User reviews

In 2004 the media was full of accounts of the abuse, torture, and even murder of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison by Military Police. Photographs surfaced depicting prisoners naked and wearing cloth hoods, and being forced to masturbate, stand on boxes for fear of electrocution, and forming human pyramids. Twelve soldiers were convicted, and the commanding officer at the prison, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of Colonel. Errol Morris' documentary Standard Operating Procedure attempts to examine the atmosphere surrounding the abuse, the people involved, and whether it was all down to a few "bad apples", or if it was reflective of the American military as a whole.

Morris keeps his authorial influence to a minimum, instead allowing his subjects to speak for themselves. He has interviewed several of the soldiers involved, including Lynndie England, who can be seen in many of the photographs smiling, pointing, giving a thumbs up. She and the other soldiers interviewed describe, with remarkable candour, what it was like living in Abu Ghraib prison, their relationships with each other and the prisoners, and the events and tensions surrounding those incidents depicted in the photographs. It all paints a picture of the prison as a dark and stifling environment, one just waiting to bring out the worst in people.

The real centrepiece of the film, though, are the photographs. Even four years after they dominated every front page and bulletin, they have lost none of their power to appal and disgust. Some, like the picture of a man forced to stand, arms outstretched, on a box with a cloth bag on his head, are surreal. Others, like a photograph of Sabrina Harman giving a thumbs up over a dead prisoner, are simply disturbing.

And hovering above all of this are the OGA, or Other Government Agencies, an often used euphemism for the CIA. It was during the CIA-led interrogations that the most heinous of human rights infractions were most likely carried out. But there are no photographs of these incidents. Standard Operating Procedure raises the point that it is these individuals who should have received the full brunt of the punishment, but it was simpler to lay the blame on lower ranking officers like England and Harman.

It is here that the main point of contention with Standard Operating Procedure arises. It is true that no one above the rank of Staff Sergeant was convicted. And it is true that this should not be the case, that those higher-ranking officers who let this abuse play out under their noses should be held accountable. But Morris tries to divert too much of the blame away from those who were convicted. While England, Harman and the others were just following orders and living in a deeply affecting environment, they are also human beings endowed with free will. They could have said no at any time, and just walked away.

That Standard Operating Procedure raises these arguments means that it is worthy of our time. It presents the facts as perceived by those involved, never itself commenting or judging. It leaves that to us, so that we can make up our own minds. So that perhaps we can learn from the mistakes made by others, and prevent them from happening again.

As someone who spent the majority of his adult life in the military, this documentary was especially disturbing.

It's not as it there is anything new here. I saw Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, a better picture, and I am sure that I will see some of this again in Taxi to the Dark Side, or at least I am told I will. It is not that this is new or surprising, but that it needs to be seen and remembered as much as the Holocaust.

That is not to say the murder of six million Jews stands equal to the abuses by our soldiers in Iraq, but that we need to remember this and make sure that we do everything we can to prevent it from happening again.

The professionals will tell you that there is no useful information that can be obtained from tortured prisoners. They will say anything to make you quit. So, there is no excuse for what happened here. It was just people reverting to their animal instincts.

The biggest shame, of course, if that no one above the rank of SSgt went to prison. That is just the way it happens. The troops are scapegoated and the officers are reassigned.

The method used by director Errol Morris in telling this story was unique and really added to the film. It needs to be seen by everyone.

Respectful silence from the audience throughout. Not a word spoken by anyone exiting the theatre afterwards. Standard Operating Procedure is the film no one is talking about.

Errol Morris' documentary on the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison is smart and informative. While talking head interviews with the people directly and indirectly involved provide the backbone, cinematic reconstructions of 2003s grizzly events coupled with the well known photographs taken by soldiers work successfully at pulling an emotional response from the viewer.

Though intriguing, SOP doesn't really benefit from the big screen treatment and would probably have just as much impact if viewed on TV.

Dark and depressing, shocking and enlightening: SOP is 2008's must see documentary.

