Orwell Rolls in His Grave (2003)

Orwell Rolls in His Grave is a documentary film which premiered in 2003. Topic: the mass media in the US. Keywords: power and politics. Additional keywords: communication and information. Here are some basic facts about this film:

** Director: Robert Kane Pappas
** Writers: Robert Kane Pappas and Tom Blackburn
** Producer: Miriam Foley
** Released on DVD in 2006
** Run time: 105 minutes

Many persons are interviewed in the film. Archive footage is used between the interviews. Here are the names of the participants (in alphabetical order):

** Vincent Bugliosi – attorney, author
** Jeff Cohen – founder of FAIR
** Charles Lewis – Center for Public Integrity
** Mark Lloyd – media expert, reporter

** Robert McChesney – professor, University of Illinois
** Mark Crispin Miller – professor, New York University
** Michael Moore - filmmaker
** John Nichols – reporter (The Nation)

** Greg Palast – reporter (BBC)
** Bernie Sanders – member of Congress, independent, from Vermont
** Danny Schechter – television producer, media critic
** Aurora Wallace – assistant professor, New York University

The title of the film refers to the English author and reporter George Orwell (1903-1950) and his famous novel 1984. Throughout the film, short quotes from this novel appear on the screen.

Several cases are covered in this film. I will only mention two of them:

# 1. The case of the US hostages in Iran, 1979-1981.
# 2. The US presidential election in November 2000.

What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

** 44 per cent = Meta (the audience)
** 49 per cent = Meta (the critics)
** 81 per cent = IMDb
** 79 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)
** 91 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

As you can see, the reviews are mixed: from 44 to 91 per cent, which is a big difference from top to bottom. When you look at Rotten Tomatoes, you can see that there is a significant difference between the professional critics and the general audience. The audience seems to like this film more than the critics, although both groups are positive.

On the US version of Amazon there are more than 40 reviews of this product. The average rating is four stars (the same level as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes). The average ratings from Meta are too low.

On IMDb there are more than 20 reviews of this product. Some are very positive, while others are very negative. 

Here are three positive headlines:

** “A must see for all citizens”

** “Great documentary”

** “Illuminating”

Here are three negative headlines:

** “Fails to provide a balanced view”

** “Kind of informative but completely biased”

** “Totally left-wing liberal biased attack on Reagan, Bush and Murdoch”

When I look at the negative reviews, I can see that these reviewers do not really understand what a documentary is. They seem to think a documentary must always be balanced. This is not true. There is no law or rule which says a documentary must be balanced. In fact, most documentaries are not balanced at all. There is a good reason for this.

The director and the people around him or her want to convey a certain message; therefore they will present evidence to support this message. It is not their job or their duty to present the opposite point of view (although some directors do this).

In many cases, a director wants to present a point of view that is not well known and perhaps controversial. There is no need for him or her to present the dominant point of view, precisely because it is already well known.

Some viewers like this film, because they agree with the general message, while others dislike this film, because they disagree with the general message. Whether you agree with the general message or not, I think this film is worth watching, because it offers important information.

Having said this, I have to add that there are some flaws in this film. Let me explain:

# 1. The film does not seem to have a clear structure. The style is a bit rambling, moving from one case to the next.

# 2. Watching this film, I have to think about the reporter Ben Bagdikian (1920-2016) and his famous book The Media Monopoly. Yet the film never mentions this reporter nor his book that was first published in 1983. Why not?

# 3. Watching this film, I also have to think about the concept “Manufacturing Consent” that was developed and explored by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky many years ago. Yet the film never mentions Herman and Chomsky nor the concept that they studied in their book that was published in 1988. Why not?

I like this film and I want to give it a good rating, but as you can see, there are some flaws in it. I have to remove one star because of these flaws. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

PS # 1. Shadows of Liberty is a documentary film which premiered in 2012. It is dedicated to the memory of Ben Bagdikian whose classic work about the media monopoly inspired this film.

PS # 2. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is a documentary film which premiered in 1992. It is inspired by Herman and Chomsky’s book from 1988.

PS # 3. The Corporation is a documentary film which premiered in 2004. It is somewhat similar to Orwell Rolls in His Grave.

*****

 

George Orwell (1903-1950)

*****

 

The cover of Orwell's book "1984" (published in 1948)

*****