Voices of Iraq

REVISION:

I wish to stress that I do not have a problem with the Iraqi people in this documentary they are delightful and fascinating, a few are not so but most are. My complaint is with the documentary exterior editorial elements.

My original posting as follows:

This documentary pretends neutrality but in fact there are so many glaring omissions that in the political sense it cannot be taken seriously. Furthermore the questions asked of people are so bland and even to highly educated people the questions being bland assure bland answers. All the major elements of US/UK harm done to the country is omitted. The more than a decade long of US/UK bombing of the country and the even more devastating genocidal economic sanctions that cost 1 million Iraqi lives and cemented Saddam's power and provided the regime with an assurance of a people too ill and hungry to do the over-throwing themselves. In the section on the North Kurdish region there is no mention of the rewards given to Saddam by Thatcher and Bush senior after the chemical genocide nor any recognition that on the other side of the boarder in Turkey throughout the 90's Kurds were being slaughtered and ethnic cleansed by a NATO nation with the full backing of Clinton/Major/Blair and an endless flow of arms from the USA/UK/Israel to Turkey. Do the Iraqi Kurds feel nothing for Turkish Kurds ? Watching this documentary you would think so. I don't believe it however. In regard to the uprisings in the South in 1991 there is no mention of the US forces blocking anti-Saddam rebels from ammunition storehouses or US helicopters flying over and simply watching Saddam's helicopters and ground forces slaughtering people or that Bush senior told the Pentagon to let Saddam's Republican guard pass through coalition lines on their way to putting down the anti-Saddam rebellion. No mention of the origins of the Baathist regime and Saddam's history with the CIA. And why does the documentary say 24 years for the period of time lacking free speech. Is it not more? Saddam took control without the title of President in 1968 and the Baathists were installed into power by the Kennedy administration in 1963. Then Saddam had his power made formal with the Presidency in 1979. The documentary shows very real footage of barbaric crimes of the Saddam regime but shows nothing to counter one man's foolish idea that the victims of American torture are all evil, when in fact we know that it has been quite the opposite, countless innocent people rounded up by both American troops and government security forces and Blackwater thugs and thrown into prisons and tortured.

Who directed this....Condi Rice ?

PS. See the documentary PAYING THE PRICE: KILLING THE CHILDREN OF IRAQ which is part of the JOHN PILGER: DOCUMENTARIES THAT CHANGED THE WORLD 4 disc REGION 2 DVD box set.

As journalist Robert Fisk always says if the primary export of Iraq were fruit and veg, Saddam would still be in power. The occupation authority was set up as a system of economic colonial rape. Only so far its not exactly working out as they planned. The idea that the Neo-Cons or the Clintonites were going to provide for the Iraqi people when neither provided for the people of New Orleans is simply a deluded farce.

I was looking forward to watching this movie, and it does contain very interesting perspectives from Iraqis all over the country, not just in major areas.

However, as the film went on, and as it seemed to become increasingly more one-sided, I started wondering who had edited the film. To get several hundreds of hours down to just 80 minutes, obviously decisions had to be made.

I would have really enjoyed a film that showed how everyday Iraqis felt on all sides of the issues, but with the newspaper headlines in contrast to what people were saying, and with everyone in the movie having the same opinion at the end, I thought it was obvious that the editing was done with a pre-conceived bias.

It could have been such a great film.

I watched this film expecting a documentary, what I saw was propaganda. After seeing the film, one would imagine that all Iraqis love Americans, that the world press exaggerates the bloodshed, and that daily life in Iraq includes dancing, laughing, and freedom from fear. Even when bombs go off, off-screen, the Iraqis on camera laugh. "Oh, a mortar just went off...", is all they say. Ha-ha-ha. A little Google research turns up army and government connections for the producers and media relations. This is a Disneyland piece produced by the right to strengthen their political agenda. Watch for Voices of Iraq II, where George W. appears blessing the happy crowds wearing a halo and an animated twinkle in his eyes.

i thought this film was great it gave a unique perspective on the life of Iraqi's i have been stationed in Iraq for about 7 months now and have talked to many Iraqis and almost all of the Iraqi's i have talked to share the same points of view as the people in this film. i read some of the other reviews and people say that this film is just propaganda to make Bush look good and to gain support for the war. My response to that is why don't they come over here and get a front row seat at the good that is being done over here. This film offers a great view on the situation over here. I am not sure why people just can't get it in their heads that we are doing good over here maybe because then they wouldn't have anything to complain about, and would have to focus on their own faults. As to everyone screaming about how we should bring our soldiers home why don't they realize all the good we are doing and let us do our job. Every soldier over here volunteered for this job. Many after 9/11 so they all knew what the risks where and they accepted them. the question is why isn't there more movies like this one. Is it because people just can't accept the fact that we ARE doing some good in the world.

I had never been motivated to submit a comment before seeing this film and reading the IMDb comments about it. The movie portrayed such a different attitude within Iraq than I expected that I could hardly wait to see what others had to say about it. The first thing I noticed in reading the comments was how some used their "comment" as a forum to attack "the left" rather than discuss the merits of the film. Those from the left suggested that this film may only show one side of the story.

Sitting here in the USA, I have been frustrated by being unable to know what the real story is inside Iraq, so I was anxious to see this film. As others have said, it is definitely worth watching. It is an intimate, revealing and touching portrait of Iraqis and what it is like to live in Iraq. However, as I watched the film I couldn't help wondering who had made it and how accurate it is.

While it is suggested or implied that all of the footage contained in the film was shot by private Iraqi citizens, this is not actually the case. The film also includes archival footage of torture and genocide perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and his regime. In addition, newspaper headlines are shown at different times during the film that appear to be designed to show how different the newspaper accounts were from what the film is showing. I'm not saying that any of this was inaccurate but it added subjectivity to the film that went beyond Iraqis expressing their views "in their own words" and "telling their own story" as the promo material suggests. To me this "editorializing" suggested and revealed a specific bias in the film.

Furthermore, promotional material for the film states that "the producers of Voices of Iraq distributed over 150 digital video cameras across the entire country to enable everyday people - mothers, children, teachers, sheiks and even insurgents - to document their lives and their hopes amidst the upheaval of a nation being born." This is not really accurate. While the film does contain video footage of mothers, children, teachers and sheiks that was shot for the film, as stated, the video footage of "insurgents" was not shot for the film but shot by the insurgents themselves for their own purposes, whatever those may have been. Furthermore, the insurgent footage was not an interview at all but rather footage only of someone's hands wiring a bomb. Contrary to what was advertised, no information or opinion from the insurgent perspective was included in the film at all. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, this is a significant perspective but one that was not addressed in the film and is not often addressed in Western media.

All in all, I thought the movie was interesting and informative but couldn't help wondering what was contained in the 400 hours of footage that were left on the cutting room floor. As someone else said, I suggest that you watch the movie, do your own research and draw your own conclusions. For a different perspective on this situation watch "Control Room."