"Standard Operating Procedure" is without a doubt one of the most terrifying films to come out in the last few years. It is a bold documentary which may be at times too gut-wrenching for some people to watch, not that this should ever prevent anybody from seeing it. It was a good decision to look at the events at Abu Gharib mainly through the eyes of the convicted military officers; and of course the photographs speak for themselves. Apart from the depth of the material, the filmmakers have done an outstanding job with the enactments, the visuals and the brilliant music by Danny Elfman. Although the documentary does point out and emphasize that high-ranking officers were never imprisoned for the depicted crimes, in my opinion, the film does fail to ask many essential questions that I feel should have been included in this documentary. Such as: Why do we insist seeing these events as more of an embarrassment on the part of the U.S. than an insult on the Iraqi prisoners? Since the soldiers frequently mention that they are "just following orders", who exactly are these orders coming from? Why will the U.S. Military not allow Charles Graner to be interviewed? What kind of a system is this that can categorize a completely naked "detainee" handcuffed backwards to his bed or another prisoner made to stand for a long time in a difficult position by the fear of being electrocuted as "standard operating procedure"? I am aware that the answers to these questions would stretch the format the director has chosen for this documentary, but I still believe that Errol Morris should have looked more openly into these territories in order to have made an even bolder film; and bold, courageous and very well made this film certainly is.

Standard Operating Procedure is a very disturbing documentary. The music and the images allow us to understand the prison and to see what went on in the prison. The clear context of the crimes against humanity that is so off putting and mainly off camera is contrasted with inviting film work that draws us into this story. There are very interesting images and techniques that are used that must be seen again for the simplicity and elegance of them. It is therefore a bit unsettling. Questions are asked and answered, but in doing so other questions arise. We find ourselves again asking for more information and questioning the truthfulness of everyone interviewed. Where are the commanders that ordered this to happen? Where are the political leaders that legitimated these behaviors? They are in the background. They seem to have run away to hide from the story and from history. Without pictures would we have been unable to see the abuses reported? Are we yet, with pictures, unable to see the real abuses? The aberrant seems to be the Standard Operating Procedure. We find ourselves questioning our own beliefs and wrestling with our own culpability.

Errol Morris has covered some interesting and weird subjects and I found his last film (Fog of War) to be quite fascinating, so I was looking forward to seeing where he went next. I was quite surprised that he chose to do a documentary on Iraq. Sure, it is totally the subject of our time but it has become a very cluttered subject – not only in documentary films but also the amount of news coverage etc that is available. When I learnt that the film would be a tight focus on Abu Ghraib I hoped that Morris would explore the total human aspect of it and do a really good job of delivering this part of it.

Unfortunately what Morris manages to produce is a film that is solid but not as remarkable as the subject deserves. Part of this, it must be said, is familiarity with the subject; having seen many films that do it better. Taxi to the Dark Side comes to mind specifically because it uses the prison as its starting point before following the smell upwards and outwards to paint a much bigger picture of failure and things that are impacting beyond specific acts of torture. By remaining within the world of the prison, Morris potentially could do enough to standout as being THE film on the subject. The early signs are good because I was surprised to see several of the main names/faces that I knew from the news coverage of the scandal and thus this was going to be the story from those involved firsthand. This was a gamble in a way because the problem with the aftermath of Abu Ghraib was that it was only the "little people" that got the spotlight and nobody else and, by focusing on them, Morris needed to get a lot from them or else his film would end up the same way.

He does this to a point as they discuss in detail what they did and what they saw and it does still have the power to shock and depress. In some regards the anger described makes the violence a little understandable but what I was shocked by was the sheer banality and boredom-inspired viciousness of it all. It helps this aspect that so many of the contributions are delivered in such matter-of-fact manners that it does jar that they don't seem shocked by what they are describing. The truth is probably that they aren't – partly because it was "normal" but also that they have discussed it many times. Everyone is a bit defensive and Morris doesn't ever manage to draw much emotion from them in the telling – factually the material is engaging but Morris never really gets beyond that. While "Taxi to the Dark Side" moved up the chain of command, Morris needed to move into his interviewees' soul – something he doesn't manage to do.

