Movie Mom

Movie Mom


The Unknown Known

posted by Nell Minow
B+
Lowest Recommended Age:Middle School
MPAA Rating:Rated PG-13 for some disturbing images and brief nudity
Profanity:Mild language
Nudity/Sex:Nude images of victims of "enhanced interrogation" and abuse
Alcohol/Drugs:None
Violence/Scariness:Wartime violence, terrorism,
Diversity Issues:A theme of the movie
Movie Release Date:April 3, 2014
© 2014 Radius/TWC

© 2014 Radius/TWC

Errol Morris turns his famous “interrotron” camera on two-time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for something between a bookend and a counterpoint to his Oscar-winning The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. But this SecDef (as they say in the Pentagon) is not here to confess or apologize even in part, as McNamara did.

He says, in the movie’s final exchange, that he is not sure why he agreed to submit to more than 30 hours of what must have felt more like the cross-examination in “A Few Good Men” or even a detainee interrogation than the back-and-forth press briefings Rumsfeld conducted during the early days of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We see many clips from those celebrated exchanges, at the time referred to as the best show in Washington, and still undeniably entertaining. Rumsfeld’s good humor and confidence were bracing and reassuring at a time when everything seemed to be what he would call an unknown unknown. Like Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” he does not think we can handle the truth. He may be right.

He’s not here to explain.  What he is here to do is to repeat the same version of the story, despite the fact that the audience has had the benefit of making some of those unknowns more known.

Rumsfeld’s constant memos, perhaps 20,000 by his count over his final term at Defense, were called “snowflakes” by the staff, based on their color and frequency. It must have seemed like an avalanche. Morris shows us long shelves of folders filled with snowflakes. He has Rumsfeld read some portions aloud, beginning with his famous taxonomy of information. There were known knowns, things we know and know to be true. There were known unknowns, things we do not know and wish we did. There were unknown knowns, things we do not realize that we know. And unknown unknowns, things we don’t know and don’t know that we need to know. Yes.

But what we do with those categories is the tough part, especially when assigning facts. The boxes and labels are nice and neat. The things we do and do not know are not. Rumsfeld often seems Wittgensteinian when he calls for dictionary definitions or makes a distinction between a Pentagon term and standard English. But definitions are not answers.

YouTube Preview Image

“Pearl Harbor was a failure of imagination,” Rumsfeld says. So, we gather, was 9/11. Vietnam was “the inevitable ugly ending of an unsuccessful effort.” How do we not make that mistake again? How do we destroy terrorists without a Hydra effect, creating two more for every one we cut down? We might think those answers are known unknowns. But Rumsfeld does not have the luxury of waiting to be sure.

He tells us he found out the US was going to invade Iraq when he was called into a meeting with then-Vice President Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld’s former assistant in the Nixon White House), along with Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar. And that he never read the Justice Department legal memos about “enhanced interrogation.” He insists that he never said and the American people never thought there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Cut to tape of the press conference where he called Saddam a liar for denying there was a connection.

Rumsfeld is aware of the inherent conflicts. He cheerfully acknowledges the inconsistency between two principles: Belief in the inevitability of conflict can be one of its causes. And if you wish for peace, prepare for war. Plus: all generalizations are false, including this one. He sounds like a zen master, but a jolly one. His good humor can be disconcerting, but not chilling. At the time, it was reassuring to us and undeniably disconcerting to our enemies. Rumsfeld often seems exceptionally forthright, as when he calmly discusses his two offers to resign following the revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib.  Would you rather have someone in that job who is grim?

His demeanor comes across today as oddly disengaged.  He tears up once, telling about a visit to a gravely injured soldier who was not expected to live, but who did.  There are no stories about those who did not.

Morris sometimes overdoes it, with a celestial choir and a snow globe of the Washington Monument as repeated commentary/symbols. Repeated sped-up shots of traffic in Washington, obviously far after the events being discussed, add little.

One can’t help thinking that part of what draws Morris to this story is his own belief in the capacity for absolute truth, in its way as limited as Rumsfeld’s belief that he can tie down the unknown unknowns tightly enough to support a military strategy.  Or disinfect a morally compromised decision.  But then, how many decisions in wartime or in time of terrorism are not morally compromised?  There are unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns, and there are also political and historical quagmires.

