The Presidential Candidates and Film on the Iraq War

I was quite suprised to find such diverse aspects concerning the current war in Iraq. My first article is from an Alternet staff writer, Joshua Holland, who exposes the democratic presidencial candidates on their wishy-washy stance on how to go about ending the Iraq war. On the other hand, a college professor and scholar of psychoanalysis, Ann Pelligrini of NYU, writes a piece about how art and film can help the public get the essence of this war in Iraq.

The Alternet piece entitled, Obama and Hilary Spin a 'Big Lie' About Iraq, Holland brings to the fore the fact that the Democratic candidates have habitually misspoke on what they plan to do about the war. Amongst a sea of discontent on the current war in Iraq, it seems that a presidential candidate must prove to the American people that they plan to undue all the turmoil and strife Bush has brought about with the Iraq war. However, Holland's critical piece continues stating that all three of the Presidential candidates, although stating they plan to swiftly get "our" troops out of Iraq, know that it will not be an easy or swift task. On numerous occasions have the candidates insinuated that a long-term US presence in Iraq is imperative to the stability of the Iraqi government and people - yet definitive statements like "I intend to honor [my promise] by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely" stand at odds with reality. The reality is that American soldiers will be in Iraq for a while and violence will take place, which means lives will be mourned - and yet there is not certainty when indeed Iraq will be a stabilized nation.

Differing from the political viewpoint of the war (as far as the role a new President plans to play in the Iraq war), Ann Pelligrini a performance studies and religious studies professor reveals a hidden aspect of the Iraq war and a way in which to shed light to the American people. I found it to be quite enlightening Pelligrini's inspiration behind the piece; a remark by Sally Field in her Emmy award acceptance speech - a remark that insinuated a maternal inclination to end war to safe-guard one's offspring. Field's remark was not known to me, but this was because the the delay at ABC enabled them to edit this part out. This moved Pelligrini to discuss how America no longer permits freedom of speech that goes against the political belief of the nation itself; indeed she goes on to bring out how the government only permits coinciding, non-controversial press to be seen by the American people. It could be that this skewed publicity of the war and its affect on the American people prevents a major-uprising amongst the American people to end the war here and now. Pelligrini asked a series of rhetorical questions concerning whether or not a war could be waged based upon a feeling; this feeling is relevant as Bush refers to the Iraq war as a War on Terror as opposed to a War on Terrorism; here she really questions whether or not the Iraq war is one we should be fighting. Directing following her critical analysis of the relevance of the war is her main point about the loss of human life. Ann goes into depth about how there has been an innumerable loss of human lives as well as grave violences against civilians and soldiers that Americans know nothing of. Her resolve to enlightening the American people is through theatre; theatre has an ability to artciulate to a people the real atrocities of war that they do not see.

While Holland's piece takes on a more common aspect of the Iraq war as discussed in the race for presidential candidacy, Pelligrini's piece delves into the impact the war has on real American people and real American families and how theatre can be utilized to express the hidden atrocities of the war.

Holland: http://www.alternet.org/election08/81251/
Pelligrini:http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_drama_review/v052/52.1pellegrini.pdf