The second failing of the film is the overuse of "recreated" scenes and asides. In Thin Blue Line, it cost him (at very least) an Oscar nomination but here it has a negative impact immediately as you are watching it. With so much shocking reality to discuss and so many real images, some of the recreations are clunky in how out of place they are. I'm not talking about the creative sequences that Morris uses as a bed for dialogue (eg a cellblock full of shredded paper, the letters written back to a partner in the US) but rather the recreations and stuff "around" the pictures. It was unnecessary and distracted from what as real and powerful enough.

The film still works as a good summary of events within Abu Ghraib but it is hard to get excited about it since so much of it feels familiar. The tight focus itself is not an issue but it is when Morris cannot manage to produce searing questions, a bigger picture or intimate soul-searching it doesn't ever do anything that makes it standout in a crowded marketplace.

This disturbing documentary causes one to ask: is the U. S. military populated by a bunch of degenerates masquerading as soldiers? Is the U. S. military depicted in this movie the same U. S. military that was welcomed as liberators during World War Two or has the U. S. military iterated to the point that it is now completely unrecognizable from its past? Abuse of authority is an old story but when it is officially sanctioned and then covered up, then that is altogether another story. Hasn't the U. S. military ever heard of the Nuremberg War Crime trial? Yet this same military directed its lowest ranking personnel to commit the grossest criminal acts and when the whole thing was uncovered refused to take responsibility, instead opting to scapegoat those who were stuck with having to carry out the orders. What kind of leadership is that? There's a saying: S%$# flows downhill and what happened at Abu Graib prison is proof of that. Where did the soldiers get the idea that you could torture prisoners? Where did that come from? What kind of culture would produce people who think that making people sexually abuse themselves is acceptable ... and then gloat about it? The photos shown in this movie speak for themselves. The United States did not fight Nazi Germany just to adopt the procedures associated with the SS, but at Abu Graib that is exactly what happened.

One other thing. What this documentary reports is another example of what happens when amateurs, in this case reservists, are asked to perform military duties for this they have no training or professional experience. But even that does not explain the total breakdown in discipline and the willingness to engage in repugnant behavior that they knew was illegal and improper.

The well-known documentary filmmaker Errol Morris, who received an Oscar for his 2003 study of Robert McNamara and Vietnam 'The Fog of War,' has put the Abu Ghraib scandal under a microscope, but the result is too limited a picture of events.

Morris' film describes and shows the humiliations, the nude prisoners cuffed in stress positions or forced to masturbate or pile on top of each other with bags or women's underpants on their heads; the man they called "Gilligan" in the fringed blanket with the conical hat standing on a box with fake electrical wiring to his fingers; the howling dogs terrifying a squatting naked man and biting another's leg; the corpse of a man beaten to death packed in bags of ice.

The images, both stills and some fragments of videotapes, have a dramatic and quickly sickening effect. The circumstances of their taking is thoroughly explained. But the result is disappointingly narrow and obsessive, because Morris has allowed the low-ranking Americans implicated by the pictures, the majority of them concerned only with their own fates and future, to be the dominant voices of the film. The exceptions are a crude but more experienced interrogator, a precise but morally numb military investigator, and the angry general Janis Karpinski who was scapegoated because she was commander of the MPs.

Rory Kennedy's 'The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib,' produced for HBO last year, has already presented all this information about the photo scandal--together with the larger context Morris has left out. Alex Gibney's 'Taxi to the Dark Side' thoroughly explored the larger implications--the responsibilities that go all the way up, the distribution of prison abuses throughout Afghanistan, Iran and Guantánamo, the violations of international law and the inadequacy of torture as an interrogation device. By specifically focusing on the beating and death of the taxi driver named Dilawar at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan Gibney showed much more detail than Morris about the specifics of one prisoner and the full extent of the physical brutality of US interrogators and guards. Anyone coming to Morris' film from Kennedy's and Gibney's will find it incomplete.

