posted by NotAnyRon on February 10, 2007; screened on February 10, 2007
James Longley
-
2006
This week, the Starz Film Center in Denver is showing all five Oscar nominees for best documentary feature. It's a real treat, because typically one of the five, at most, is available for viewing in theaters in a given year. So, to take advantage of this, I'm pulling an all dayer and seeing the four films that I've missed back to back to back to back.
First on the list is Iraq In Fragments. Unfortunately the filmmakers decided to take the title to heart a little too aggressively. The film is in three parts: first is a story of a young boy in Baghdad, followed by the story of Sadr's supporters in the south, and finally a story of a Kurdish family. These stories show that there are many different people in the country with many different viewpoints on the war and occupation of the U.S. troops. But if director James Longley was aiming at a coherent whole for his film, the three stories just don't add up to that.
The film is maddeningly fragmented in its storytelling and visual style. There are moments where I was amazed at the intimate details Longley showed about his subjects. For instance, we see first hand the verbal and psychological abuse the boy in Baghdad endured from his boss, whom he considered like a father. But just when the film was about to reach a profound level, it jumped to another topic. There is another scene where the followers of Sadr accost and kidnap group of men who they believe to be selling alcohol, which is against their religious beliefs. Longley was able not only to film the beating of the men at the market, but also to join them in the car ride and show footage of the final destination of the kidnapping. The beating is brutal and horrible to watch, but Longley insists on fast jump cuts, constantly moving backwards and forwards in time by a few seconds. This fragmentation is simply annoying and draws attention to the film style and away from the brutality of the beating. Finally, we never know what happens to the kidnapped men, whether they are innocent as they claim, not even whether they are killed or released. Longley was obviously close to Sadr's men to be able to ride with them in their van during the kidnapping. Why did he choose not to show the final fate of the merchants?
While the film shows an intimate portrayal of life in Iraq during the U.S. invasion from a few different viewpoints, and this has value in and of itself, it does not come together as a successful film. I left the theater confused about the statement Longley was trying to make, or even if there was one. Now, off to the next doc.