MOVIE REVIEWS
“The Unknown Known”
by Doug Young
[linebreak style=”simple”]
MOVIE: THE UNKNOWN KNOWN
WE KNOW THE UNKNOWN
TOP SECRET MEMORANDUM
To: Colorado Republicans
From: Unknown Knowers
Date: April 12, 2014
Re: The Unknown Known, a documentary of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
A new documentary called The Unknown Known has been released to coincide with
the Colorado Republican Party’s 2014 Convention so that it can be used by Democrats to
cast aspersions on the policies of Republicans and their beliefs and ideals — or at least
those of a certain era and ilk.
This memo is being provided to help Republicans (not that they needed such help anyway)
to rebut those charges, allegations and attacks. Feel free to use the arguments and obser-
vations contained herein to eviscerate any insipid attempt by a Democrat to suggest that
the film validates their mistaken view that all Republicans are evil, slippery warmongers.
Definitions
“Errol Morris,” the director of this film, is a known known liberal who espouses leftist views
about national and foreign policies. He can be seen hobnobbing with left-leaning film-
makers and in other such circles where they regularly sling mud on Republicans and bolster
bleeding-heart causes and individuals.
“Interrotron” is a technique, invented by Morris, whereby people are seen looking directly
into the camera as if looking at Morris the interrogator to instill terror in the interviewee so
that Morris can ostensibly catch them in gotcha moments of contradiction, candor or incon-
sistencies.
“Donald Rumsfeld” is the longtime public servant who worked for various Republican presi-
dents on economic, intelligence, and foreign and military affairs and who also happens to
be the latest foil for Morris’s “interrotron”.
The Skewering Tone
The first way to challenge a Democrat’s likely opinion that this film is a takedown of Repub-
lican thought and wisdom is the way that the film tries to turn Secretary Rumsfeld into a
clown or a subject of mockery. This is done with a variety of techniques that include:
• the musical score, which although of inherently high quality nevertheless contains a
number of motifs that evoke a carnival or a clown show deliberately designed to
convey the message that the film’s subject is goofy or loopy;
• the snow globe, which is a hokey and disrespectful visual device to describe the thou-
sands of meticulous national security memos that Sec. Rumsfeld produced over
his decades of critically important service to the nation — memos that he called
“snowflakes” due to their volume and frequency; and
• the “unknown known” phrase, which even though represents a famous and insightful
analysis by Sec. Rumsfeld of his attempt to educate the ill-informed and flagrantly
biased national press corps as to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq before the war of 2003, is bastardized and twisted into gibberish so as to
justify any egregious actions — actions that Democrats also happen to strenuously
oppose.
Evidence of Absence (of Thought)
The film asserts that Sec. Rumsfeld uses verbal trickery to avoid being pinned down and
fessing up in answering specific questions. It perpetuates the Democrats’ theory that Sec.
Rumsfeld is capable of twisting any communication so that he can claim he never said or
asserted an allegation that is leveled against him — that he could bend the facts to support
any reality he wants to propound and advocate.
One such purported technique that’s featured prominently in the film is the statement by
Sec. Rumsfeld that the “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence,” which the film
scurrilously suggests was a way for Sec. Rumsfeld (and the Bush Administration) to obfus-
cate the rationale to launch a war against Iraq by continuing to raise the specter of the exis-
tence of weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein.
What’s galling about this is that Democrats (or at least certain far left factions that are typi-
cally supportive of and supported by Democrats) engage in the very same thing. How often
do we hear these political extremists allege corporate or military wrongdoing whether or not
there is evidence of such transgressions? Polluting the environment? Selling unsafe or
dangerous products? Unfair treatment of workers? Such posturing to score political points
happens all the time, and when denials are forthcoming they similarly invoke the “absence
of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” when proof of such claims cannot be provided.
Ever heard of the refrain, “people in glass houses…”?