'Standard Operating Procedure' doesn't follow up on any Iraqis. Perhaps because Morris' mostly unheard questions were aggressive, his talking heads are always on the defensive, repeating that they were only "softening up" the prisoners as instructed. Lynndie England protests that she was in love with her boss, Charles Graner, and just did what he said. They do admit their process included sleep deprivation, hypothermia, loud noises, and also, when they lost patience or just felt like it, random physical abuse. We learn from the more experienced interrogator that his young associates were useless with high value prisoners. We also learn that no worthwhile information came out of interrogations at the prison. Karpinski explains how heavily overpopulated her prisons became, any suspects once held hard to release.

Morris commits several serious stylistic errors. He introduces fake basement-tape video reenactments (a device he has used before) to augment the visuals of the Abu Ghraib abuses--close-ups of "prisoners'" bodies, blood dripping on a uniform, keys going into a lock--so that after a while you aren't sure what is real and what is fake. The genuine images needed no enhancement, and this confusion is a terrible mistake. The score by Danny Elfman with its heavy-handed drumbeat sounds introduces frantic melodrama, also superfluous and in bad taste.

In fact Morris' material, which ought to have been allowed to speak for itself, is permeated by the banality of evil. The words of the MPs, including Megan Ambuhl, Javal Davis, and Jeremy Sivitz, as well as, most notably in this context, the two women amateur photographers, Lynndie England and Sabrina Harman, are notable for their lack of affect. There is no drama about them. Apart for one or two shaky expressions of doubt, awareness that all this wasn't right, especially on the part of Sabrina Harmon, writing to her "wife" Katie back home, they tend to speak as people going about what they believed to be their jobs; doing what others did and what everybody knew was being done at Abu Ghraib. Except, it seems, General Karpinski, because she was traveling from one prison to another, and says the ugliness was hidden from her. Perhaps it was. There's not much effort to question or puncture any of this testimony.

The film's title refers to the army investigator's conclusion that the majority of the photographed humiliations and punishments were "Standard Operating Procedure" and only certain scenes of physical injury could be classified as documenting crimes. This indulgence is something Morris does not explore further, however. 'Taxi to the Dark Side' goes much more thoroughly into the issue of torture. The distinction between torture and humiliation Morris alludes to seems less important than how the whole pattern of sordid conduct at the prisons get started, a topic 'Standard Operating Procedure' doesn't investigate. We have just had President Bush's admission that he knew and approved high-level meetings inside the White House on harsh interrogation tactics. Morris does not set the Abu Ghraib scandal within this larger framework.

We do hear that children were imprisoned and that there were children raped by prisoners and the prisoners were beaten and injured for that. We're briefly told that methods were transferred to Abu Ghraib from Guantánamo. It's all prefaced by a description of what a disgusting place Abu Ghraib was when the MPs and other American staff came to live there--with constant bombardment, because, in violation of international law (but we are not told that) Abu Ghraib was not behind the lines. This is presented elsewhere by some as mitigating circumstance. The low-ranking Abu Ghraib scandal scapegoats were not only just following orders (or "S.O.P."); they were under stress. Stuff happens. Here again, Morris doesn't connect the dots. Some will like that. The much admired, often awarded Morris is a sacred cow. But this time his result seems more repulsive than effective.