Parents should know that this film has disturbing subject matter and some graphic images of the victims of “enhanced interrogation” and abuse.

Family discussion: Once you have created the categories of “known knowns” and “known unknowns,” how do you know when you have enough information to decide? What qualities should one have to serve as Secretary of Defense? What surprised you about this version of the story and why?

If you like this, try: The Fog of War, No End in Sight, also by Morris, and Taxi To the Dark Side



  • James Levy

    Children need reassurance. Adults need demonstrable facts before they go off and kill people who had done nothing to them. Perhaps your belief system is built on this kind of realpolitik or ends justify the means thinking, but mine is not. I was against Iraq then and this review is a sad effort to obfuscate that which is now clear: Iraq posed no threat to us and we killed thousands of her people and destroyed the place and unleashed a brutal civil war there for no good reason. Rumsfeld was a war criminal, pure and simple. All the unknown now crud is self-justifying drivel. I might as well say that because my neighbor has a gun, he could shot me, so I should wait out behind my house and shot him first, just in case.

    • Nell Minow

      Thanks for your comment, Mr. Levy. I am sorry you have come to the wrong conclusion about my beliefs and my response to the film from the review, but I think if you read it again without any assumptions you will find otherwise. The comments you refer to are a reflection not on my views now or then but on the way a terrified and angry majority of US citizens responded at the time and, in most cases, the way they think about it now. Over history there have been times when the US and other countries have failed to respond when we should have and when we invaded or declared war when we should not have. We are confronted with that issue all the time. Should we have sent troops to Rwanda? Should we send them to Crimea? There are people who will argue yes to both, though not always the same people. I think that if you see this movie you will find that the filmmaker agrees with your conclusions and intends the audience to agree as well. And in fairness to Rumsfeld, he acknowledges the moral compromises of acting without knowing. Note, too, as I pointed out that he says in the film that the decision to invade Iraq was told to him, not asked of him. He could have resigned. Or, he could have stayed and tried to make it work as well as he could given his appreciation for the situation. This is why it should be seen as a complement to “The Fog of War.”

      • James Levy

        Thank you for that very thoughtful, polite, and open response. My own reaction to your review was extremely visceral, and although I would maintain utterly defensible in content, was presumptuous and ungenerous in form. I’ll try not to confuse the review with the reviewer in future.

        • Nell Minow

          My pleasure! If you see the movie, let me know what you think. I’d love to hear from you.

Previous Posts

Annie
The story of the plucky little Depression-era orphan with the curly red hair has been not just re-booted but re-imagined into the world of rent-a-bikes, viral videos, DNA tests, YOLO, corpora

posted 5:59:13pm Dec. 18, 2014 | read full post »

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Fans of the first two "Night at the Museum" films will like this one because it is pretty much the same film. They go to another museum, this time the British Museum in London, and the exhibi

posted 5:23:46pm Dec. 18, 2014 | read full post »

Listen to People's Lives: David Plotz's Working Podcast
Former Slate editor David Plotz, now at Atlas Obscura, says that he is a big fan of Studs Terkel's classic book Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do. He has paid tribute to that great work in the best possible way, by updating it with his podcast seri

posted 3:59:23pm Dec. 18, 2014 | read full post »

Little Orphan Annie: From Comic Strip to Radio, Broadway, Television, and Two Movies
The spunky little girl with the curly red hair and a dog named Sandy began as Little Orphan Annie in 1924, created by Harold Gray.  Her pluck, self-sufficiency, and resilience cau

posted 8:00:48am Dec. 18, 2014 | read full post »

A Trailer for A Movie You'll Never See: Moonquake Lake with Mila Kunis and Rihanna
"Moonquake Lake" has a lot of star power behind it -- "LEGO Movie" directors Chris Miller and Phil Lord and stars Mila Kunis, Ashton Kutcher, and Rihanna. And it looks....intriguing, some sort of "Twilight"-style supernatural teen romance. It just isn't real. "Moonquake Lake" is a movie with

posted 3:54:43pm Dec. 17, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.