At the end of this film, Errol Morris asks its subject, Donald Rumsfeld, why he is participating in the film at all. The response he gets is, "I'll be damned if I know." Morris has a particular genius for drawing and highlighting themes from the raw, direct interview material of his subjects. And prominent here is Rumsfeld's unusual and apparently absolutely comfort with uncertainty. "You can't know with certainty, he tells us. "When you say, 'How could you know?' the answer is, 'You can't.'" In old press conference film he misquotes Hamlet to assert that "there are some things neither bad nor good but thinking makes them so." He assures us with a glib grin that "All generalizations are false -- including this one."But the film invites us to take note that Rumsfeld is not just comfortable with uncertainly, but comfortable with acting on that uncertainty in ways that lead to catastrophes like the Iraq War. For Rumsfeld, not only is absence of evidence that Saddam Hussein did have "weapons of mass destruction" not evidence that he did not -- but that lack of evidence that he did not is reason enough to go to war. Rumsfeld shows himself to be a dangerous man because not only is he aware that he can't reach absolute truth, he's profoundly incurious about approaching information that would approximate truth. Morris doesn't narrate, but his voice here is a prominent one. Rumsfeld, often terse, impossible to pin down, and obsessed with definitions, is engaged in dialog with his interviewer, who through both sharp and naif questions as well as eloquent imagery and editing presents a counter-narrative that neatly undermines Rumsfeld's. Over the course of about 100 minutes of listening to Donald Rumsfeld, he allows himself to show himself to us as deeply self-contradictory -- and deeply satisfied with acting in an examined way. This is a sharply intelligent and subtle film, dealing with and revealing a mystifying almost deliberately thoughtless subject.

Having very much enjoyed the similarly framed Fog Of War, I was of course very curious to see Donald Rumsfeld undergo the same sort of film since in his case his actions have been very much within my lifetime but of course most relevantly in the post-9/11 world. I recall that his frequent ducking and diving with the press during Afghanistan and Iraq saw him to be very nimble on his feet but also prone to flat out denial of things that certainly appeared to be true unless you took an absolute stand on the very specific point of definition. The film starts with Rumsfeld's love of the memo, of which thousands exist, and we jump back through his political career, with the first hour spent pre-Bus administration before the second half circles back very much to the 00's and his role as Defense Secretary.In terms of the ground it covers, the film is inherently interesting and it does at least provide a concise walk through things, with the odd aspect that I was not fully aware. It achieves this not because the film is really interesting, but just because it covers the events and these in themselves are interesting. It helps to understand the players (as many will) but not too much, since the film really will do little for those that know the subject inside out. In terms of the type of reflection and investigation of Fog of War, forget it, none is here and Rumsfeld has no intention of straying from the line he has walked thus far. This makes the film ultimately disappointing – not because I wanted the film to "get him" or reveal him, but just because there is really nothing here to add to the hours of cspan and controlled statements over the past decade.If the film could be said to reveal anything, it is that it reveals the steadfastness and the unwillingness to publicly reflect of Rumsfeld – he grins his way through the film, providing unconvincing defenses of anything put to him and quick to argue even on things about the specific meaning of his "known unknowns" speech. It is a great performance in that regard and the film only reveals how deep entrenched it is. Is this a surprise though? Is it enough to really consider enough to justify the film to find that a man who is a career politician is very good at politics? I think not and ultimately, although the focus of the film inherently provides material of interest, it does little to add to it or to get anywhere that could be said to revealing, insightful or to have made this specific film worthwhile.

Overall, a pretty good treatment of an important subject for a documentary. Errol Morris does, however, return to his favorite directorial conceits over and over again.One such tic of his is the sped up view of a skyline (with the clouds racing across the sky, day turning into twilight, then night all in a few seconds). I suppose some directors use this technique to indicate the passage of time, but in this movie most scenes opened with titles on the screen indicating the month, day, year, etc. Hence, no need for the fast-moving clouds.Also, because Rumsfeld referred to his messages as "snowflakes," Morris over-used the glass ball snowflakes as a bridge between many scenes. Morris is an admirable documentary film maker and shouldn't fall into the habit of pro forma use of such conceits.

