Control Room (2004)

Subject: A documentary look at Al Jazeera, the top rated news channel in the Arab world, specifically their unique coverage of the War on Iraq.

And with a great tagline – “Different channels. Different truths.”

This film marks the second opus from Jehane Noujaim, co-writer and director of Startup.com. Here she (I think that’s a woman’s name) teams up with newcomer Julia Bacha for poignant and startling results.

Startling, why, you may ask? When I first told my mom about this movie’s focus on Al Jazeera’s coverage of the war, she enquired, “And how slanted it is?” I had to explain to her that they were the only station that would risk telling the truth about the true effects of the war on Iraq.

Noujaim pulls no punches in showing us the devastating effects suffered by the Iraqis through Al Jazeera’s lens. Capturing what the audience saw and what they missed, the film smoothly balances the events both as they happened and the interpretations of those who observe them from a safe distance, including the U.S.’s deliberate murder of their correspondent in Baghdad.

Without narration or interpretation, Noujaim follows a variety of characters over the course of several months. One of the most painful stories to watch is that of Lt. Josh Rushing as he goes from innocent solider on some sort of news detail to a master of spin.

The film, despite the subject matter, doesn’t lack for humour with the BBC Correspondent lamenting to Hassan Ibrahim, one of Al Jazeera’s top people, than all BBC people end up with Al Jazeera and the NBC correspondent claiming that Al Jazeera has all the best food.

And, more importantly, the film inspired some interesting debate and discussion afterwards, including Emily’s likening America’s invasion of Iraq to China invading the U.S. to free them from their selected leader. It was great.

Alright, I’m just going to come out and say it - Control Room is a better documentary than Fahrenheit 9/11. I feel that the comparison is fair because they both explore issues surrounding the same war.

The difference of import here is the filmmaker’s style. Michael Moore never attempts to be objective. I love that as a viewer, but I can see how it wouldn’t bode well with a critic. He basically gets an idea into his head, and then he finds facts to back himself up. He’s lucked out so far because he’s right, and he can prove it in an interesting and hysterical way.

Noujaim, on the other hand, while her film relies on interviews, presents her film with more of a “fly-on-the-wall” feeling to it. There a sense of irony to almost everything you see, but she isn’t as heavy handed with it as Moore was in Fahrenheit.

So, is this an important film to see? Well, that depends. How important is the truth to you?