American Dharma

Quite a good film and the cinematics make it more watchable than if it was just a standard interview type format. For such a vilified character he doesn't seem that bad and is at least open to debate. It's striking that much of Bannon's political ideology seems to come apart under the gentlest of questioning and he almost seems acutely aware of that. Can't help feeling as a result that there is something more going on and that his politics are perhaps more a surface manifestation of some deeper psychological aspect. The film leaves that aspect largely unexplored.

A debut of American Dharma in North America was released in Toronto Film Festival when I firstly saw it. It's a great chance to to hear what the director's opinion about Bannon, the role of this documentary, who was the executive operator of an American media and famous for being Trump's advisor during his campaign. Although the movie describes Bannon objectively, the director seems has nothing in common with Bannon's stand points and feels some kind of unacceptable about some thoughts such as Bannon compare his departure from Trumps' team to Lucifer in Paradise Lost. Actually, this documentary is an epitome of 2016 Trump's presidential election period. What makes me feel curious is the reason why Bannon compares himself to honey badger.

Errol Morris delivers it again. The principle is the same: a tet à tet. But the end result is always different. Always amazing out it develops. Dont let your political views stand in the way of watching this film. Just enjoy it. It's yet another powerfull movie. And a word to the music and sound effects, Morris knows how important they are adding drama.

Saw this at IDFA 2018, the documentary festival in Amsterdam. Difficult film to watch and sit through, not for being a bad documentary but because some of the things said and shown on screen that nearly make me throw sharp kitchen tools towards the speaker. It displays a clear vision of what the current politically correct elite does wrong in the eyes of the "common" man, failing to solve any of the issues we have nowadays, merely make toothless compromises and never take a real stand against things that "everyone" sees going in the wrong direction. There is an urgent need for change, as Bannon repeatedly states. And getting Trump elected is a blunt instrument (his words) to get things changed. Any of the other Republican candidates would only prolong the status quo, so Trump was in fact the only way out.

My problem, on the other hand, is whether this new approach will work out very differently. It reverses things arranged in the past, just for the sake of doing it differently, without a clear vision about a new future. But I'm not really politically interested, so I'm wrong on all counts while having no clear position either, nor a better alternative, nor any urgency to change things.

I can appreciate that Bannon wanted to have this film made, thereby getting a platform to explain things that did not work out the way he probably wanted. If he did make an attempt to make his role bigger than it actually was, he did it subtly enough and I was not aware of it (if he did). At least he flatly denied having written Trumps acceptance speech, that was not so well received in other countries. Given that it was sheer luck to win the presidential election on a narrow margin, he cannot (and did not) say that the strategy was so brilliant that they impossibly could have lost.

All in all, if you are a bit masochistic and can stand the things brought to you via news fragments and other existing footage, this movie illustrates the "Trump era" very well, how it grew and how it will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. The movie fragments that are supposed to enlighten us about Barron's strategy, did not all work for me, albeit most were a very good attempt, like several clips from Twelve O'clock High (1949). Also, the pivotal scene with Henry V and Fallstaff, in Chimes at Midnight (1965), could explain Bannon being sent away by Trump as inevitable.

I gave a 7 because it's always a good thing to have people like S Bannon on record, but overall I found the interview quite weak as Errol Morris is sometimes simply disagreeing or being outraged but does not bring any facts or arguments into the mix.

Interesting to see how Bannon had no credible defense argument for Charlottesville, the Alt-Right, and the role of Breitbart in giving a voice to hate. I think he just does not care of the consequences; the end justifies the means.

I found remarkable that the role of Bannon at Cambridge Analytica was not mentioned (except for a newspaper title that appears half a second on the screen).

Bannon is a man with a mission - an evil, dangerous mission that is. He does not care about the deplorables, the men in the trenches, they are just a tool.

Bannon is consumed by power, and will piggy back any useful idiot/populist that will help speed up the coming of a self-realizing apocalyptic prophecy.