of my favorite directors. Even if he weren’t, I would have been touched by his spirited defense of his movie The People vs. Larry Flynt, a troubling but entertaining look at the pornographer and unlikely First Amendment “hero.” The movie had come under sustained attack from Gloria Steinem and other hard-line, hard-core “feminists.” Forman, a political refugee from Communist Czechslovakia, who is intimately familiar with the totalitarian impulse, had a lot to say in response.

I reprint it below in full. I urge you to read it, even if you’re not a Forman fan or a People vs. Larry Flynt fan—particularly if you’re not a fan of the film, or even the idea of the film.

>>>
I recently directed a film called THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLYNT. It is being called “the most controversial movie of the year”. But this controversy, stimulating though it may be, is based on a false premise. And I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about this.I know that everything, even the most innocuous and silly joke, can be subject to distorted political interpretation. I will never forget the chill we felt - I was living then in communist-dominated Czechoslovakia with the Soviet Army still on its soil - when we heard about a comedian who told a joke in a pub about a Czech citizen who came to a police station to complain that “three Swiss soldiers stole my Russian watch”. The policeman looked at him quizzically and said: “I think you meant to say that three Russian soldiers stole your Swiss watch”. To which the man replied quickly: “You said it! Not me!”

The comedian was sentenced for this joke to three years in a concentration camp.

I know that pornography is a more sensitive subject than petty theft but still, to accuse my R-rated film, as a few have, for not being sufficiently dirty to deserve the NC-17 rating strikes me as odd. But I forgive them. They are not obliged to be so familiar with my work to have noticed that dirty pictures are not my metier.

I have no argument with those who find some of the contents of Hustler objectionable. I myself find some of its stuff objectionable. I had never bought Hustler in my life. When I was preparing this film and had to go through endless amount of Hustlers, I cringed. Men as well as women are often portrayed on its pages with brutish vulgarity. Sexual and otherwise.

But surely to equate - as one of my film’s critics does - a printed page, however tasteless, with the Nazi slaughter, a slaughter that deprived a sizable portion of the earth’s population of their lives is, to say the least, intemperate. The critics of my film know that it is not possible to legislate taste, therefore they argue that pornography results in acts of violence.

Well, I don’t know whether studies have proved this assertion. I do know, however, that a study of human social history will unarguably disclose that one of our most noble emotions - love - has prompted more damage, more violence, more suicides, even more murders than can ever be ascribed to pornography.

Should we blame ROMEO AND JULIET or WEST SIDE STORY every time an unhappy lover loses control and does something damaging because of the unbearable pain of love in his or her heart? Should we call on Hollywood to stop making these kinds of movies?

I did not want to make pornography the focus of this talk. It is a digression. I did so because the same few critics are trying to convince the public that the goals and themes of my film are identical to those of Hustler.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

My film is not, and never was intended to be, about pornography, pro or con.

Its writers did not conceive it that way nor did I.

That’s why the film’s climax is the case Larry Flynt and his lawyers brought before the Supreme Court. And this case itself is not about pornography.

The case is about our right to satirize, to be irreverent in newspaper columns, in political cartoons, in books and theatres and movies.

There has been a concerted attempt to trivialize this victory for the First Amendment, to sneer at it as insignificant.

I am not a civil rights specialist but I believe that this victory is not only not trivial, it is vital.

I would hate to think of the voices that might be silenced or in jails had the Supreme Court ruled differently.

And I am not ashamed to say that this film for me is a love letter to the Supreme Court of the United States.

As to the objections to Larry Flynt as protagonist: I hardly think the First Amendment would have been put to the test by somebody who, on occasion, used a few profane words. I understand that irony and ambiguity can make some people feel uneasy but I am drawn to both. And for good reason: comfortable certainties in human behavior are rarely worth exploring and, moreover, they are boring. I am a filmmaker, so you do understand that I am not averse to entertaining the audience. Or myself. In truth, I think it essential. Especially when you are trying to get across ideas that I believe are more important than just a car chase.

The ambiguities in Mr. Flynt’s actions certainly engaged my interest.

And still do.

Was he a sincere, tenacious battler for freedom of expression or is he a cynical smut peddler who used his constitutional rights to ensure that he would be able to sell more dirty pages?

Is it possible that he is both?

And if he is, is he more one than the other? Which? Was Oscar Schindler, the German industrialist who aided Jews, a humane saver of lives or a Nazi, an exploiter who used slave labor for notably profitable results? Which? Or both?

These issues, and many others, will, I hope, make us think. But is thinking about such matters - even if we are using the pornographer as a protagonist of our story - so dangerous that it could destroy the moral fiber of our society?

Some insist that it will do just that. If this is the case, we have a serious problem on our hands. Including rethinking the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

The argument that they would be shocked to see what’s published today on the pages of Hustler doesn’t really persuade me that we should turn the clock back. I don’t buy that.

First: I am convinced that the English and European politicians of the seventeenth century would have been absolutely alarmed by some of the ideas of our Founding Fathers.

Second: I doubt that they were so ignorant as not to be familiar with Boccaccio or Rabelais or the etchings of the period which would make Larry Flynt blush. Which is probably exaggeration.

Not every country has the guts to rise to its best when challenged by its worst. In this century alone, the countries of Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Mozart, Freud, when challenged by the Nazis - they buckled.

The countries of Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Kafka, Dvorak, when challenged by the communists, they buckled.

Does anybody believe that Hitler or Stalin could have survived if they had not muzzled the free press? If people could have read, heard and discussed the atrocities committed daily by these regimes?

I doubt that.

And it was always the pornography that was their first target.

Understandably. Who would object to cleaning up smut? As a matter of fact, the majority usually welcomes such high moral purpose. But how surprised this same majority was, once they realized that the official definition of smut no longer included only pornographers, prostitutes and homosexuals. The Nazis quickly added Jews, Blacks, Slavs. The Communists expanded the list to include Christians, Moslems, the capitalists and all of western culture. Finally both regimes commonly labeled anybody who didn’t agree with the official regulations and taste as criminal enemies of the state.

To regain their lost freedoms was not cheap for these people. Millions paid for it with their lives.

Maybe I am oversensitive about these issues because of my life experience but I really believe that it is a sign of ignorance or over-security to think that our freedoms are a permanent gift, without daily obligations, that nothing will happen to us if we bend our Constitution a little to satisfy a particular group or ideology.

The problem is that even in the most civilized societies the demagogues are always in wait, ready and testing. They are indefatigable and we will never entirely prevail over them. And that is OK.

But if we stop resisting them, they will prevail over us. And that is not OK.

If you open the door to censorship just a little, it never stays open just a little and the draft that follows is always more than chilling.

That’s why the real hero of my film is not a person but the Supreme Court of the United States.

Our country is the strongest country in the world not because it is the biggest or the most populous. Our country is the strongest because it is the freest. And if my film disturbs some people because they must digest its points through an uncomfortable character, then, I am sorry, I have to turn to a voice from the seventeenth century: John Milton of PARADISE LOST fame writes in his “Areopagitika about the freedom of the press” something like this: if a stomach is unable to distinguish healthy food from a bad one, then it is the stomach who is sick.