I'm a proud American despite all the people going on vacation saying their Canadian. (grow up take some responsibility & know at least SOME of what's going on in the world huh? Unless your teenager because you are terribly self-centered and can't really help it, thanks hormones!) Anyway this is just another example of the 2 sides to a story and how the lowest rank are always the ones that take the fall. Nobody above a Staff Sargent was ever charged, that's non-commissioned officer's. Imagine that?! This is a very revealing portrait that shows just how screwed up the military can be in times of war & in general. The investigator made a couple outstanding points: 1. if there were never any pictures, we never would have heard of this. 2. The Colonels/Generals can be extremely intimidating to a young 18 year old just out of his parents house for the 1st time. Hell you don't have to have a High School education to get in the military anymore, so these kids don't really have an understanding that a hardened military man has who has seen everything. I don't care what anyone says, this is a pretty good look & is pretty fair in it's portrayal of everything & everyone involved. The people seemed to be puppets more than anything & the higher ranks KNEW what was happening. When people are going to learn that TORTURE DOESN'T WORK is beyond me. People will say anything under the right condition to get out of the pain they are being in. This is interesting documentary & maybe it will keep a few from getting involved in things that are beyond there comprehension or capability. I'm not a politician nor want to be, (they make me sick) but getting out of the war is going to be mess just like every other war & it is going to be a no-win issue no matter what we do which is really sad. Give this doc a try & try not be moved by the issues.

Standard Operating Procedure (2008) ***1/2

What's in a picture? They say its worth a thousand words, but how many words are what's not in a picture worth. How about thousands of pictures? That conundrum is one of the major foci of Errol Morris, the eccentric genius documentarian's new project, Standard Operating Procedure. Although I was not engaged as I was with Morris's other works, Standard Operating Procedure is still a brilliant and fascinating look at the Abu Ghraib photo scandal.

Morris interviews through the interrotron numerous members of the staff at Abu Ghraib prison. They give their thoughts on their complicity in acts of torture, and reflect back on their experiences. One of the film's major attractions is Lynndie English, that now infamous young woman so maliciously captured on film.

What comes across most intently is that they were just doing what they were told. Those orders always come from off camera left or right. No one above Staff Sergeant was ever charged with anything. This is a point the documentary tries to drive home. In any bureaucratic structure, the big dogs never take the fall. You always sacrifice your little men, your pawns. If people knew what was really going on at the top, they would most surely revolt, or at the very least make a stink, and that would be it for you.

Morris interviews one person who claims she took pictures because she knew it was wrong, to show the world. Is she telling the truth? Well she also discusses how it was "kinda fun" sometimes. She is probably guilty and innocent on all counts.

Morris delves into his subject matter with his usual detective style. He says very little, and of course never ever dares show his face on camera. He only prompts from time to time. He has a style that is uniquely his own in the documentary world. I did not find Standard Operating Procedure to be on the same level as say The Fog of War or Gates of Heaven. But then again how many are? This is a more than worthy addition to the Morris repertoire.

We're all familiar with the images that began flowing out of Abu Ghraib Prison in the spring of 2004 - photos showing detainees (some terrorists, others undoubtedly not) hooded and stripped, forced to assume painful and/or humiliating positions, often for hours on end, with American soldiers posing gleefully nearby, smiling and flashing thumbs-up signs for the camera. Once the pictures went viral, they came to symbolize not only the botched operation that was the Iraq war, but the fundamental failure of the U.S. military to win friends and influence people in a land the Bush administration claimed vehemently to be "liberating."

In "Standard Operating Procedure," famed documentary filmmaker Errol Morris ("The Thin Blue Line") attempts to uncover the truth behind those photographs, mainly by allowing those who were most closely involved with the scandal to tell the story in their own words (including Private First Class Lynndie England, who, whether fairly or unfairly, emerged as the one clearly identifiable "face" and household name from the scandal). Morris provides no voice-over narration to accompany the interviews, just re-enactments of the incidents done in a quasi-surrealistic style, using slow motion photography and artsy graphics.

Through his discussions with the principal players in the drama, Morris provides a probing study of the effects of war time stress on the human psyche. The film offers no easy answers as to exactly why the events at Abu Ghraib unfolded as they did; yet, while it doesn't turn the individuals involved into easy-to-blame villains, it doesn't completely exonerate them either. In fact, it is the seeming "normalcy" of these people, as they attempt to make their case for the camera, that renders their actions all the more unsettling. Morris also makes it clear that these low level individuals - many of whom have served time in prison for their crimes - were most certainly used as scapegoats for higher-ups in the military who managed to successfully deflect any personal culpability for the events that took place there.

