Proof of whisper campaigns, media manipulation, corruption, and appealing to the worst instincts of the constituency is absent, yet the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. One of the most disgraceful incidents involved the incarceration of two political opponents (10-20 years!) for what would have normally resulted in a fine. Both lives were ruined, apparently because they had the unfortunate luck to run against one of Rove’s politicos. We ask ourselves what could possibly justify such Draconian tactics, this head-on-a-pole mentality?
For all the eminently legitimate observations that Karl Rove is the puppet-master behind Shrub’s election and administration (it would certainly explain a lot), I’m troubled by the film's implication that this somehow mitigates his culpability. Maybe I’m getting the wrong signals here. I’m not suggesting Bush isn’t indebted to and most likely, wholly dependent on Rove for his success. I only mean to say that if Rove is a pit-bull, Bush hired him because he wanted a pit-bull. Stupid or not, he could have sacked Rove if he found his tactics unconscionable - what with Jesus being his co-pilot and all.
At a time when documentaries revel in techno-dazzle (and many to fine effect) Bush's Brain is surprisingly simple and direct. The aspect ratio seems different somehow; the images of people on the screen seem taller, more imposing. The camera seems closer to the men and women being interviewed as if it were in the same room, conversing with them itself. The colors have a flat, sickly, lurid tint. The music by Michelle Shocked and score by composer David Friedman is poignant and vaguely eerie.
What struck me most about Bush's Brain was the attitude of just about everyone they interviewed. This couldn’t have been orchestrated; they weren’t talking to actors. The subjects aren't enraged or distraught or vindictive, even though a number of them were betrayed, even persecuted by Rove. They all seem weary, numb, resigned; like Socrates when they handed him the goblet.
Article comments
1 - Snarkattack
Ok, so seeing as I wrote an entry on my miniblog here (yes it's shameless promotion, but I did read your review...)referring to this article, I have to make the comment now...
I was rather hoping that this would be about the inner workings of the George W. having taken the 'brain' bit seriously, rather than about the person who supposedly does his thinking for him, sigh.
I wondered what sort of brain the man might have seeing as he apparently didn't finish university.
It's not the most reliable of sources, but if Michael Moore's Stupid White Men is correct about this, and I'll assume so to make me look smart momentarily, then it would give me the chance to proudly exclaim:
"I had a nervous breakdown and I still finished university...what was George Dubya's excuse?"
Sorry. Hope that doesn't bring down the tone of your review. But if you really do make sock monkeys as your bio claims then surely you won't mind. Fingers crossed, and truly - no disrespect intended!
2 - Christopher Soden
Hey buddy! NDT. I already felt guilty for working in so many swipes at "Shrub" (as we Texas Democrats refer to him) but the man is so despicable I couldn't resist. Not that I ever feel guilty about letting him have it per se, America is chock full of "Bush Zombies" (I just coined that term and I want credit, Damn it! Honest.) but the focus of the documentary I saw was Rove, so there you have it. We all want answers to your questions, compadre' but I'm afraid I pushed the "tangent arc" (another term I just now coined. PLEASE don't forget me.) as far as I reasonably could.
Cheers,
Christopher