Inside the Bubble: A Review

[Dr Ron]

From The Democratic Daily--see full post for links

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=919

Inside the Bubble started out with a major strike against it. A few days prior to its release there were media claims that the movie “could end up being the silver bullet that kills Kerry’s presidential chances for 2008.” When discussing the movie, director Steven Rosenbaum didn’t portray the movie as being this damaging to Kerry, but has suggested his movie provides valuable insights into why Kerry lost. Now that Rosenbaum has kindly send me a review copy I can say that both views of the movie are incorrect.

The movie appears more like the work of an amateur filming randomly with a camcorder than as a serious documentary. A segment on making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is given equal weight to complaints of Kerry staffers about Dick Cheney attacking Kerry by taking his statements out of context. Isolated problems, such as a snafu with the teleprompter at one speech, are stressed over the substance of the campaign. By both lacking access to those actually running the campaign, and by neglecting to provide serious analysis, the movie is unable to provide any meaningful insight as to why Kerry lost.

The film repeatedly substitutes cheap shots for serious analysis. The movie starts with Kerry staffers being excited over the exit polls and predicting victory, returning to this many times throughout the film. Before laughing at those who were overly confident of victory, we must remember how widespread such optimism was on election day. There are many other times in which it appears Rosenbaum is attempting to place the campaign in as bad a light as possible. I’ve previously discussed the clips of Hillary’s scowl at one of the debates. The movie goes even beyond the clip I previously viewed in giving the impression that Kerry committed a gaffe with no word that his statements were verified by Factcheck.org.

Editorial comment is inserted into the film by providing periodic opinions of others without consideration of the validity of their complaints. When Kerry has an expert on stem cell research answer a reporter’s question, the reporter’s protest that this is “lame” is blindly accepted. There are frequent cuts to Vanity Fair columnist Michael Wolff who is typically critical of the campaign but lacking in sound arguments. Rosenbaum shows Karl Rove accusing Kerry of flip flopping, and then cuts to Wolff who makes the same charge based solely on the IWR vote. If Rosenbaum desired to provide meaningful commentary he might have provided background to show how the ambiguities of the vote made it a poor litmus test on the war. He might have added pre-war clips of Kerry warning George Bush not to rush to war, or perhaps of John Kerry calling for regime change in the United States at the time of the invasion. With all the time spent on trivia, Rosenbaum could have found a few moments to show portions of Kerry’s Senate floor statement, or his Georgetown speech, to clarify his views on Iraq.

The lies of the Swift Boat Vets are handled as poorly as Kerry’s position on Iraq. At least there are a few brief comments from Kerry staffers on the unfairness of the attacks. Staffers are also shown discussing the dangers of responding to what started out as an internet ad as this would provide more exposure to the story. Wolff calls the attacks true, even if not accurate, based upon the fact that Kerry was an opponent of the Vietnam war. He overlooks the serious inaccuracies in both the attacks on Kerry’s war record and in the distortions of Kerry’s anti-war activities by the Swift Boat Liars.

In uncritically disseminating the untrue right wing talking points that Kerry was a flip flopper, that Kerry’s position on Iraq was in any way similar to Bush’s, or that there is validity to the attacks of the Swift Boat Liars, Rosenbaum fails to understand both John Kerry and the issues surrounding the 2004 election.

As the movie fails as a serous analysis of the election, it does provide some moments of excitement as we see Kerry campaigning. The scenes which humanize Kerry may ultimately be beneficial to him considering the stereotype spread by the media. This could have been a far better film if it had done more to capture the excitement and hopes of the fall of 2004 as we believed we had the chance to bring about change. One Democrat who does come out appearing good in the movie is Joe Biden who confronts political reporters pointing out that the story should be about what comes out of the candidate’s mouth, not the stories the media preferred such as which operative won the internal campaign battle of the day. Biden’s criticism of the news media’s coverage of the election also provides lessons which Rosenbaum should have considered in the production of this movie.

[beachmom]

1. Thanks, Dr. Ron, for the review

Not to totally defend Rosenbaum, but he said that he's no political expert, so maybe that's part of the reason why he failed to grasp the big picture. But as I said in the other Bubble thread, people like Bill Maher do grasp Kerry's IWR vote, so I guess we need to keep plugging on why that vote was NOT for the war Bush made in Iraq.

So do you think this is worth the purchase for Kerry die hards, or skip it? The clips I saw on Road to the White House, I thought showed Kerry in a positive light. If anything, I think the film hurts Hillary Clinton, rolling her eyes like a school girl -- definitely NOT presidential. She'll have to work on face expressions from now on.

[Dr Ron]

5. Kerry die hards may enjoy parts

There are the scenes of Kerry, and some scenes of Kerry staffers making good points about the campaign attacks. Just be prepared for the comments on flip flopping and the Swifties, and a lot of irrelevant stuff.

[TayTay]

2. It sounds like it was not terribly insightful.

The national press coverage of the 2004 was also not terribly insightful. The media doesn't want to spend the money to go out and fact-check the issues. We have tons of talking heads shows, but they all say the same thing and focus on the 'horserace' aspect of a political campaign and not on it's substance.

I know that Kerry won all three debates and he won them on the issues and on his substantive knowledge of those issues. The media said he won based on having less facial ticks and 'wired' behavior than the incumbent. (Ass-backwards, sigh!)