In a true journalistic coup, Morris was able to obtain grainy home movies shot at the same time that the pictures were being taken. As a result, we're able to witness the step-by-step process by which that infamous shot of the naked men stacked in a pyramid formation ultimately came about.

"Standard Operating Procedure" doesn't successfully address all the questions it sets out to answer, but that is hardly a weakness of the film, since it is dealing with a complex, messy situation involving complex, messy people caught up in a complex, messy war. One doesn't leave "Standard Operating Procedure" necessarily more enlightened that when one went in - just more well-informed. And that's perhaps the best one could reasonably hope for under the circumstances.

First of all I personally gave it a 10/10 because the documentary was very moving and extremely insightful.

Seeing these repulsive human beings TRYING to justify what they did is not only disturbing but begs to question what America's reel motivation is.

Seeing these pathetic excuses coming out of such brainless people is seriously depressing. I totally understand not to expect much out of brainless idiots who accept to go to war for NO REASON, but this goes far beyond stupidity, this is actual cruelty..

This documentary does a great job of staying out of personal and emotional opinions or reactions, no judgements are made on these knuckle dragging soldiers, which does give everyone the chance to make up their own mind, which some would say is a good thing others like myself would totally disagree. We have to educate these people not give them the possibility to take this documentary and turn it into something they can laugh about and enjoy. So following that logic I think the film makers should have voiced their disgust and shame towards these soldiers..

All in all this is a very informative documentary that has much to show to the rest of the world. The biggest lesson these soldiers should take is, IF YOU REALLY THOUGHT WHAT WAS GOING ON WAS WRONG THEN DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION...

It's so simple... all these excuses of the little people got thrown under the bus etc.. just doesn't fly.. STOP with the pathetic excuses that you HAD to do it.. the biggest strength is in numbers.. and by the sounds of it they "all" thought these humiliating and torturous acts were wrong.. hummm... There seems to be an error in logic there.. Either they all thought it was wrong but not wrong enough to challenge each other on such a subject. Or... They simply thought (and I use the words "simply thought" purposely) that this was acceptable....and I don't have to explain why both are DESPICABLE reasons.

I have enjoyed Morris's films for a long, long time; and I have come to expect the thoughtful research he puts into them. "Thin Blue Line" was superb, for example, and it presented the information and then left a string of implications.

This film was something of a disappointment in that he doesn't really ask any questions. He just lays out the information, but then does nothing with it. Is he being bridled by the Pentagon? Also, if Danny Elfman could possibly work harder at imitating Philip Glass, I'd like to hear it. His music was annoyingly obsequious (and not nearly as good as the real thing!). I would love to know why Glass wasn't the composer on this -- personal reasons or professional? Disagreements about the subject matter?

As is obvious in the complex responses to both the book and the film by Errol Morris and Philip Gourevitch, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE places in our faces some facts we would rather shield than discuss. The story of the period of between September 2003 and February 2004 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq is so well known not only from the news media but also from the Internet blogging sites that it need not be outlined in a review of this film. The facts documented by photographs taken by those who participated and observed the inhuman treatment of prisoners are indisputable: seeing them on the screen in full frame and in close-up shots is almost more than the compassionate eye can tolerate. But there it is and yes, we do need to witness the abuse and humiliation that describes the US prisoner treatment in Iraq, no matter who is to blame - enlisted personnel, MI, high ranking military officials, the White House. The fact that it occurred as such a gross abuse of human rights should awaken in all of us a more complete awareness that war makes humans do such things. It is ugly to watch, difficult to digest, and extremely trying on our set of beliefs that man's inhumanity to man has and does exist despite our need to believe otherwise.