The Unknown KnownThere is a myth about the documentary film genre that it is some sort of quest for objective truth; when in fact there is no greater and often times no more effective means of subjective film making . No documentarian worth his salt is going to go forward with a project without a point of view.And so it is with documentarian Errol Morris as he tries to pin down former defense secretary Don Rumsfeld to some objective truths about the war in Iraq. It's slow going.For Morris this is not without precedent. In his "The Fog of War" he was able to get Lyndon Johnson's (and I should also add John Kennedy's) secretary of defense Robert Mac Namara, a chief architect of the Viet Nam war to show contrition, regret and even self pity about the advice he gave and decisions he made during that turbulent time. To those like Morris who believe that the Viet Nam war was a disaster, this must have proved satisfying. They gave him an Academy Award for it . Morris also believes the Iraq war was a disaster but in Rumsfeld he found a much tougher nut to crack.The film documents Rumsfeld's rise to power as a career politician and bureaucrat in which he navigated through many a troubled water to become a trusted confidant and administrator for Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush the second, and given a certain set circumstances might have become President of the United States. But he made some enemies too, Nixon chief of staff Bob Haldeman, George Bush the first, and his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, as well as a very public feud with Condoleezza Rice. And these were his fellow Republicans! Richard Nixon called Rumsfeld "a ruthless little bastard" and I can't imagine a statement like that coming from higher authority. The long and the short of it is that Rumsfeld has faced off against a lot tougher guys than Errol Morris.Morris seems now to suspect that Rumsfeld might have got the best of him, since in his post release interviews he emphasizes how Rumsfeld "horrifies' him. However, that doesn't come off in the film. Rumsfeld appears to be a man of considerable charm and wit, with an easy humor about events and himself. It is well to remember that Rumsfeld fully co-operated with this project, one might even say eagerly co-operated. He wanted his side publicly aired and decided to do it this way, even though he knew Morris's predisposition. To Morris's credit he gives Rumsfeld free reign and ample opportunity to make his case. But Rumsfeld does not control the editing process and it here that Morris strikes back. Using cross cutting, graphics, and archival footage Morris exposes Rumsfeld's renowned candor as a smokescreen for obfuscation and evasion. Most particularly, in Rumsfeld's now famous, or infamous if you prefer, philosophical rumination on what could be known or unknown , or whatever the hell he said, in response to a direct question as to whether he (Rumsfeld) had any evidence that Sadam Hussein had participated or assisted in the 9/11 attacks. This was called by the press at the time (rather admiringly I might add) as "Rummy speak". In the film Rumsfeld admits there wasn't then and isn't now any such evidence.Even more telling to me was his mastery of expressing a limited truth and passing it off as candor. In summing up the Viet Nam War Rumsfeld says this: "Some things work out, some things don't .That one didn't." Hard to argue with that. True, as far as it goes, but it does not illuminate. Hell, I could have come up with that over a couple of Irish Whiskeys at the local tavern, and maybe even thought to be pretty profound by my fellow inebriates at the bar, but I think we have a right to expect more than that from our public officials. Did we learn anything? Would we do anything differently? In listening to Rumsfeld's echo the answer is apparently and depressingly, no. Given the perceived threats at the respective times in Iraq and Viet Nam, our policy makers did exactly the same thing. Author Evan S. Connell in his book "Son of the Morning Star" recounts how General Philip Sheridan as one of the key policy makers leading to the destruction of the Plains Indian tribes after the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn, reflected on his role. Sheridan seemed to empathize with the Indians and implied that had the situations been reversed, he would have acted in the very same way the Indians had. He would have resisted. To which Connell comments: "Like other generals, bureaucrats and private citizens who contribute to some irrevocable disaster, he wondered about it afterward." Not Donald Rumsfeld, no qualms, no regrets, no apologies. He did his duty and history can sort it out. And of course it will.Morris ends the film with a shot of an empty ocean which I took to be metaphor and interpreted thus: It is shimmering and shiny, even magnificent to look at but who knows what horrors lie beneath the surface. Like Donald Rumsfeld, it covers the "Unknown Knowns".