Dean's World

A new British film debuting at the Cannes Film Festival promises to take over where Michael Moore's controversial Farenheit 9/11 took off.

The main difference seems to be that it swipes both Washington and London, arguing that policy makers in the two countries exaggerated the terrorism threat and have used terrorism in the early 21st century the way some policy makers used the Cold War and Communism in the mid to late 20th century:

"The Power of Nightmares" re-injected politics into the festival that seemed eager to steer clear of controversy this year after American Michael Moore won top honors in 2004 for his film deriding President Bush's response to terror.

At a screening late on Friday ahead of its gala on Saturday, "The Power of Nightmares" by filmmaker and senior BBC producer Adam Curtis kept an audience of journalists and film buyers glued to their seats and taking notes for a full 2-1/2 hours.

The film, a non-competition entry, argues that the fear of terrorism has come to pervade politics in the United States and Britain even though much of that angst is based on carefully nurtured illusions.

It says Bush and U.S. neo-conservatives, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, are exaggerating the terror threat in a manner similar to the way earlier generations of leaders inflated the danger of communism and the Soviet Union.

It also draws especially controversial symmetries between the history of the U.S. movement that led to the neo-cons and the roots of the ideas that led to radical Islamism — two conservative movements that have shaped geopolitics since 1945.

The more this case is made, the more controversial this film is going to be — which means it'll probably make a bundle if it's released in the U.S. Why is it our vibes tell us it will be coming to a theater near you? More:

Curtis's film portrays neo-cons Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld as counterparts to Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri in the two respective movements.

There are some differences in policy, by the way. Also: The Americans use razors. And:

"During the Cold War conservatives exaggerated the threat of the Soviet Union," the narrator says. "In reality it was collapsing from within. Now they're doing the same with Islamic extremists because it fits the American vision of an epic battle."

That's an interesting assertion. The reason: it's an assertion that is 100 percent an original opinion which suggests that, like with Moore's film, this film will mostly be entertainment and will play to those who already support its thesis. Remember all of the predictions of how the Moore film would influence the election? And:

In his film, Curtis argues that Bush and Blair have used what he says is the largely illusory fear of terror and hidden webs of organized evil following the September 11, 2001, attacks to reinforce their authority and rally their nations.

In Bush's government, those underlings who put forth the darkest scenarios of the phantom threat have the most influence, says Curtis, who also devotes segments of his film to criticize unquestioning media and zealous security agencies.

He says al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has a far less powerful organization than feared. But he is careful to avoid suggestions that terror attacks won't happen again. Included are experts who dismiss fears of a "dirty bomb" as exaggerated.

"It was an attempt at historical explanation for September 11," Curtis said, describing his film in the Guardian newspaper recently. "Up to this point, nobody had done a proper history of the ideas and groups that have created our modern world."

But Curtis said there were worlds of difference between his film and Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the "Golden Palm" and gave the festival a charged political atmosphere that prompted this year's return to a more conservative program.

"Moore is a political agitprop filmmaker," he said. "I am not. You'd be hard pushed to tell my politics from watching it."

Really? It truly seems evident just from this newspaper piece that there is clear-cut political point of view. It's hard to imagine any conservatives spending money to see it, and centrists or moderates would go to see how it's put together and for political entertainment purposes.

Some people may reach some of the same conclusions — note Tom Ridge's interview this week where he said his agency argued against issuing many of the dire warnings that were coming out (warnings that largely stopped right after the elections, if you notice) — about incidences where terrorism warnings were used to set a national mood or underline an administration strong point. But that would come mostly from reading news reports and making up their own minds...which, again, are made up through their own particularly mental personal political filters.

But this movie most certainly sounds like it has a preconceived point of view — and the footage and editing are worked to present it. So it'll be a "niche" film but probably not go beyond that. Originally, "The Power of Nightmares" was a three-part TV documentary. It aired in England and won a British film and television industry award.