Given the atrocities documented by this film, the style of the film as a work of cinema deserves to be addressed also. The flow of the documentary with the interplay of interview pieces by those infamous young people upon whose shoulders the blame was placed in what appears to be a diversionary technique to avoid deeper probing of the true guilt, along with the images of the prison itself - stark lines of cellblocks and living conditions so foul they seem to actually smell on the screen - is well conceived and beautifully/creatively captured by cinematographers Robert Chappell and Robert Richardson and enhanced by a strangely appropriate musical scoring by Danny Elfman. The film may be about things ugly, but the technique used to tell the story is high quality art.

Abu Ghraib, along with Guantanamo, will always be a scar on the conscience of America, even beyond the time that this ugly Iraq war is over. We should all look at this film with the hope that with seeing actual footage of a nightmare may help prevent recurrences in the future. Grady Harp

What a crashing bore of a movie on a topic that deserved a much better treatment. Morris displays his customary heavy handedness in driving home the trivial and obvious points with excess, unneeded imagery. If you want to see a compelling story on this issue, told with much more flare and skill, see Taxi to the Dark Side. Don't waste your time on this, unless you need a good snooze. On display are Morris's usual techniques, employed to similar head-scratching ends as in Fog of War. At least there, we had an interesting character at the heart of the story and Morris lucked out with some poignant on-screen moments from McNamara. Here, he demonstrates that he has no intellectual or critical filter with which to sift facts. So, when one interviewee mentions the three cameras used to take the pictures at Abu G, we get a special effects image of each camera model floating in space as if this were some revelatory moment. When it is revealed that during an amnesty period after the Abu G scandal was revealed many photos and other documents were handed in a shredded, we get, not just a slow mo of shredded paper falling through the air, we get also get an entire cell block filled with bits of paper. In other words, every moment is punctuated with Morris's subtext: you're just too dumb to get what you just heard and I'm so enthralled with my movie making skills that I'm going to beat you over the head with this. This is not documentary film-making. This is rampant narcissism.

The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers."

Carl Yung Any film that reveals the manipulation of neocons such as Donald Rumsfeld has my full attention and sympathy. Errol Morris's Standard Operating Procedure, however, is not his Fog of War. In the latter, the images and testimonies make their case without much help. In the former, re-enactments, arty images, and sublimating music mitigate the honesty of soldiers testifying in front of the camera about their stupidity and a system that made them torture at the infamous Abu Ghraib.

The images of Lynndie England with her thumb up over a detainee's genitals are not new to anyone alert to the Iraq War. The additional images Morris adds do little to further help us understand the motivations of Americans who abused prisoners 4 years ago. The best he and they can offer is the old chestnut that they we ordered to do so. But as in any documentary that allows the camera to linger on its subject for an extended period, eventually the subject will make small, but not insignificant, admissions.

In the case of those interviewed and some at staff sergeant and lower now serving time, it seems to come down to Bill Clinton's reason for engaging Monica Lewinsky: because they could. However, the most consistent mea culpas are always that the devil (officers) made them do it. Yet Morris consistently re-enacts, not a favorite companion for me to the documentary, adds Danny Elfman's mysterious X-Files-like music, and most egregiously intersperses slow motion, formalist shots out of place in a documentary, albeit a docudrama in minimum attire.

The artful documentary gold standard for me is Alain Resnais' Night and Fog (1960), where the music and narration about the Holocaust are understated, almost flat, to allow the story its own message. When images change from historical black and white to modern color, the irony of blissful forgetfulness is more powerful than any re-enactment or manipulative music.

Alex Gibney's Taxi to the Dark Side (2008) may do a better job showing the purpose of Cheney and Rumsfeld to keep soldiers unprepared for their responsibilities, but Morris has succeeded in providing further original images that tell the truth we should never forget.

I recommend this film for viewing. The film maker was able to obtain direct interviews with some of the soldiers involved in this chapter of American history. I don't think it's unfair to say that it is an important record concerning the events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the American occupation. As such, it should be viewed by anyone interested in this subject.

