write a short commentary of NO MORE THAN TWO PAGES, reacting
section in the syllabus. Begin your essay with your research question (EXAMPLES: Why
did the documentary come to the conclusion it did [and not another conclusion]?, Why did
it not consider or emphasize another factor [x] that may have contributed to the process
under study in the documentary? How did luck, planning, human behavior or other factors
shape outcomes in the documentary and how might these factors be influenced by the policy?)
You are expected to analyze/criticize the subject/substance of the documentary. DO NOT
provide a summary. I already know what the documentaries are about. Tell me what they
got wrong, could have done better, missed, failed to emphasize etc. Alternately, you are
encouraged to relate the topic of the documentary to other questions/issues in international
affairs. Focus on the politics/policy in each documentary. Are there errors? In what ways is
the documentary misleading? What have you gleaned from the readings, for example, that
could allow you to more critically assess the claims presented in the documentary? What
policy implications are advanced by the documentary? Do you accept these? Why or why
not? Do _not_ provide critiques of filmmaking. Be “punchy”, impactful.
WATCH: “Bush’s War” [episode I]
(www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/)
