This is a fascinating interview between @joshtpm and the @TPM crew with Errol Morris, who takes offense at some of the responses they had to the film. Morris struggles with others interpreting the film outside his own vision. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-…
On the other hand, Rumsfeld was blithe and unapologetic, but Morris' aesthetic treats him sympathetically by giving him all of the talking time if nothing else.
I think Morris believes his films offer ironic commentary on people like Rumsfeld and (maybe) Bannon, but that irony is not apparent in what's filmed. McNamara told his own story of the irony. Rumsfeld did not and it sounds like Bannon didn't either.
To @joshtpm's point, there IS something heroic about how Morris treats his subjects aesthetically, even if he's also trying to layer ironic commentary upon the subjects' self-presentation. The extra textual references Morris invokes are not going to read to most audiences.
@joshtpm The Morris aesthetic isn't neutral or a blank slate and how it plays will vary depending on the subject. Morris argues the movie, like his others, is about self-deception, but there's a very different effect between a character exploring his self-deception (McNamara) and Rumsfeld
@joshtpm In the latter parts Morris wonders aloud if the irony he thought was in the film isn't apparent. Trump has essentially obliterated irony as a weapon of commentary, so maybe it's there, but it doesn't have the potency he was hoping for.