I credit the film maker with allowing the soldiers involved to present some part of their story and also allowing one soldier to point out that only soldiers at lower levels would suffer prosecution.

The film would be better if it addressed the White House's views on torture and the legal documents giving rise to the same. Also, the film should have presented more opinions from the legal community regarding accepted standards of care for prisoners, prisoners of war, enemy combatants and the like.

Nonetheless, I found the film informative. I would not classify most documentaries as objective, and therefore, I don't mind the slanted view on the screen, but as far as film goes, the film maker did try to give the soldiers some opportunity to tell their story -- and their side of the story (that superiors were responsible for the policy) has some merit.

I'm saddened that these events were committed by Americans. As one of the soldiers pointed out – others actions have occurred that are more troubling – but nobody took pictures.

We as citizens of the US rely on our elected representatives to direct the foreign affairs of our country. Our Congress has oversight authority concerning these matters. Don't give up on the American system.

I did chuckle at the score during the human pyramid scene – truly stuporous.

Too bad they don't illustrate the atrocities of the captured scum.

I'm surprised Michael Moore's name isn't attached to this one.

S1E1 was enough for me. Bail!

It is a fine documentary but, as a tax payer and a thinking member of society (American or otherwise), it makes you angry – that was probably the filmmakers' intention (I hope). It boils down to a very simple human - if not more so - social thing. Responsibility. I'll sound like one of those Al Qaeda propaganda videos but I don't really care – as "western" societies, we should tread very carefully when it comes to interfering with "other people's business". Having powerful armies does not buy us the monopoly on being right.

But let's get back to the responsibility thing. Sending thousands of "PlayStation Generation" children (especially the American ones, educated to a level of an infant, over privileged, immature, shallow, religious and totally convinced of their superiority, too boot), trigger happy and loaded with testosterone morons to a "far away land" for the purpose of pacifying it is irresponsible! Those people need moms and dads, not automatic weapons and armoured infantry fighting vehicles!!! And just so we're clear, dear "far right" friends - to me, it is personally insulting when "you" or the media call those people "heroes"! I think, Nazi Germany did it once – let's not copy them too much, shall we?

I realize that there are many good servicemen and servicewomen who have something more in their heads than, pardon me, spunk, but they are outnumbered by idiots. Sorry. Intelligent, well educated, responsible, sensitive, critically thinking and open minded individuals don't make it to the army! Period. They just don't. Few do but that's as rare as a hooker with a doctorate.

So who are those "heroes" if all the reasonable and responsible folks are sitting in their homes and watching "the other" part of society - the iron fist of democracy - represent them on CNN? Well, answer that question yourselves...

The Abu Ghraib incident, I'm sure, is not an isolated one. Common rather, I'd say. No wonder the whole planet despises the United States and Great Britain. I understand that hatred. I am privileged though...to be on the other side of the argument and not worry about some cluster bomb blasting my asss to smithereens even though I don't even comprehend the reasons for the bombs falling. Feels good, doesn't it? To be save knowing that your side is the one delivering the blows and not receiving them. I'm sure that Wehrmacht and the SS personnel would tell you, with at most conviction, they were fighting the good war and for all the right reasons.

That is the "responsibility" I'm talking about. Social, moral and human responsibility for one's actions. From the Government down to the least important private in the service. But that's the kind of thinking we're not ready for yet. Too forward. Army responsible for their actions, ha ha! See, if the military is a profession, why don't they have unions? It is because they are slaves! Obeying orders is a domain of slaves...or animals. That's what I could never understand – how can you possibly, as a sovereign individual, act simply because "someone" tells you to? And that "someone" is not at all obliged to explain themselves to you or explain the reasons for using you to carry out their wishes. Someone defined war once by saying "War is old people talking and young people dying". A truly profound quote.

I think, ultimately, the power and responsibility for wars and what happens within their chaos lies with the man/woman holding the rifle. Let's leave it at that...