Power of Nightmares - Parts One, Two and Three

i watched all three parts of this film, and it is my favorite of the 11 films i saw this past weekend (none of the films were bad though). first, i would like to say that i thought this extremely informative film is much more balanced than, say, a film like fahrenheit 911, which came off as somewhat sensationalist. while i love michael moore's work, i feel that he is occasionally willing to twist the truth to advance an agenda, maybe because he feels the end (trying to get bush out of office) justifies the means. in contrast, while watching "the power of nightmares" i really got the feeling that it was mainly facts, not spin, i was learning, and that the filmmaker was simply a conduit from those facts to me, and that all sides of the debate were given equal screen time. if some of the neoconservatives seemed like idiots to me (and they did), i believe i made that judgement through simply listening to what they had to say - and they weren't given any leading questions or made to look like fools. adam curtis seemed to really let them say what they wanted to. i'm not trying to say that adam curtis' film is perfectly balanced and that michael moore's is mere propaganda, but that curtis' film seemed much closer to "the truth". but i guess, how would i know what "the truth" is anyway? haha.

i have one other point, which may or may not be negative. i thought that the word "money" was conspicuously absent from the film. that is, there was zero discussion of the military-industrial complex. the concept of motive was not discussed much. i mean, if a person were to use this film as the sole basis for their understanding of western neoconservatism and eastern religious fundamentalism, that person would come away thinking it was purely based on idealistic notions of people in power and those they oppress. but we all know that for every idealist out there, there are 10 people just in it for the money, because all they care about really is their personal wealth and power. the reason i said the ommission of this topic may not be a negative aspect of the film, is that the film is just so damn good as it is, and it's already 3 hours long. any more would be torture to one's rear end to sit through (note to film festival organizers: you'll make a killing next year if you sell those seat cushions people take to sporting events). and to be fair, curtis never said "this is the whole story". if adam curtis had to keep the movie's running time at 3 hours and still cover the topic of money, i'm afraid the result would not be as in-depth, and the depth is what i loved about this film. so maybe a sequel? - "the profit of nightmares"?

i hope i didn't come off too whiney - this film is truly great. i intend to purchase it for myself, and for my father, who sadly leans more to the right each year.