The “Feel Bad Rainbow”
Morris tries valiantly to get Sec. Rumsfeld to atone for some perceived misdeeds. We never
actually see Morris as he interviews Sec. Rumsfeld (instead he puts Sec. Rumsfeld under
the glare of his “interrotron” and we only hear Morris’ voice infrequently), but we can tell by
the overall focus of the film that Morris is frustrated and baffled by Sec. Rumsfeld’s cool
demeanor and refusal to breakdown and provide some outpouring of remorse or confes-
sion. In fact, Morris suggests that Sec. Rumsfeld’s projection of confidence and self-
assuredness is itself a personality flaw.
That could not be further from the truth. On the contrary, Sec. Rumsfeld comes across like
most well-intentioned Republicans — dedicated to doing what’s right and standing tall in
the correctness of their mission and service (which does not mean not continuing to reeval-
uate and question). Instead, it’s Democrats who feel bad about themselves and the world
around them. They are quick to find fault and welcome any and all opportunities to confess
their sins when things get difficult and challenging — especially when matters go awry and
people have to make hard choices and decisions involving high risk. Their pangs of angst
reflect a Pollyannaish belief that government can and should be perfect so that no one is
hurt and all needs are provided for.
The fact that Morris chastises Sec. Rumsfeld for not boo-hooing his way through the inter-
view speaks volumes about Morris’s political philosophy and his own personal need to gaze
at the Democrats’ “feel bad rainbow.”
Humanistic Republicanism
Sec. Rumsfeld is not perfect. And as much as the film tries to perpetuate the mischaracteri-
zation that Sec. Rumsfeld is a cold, calculating politician who will do and say anything to
convince himself and us that he is infallible, it actually stands for the opposite. Here are the
specific ways that the film (no doubt inadvertently) humanizes Sec. Rumsfeld, and by exten-
sion, Republicans.
Learning from mistakes. Sec. Rumsfeld says on a number of occasions that we need to
learn from mistakes (i.e., not tape recording all conversations at the White House
a la Nixon, rescinding an unfortunate memo regarding the treatment of enemy
combatants, and so on). His major point — that seems to be lost on Morris and
Democrats in general — is that sometime things go wrong even under the best of
intentions. At these moments we can either navel-gaze or we can carry on the best
we can with dignity and determination.
Show some emotion. Sec. Rumsfeld is visibly moved by a story he tells of a soldier in
intensive care at a VA hospital who was not expected to live. It’s difficult not to be
touched by his caring and feeling for his fellow man, but it’s also hard to discern
whether Morris thought this was insincere so as to bolster his bent that Sec. Rums-
feld is a charlatan.
Appalled by Abu Ghraib. Sec. Rumsfeld states (and documents are shown on the screen
to corroborate it) that he was so upset at the mistreatment of the Iraqi detainees at
this facility that he was willing to resign. He felt so strongly that he should be held
to account for such behavior on his watch that he is the living embodiment of “the
buck stops here.” The film again cheapens this humanistic gesture by implying that
it was done only to save his reputation.
No waffling on waterboarding. Although he stands by his support for interrogation tech-
niques (we needed to get information to save American lives), he restates that he
did not sanction waterboarding of any detainees held by the Department of
Defense, the agency over which he had authority. That the film continues to delve
into this is another instance where it tries to paint him as an inhuman monster.
Imagine a Safer World
Sec. Rumsfeld’s mission was to safeguard the lives of Americans and those fighting on our
behalf. Such a duty requires one to imagine the worst, the unthinkable so that we can
prepare for and, most importantly, respond to the threats posed by the realities of a world in
perpetual conflict.
Morris’s film poo-poos this notion by claiming that such imagination can be used to justify
all sorts of atrocities.
To which are two words that Morris and his Democratic ilk seem to have failed to image:
Vladimir Putin.
[linebreak style=”simple”]
Unfortunately we can’t describe Doug Young adequately in strictly iambic
pentameter, so we’ll just tell you that he is an award-winning (and poetic) film critic and that he is “Filmoholic” Critic Man, aka Doug Young, who is a senior environmental policy advisor to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, his reviews canbe found regularly on Pop Geek Heaven.