It sounds like this movie is more of the same. A cursory look at events that are strung together as separate vignettes that never meet to form a coherent narrative. It sounds like there is a focus on trying to find 'visual bites' that show motion in a frame, but don't add to a narrative. Sad. Anyone can string together film clips but making them look as if they are relating a story worth seeing in hard. I'm sorry this wasn't accomplished as there was indeed a story there to be told.

We are going through another time when the media is doing a 'horserace' analysis of a political event. Check out the mainstream media coverage of TreasonGate. The talking heads are doing cheap 'What do you think' coverage of who is on top and who is fading in power on this important political event. There is very little substantive analysis of what actually happend, why it might be illegal and what the consequences for such actions are for the United States and it's government. It is simply cheaper to get various pundits on tv to talk about what they 'feel' is going on and how the power shaek-up will play out than it is to find a way to tell what is legally going on, why there is a case and what the ramifications of this are. The coverage is cheap, crass and is not really terribly well-informed.

[Dr Ron]

6. No, not insightful

Yes, it is a lot of stuff strung together rather than a coherent narrative. It is interesting that the movie suffers from this as I bet Rosenbaum would say the same about the campaign.

It is typical of the media to ignore the big issues. To half defend them on Plame, this is partially because the specific charges aren't out. Once there are specific charges, most coverage will still be garbage, but the issues behind the ndictments will also be covered.

[ginnyinWI]

9. so in an unintended way, it *does* show why he lost--

it shows the exactly the same kind of slap-dash, lazy media coverage that we had during the campaign. The approach to making this film was just as inept and inadequate as most of what passed for media coverage last year! If the media had actually been doing its job, the country would have seen Kerry for who he actually is, rather than who the rightwing and lazy-ass, corporate-controlled media portrayed him as. If you weren't watching Cspan, you didn't see the real Kerry other than at the debates or on a few PBS programs like Frontline.

[Dr Ron]

10. Is this what you are hoping for?

Ok, the article could have been even stronger, but its on the right track:

Leak Case Renews Questions on War's Rationale
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/politics/23strategy.ready.html

[TayTay]

11. Yes, that is much better

You can start to see the scope of the problems in that and the real issue behind the whole Wilson-Plame event. This was a struggle for control and a struggle to see who would dominate American foreign policy now and into the future.

This White House was determined to go to war. It is becoming more and more apparent that they were willing to justify their war by any means necessary, which is just frightening. Any means necessary and God help anyone who got in their way. That is awful. We are a democracy, not a dictatorship. We are not talking about petty politics here and the nastiness that can entail from that. We are talking about serious flaws in how this nation went to war. People are dead, our reputation abroad is in tatters, our fiscal situation is spiraling out of control and it might all be based on lies. Thee has never been a more serious case in US history.

Much better. That's a good article. I have hope that ALL the pieces are going to be fit into place so that we can see that outing Valerie Plame was just a small part of what the WH and the neocon agenda was and how ruthlessly it was pursued.

[Dr Ron]

3. More later

I don't have time now, but I will be back to answer some of the questions in the comment.

Steven Rosenbaum had a response at Democratic Daily and the Unofficial Kerry Blog which you may also want to see, along with my response to him.

[Mass]

4. I just read Rosenbaum's comment on your blog

More than anything, I wonder why he is so insistant to continue this conversation. What is he trying to prove? Why does he think he needs Kerry's approval for this movie?

It seems to me that this is the best proof this movie does not meet the expectations that he has raised. Most people who have seen the movie have come with this conclusion: this is a movie that describes the "normal" agitation and mess of middle range staffers, nothing more. It does not give any insight of the campaign strategy and certainly does not explain why Kerry lost. As for Wolf, I am still deeply disturbed that he would say the Swift Boat Liars were telling the truth, without any counterargument from anybody.

So, it is possible that the movie is interesting for who wants to know how middle management works in ANY campaign. It also describes Kerry in a very good manner for the 5 mn or so he is in the movie. For the rest, nothing seems very new.

[Dr Ron]

7. Trying to promote a failure

He made it so he likley thinks it is a good job. He wants to continue this convesation as he still hopes to push the movie.

On his blog he brags about how well it is doing (in terms of downloaded clip) compared to other political documentaries. However, beyond F911 there is not much competition. Plus, downloading clips does not mean that the viewer agrees with him or considers the movie to be a quality work.

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. Thanks Ron

for your totally honest review. I just went to C-Span so I could watch RWH again which aired last week, so I could review again what Rosenbaum in his exact words had said about him not being into politics and political films something on that line.

Well it is not there to see. I have been very suspicious of C-Span lately and how they have chosen who to portray in RWH and who gets preferential treatment,one example, Feingold 9/30- 10/2, they have Edwards on a few times and also Clinton, then on the Repub side it is Frist, Romney, Allen and Frist will be on again this Sunday and may I add these are all events were they actually speak and are not spoken about. I'll tell you this JK is at the bottom of their list. Ever since the outrageous air time they gave the Swift Boat Liars, I have been very skeptical of C-Span and this makes me even more. Whose agenda are they following? I am absolutely livid and have made them aware of this.

As for Rosenbaum and the wood thing, well I was working on the Kerry blog that night and the staff in D.C. were on top of everything. We were opening debunking threads every few minutes with FACTS, as thousands of bloggers hit the site mainly for debunking and saying how good Kerry was doing, it was a very exciting experience.