Spike Lee presents lots of great footage and interesting interviews, but the critique that is presents overwhelmingly the black experience of Katrina, with little interest in white takes on New Orleans and little interest in non-New Orleans Katrina. The interviews are from one side of the political spectrum only, predictably casting blame primarily on Bush, generally down-playing the looting and the responsibility those in need of help had for not attempting to evacuate, and not noting that New Orleans had the same federal government and response as did Mississipi, Florida, Alabama, etc., areas that dealt with the hurricane much more ably than did New Orleans. Mayor Nagin is criticized, but also supported by others and allowed to defend himself. Bush is just attacked. No one is interviewed who doesn't think it was his fault, and neither Bush nor his representatives are interviewed, either. Spike omits the buses Nagin left unused to flood, the delay in requesting federal aid by Blanco, etc. (more balanced looks at Katrina in books have pointed the finger of blame first at Nagin and Blanco, who after all are on the ground in New Orleans for years, and should be most familiar with their city, its needs, and emergency preparedness - the federal government is a last resort in a large-scale tragedy situation). So we get what might at first glance appear to be a balanced look, until you step back and think about these things, and note that the primary 'expert' commentators, such as Eric Dyson and Harry Belafonte, are all rabidly anti-Bush. Not fair, not balanced, Spike.
When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts
(2006–2007)
Lots of good stuff, but politically and socially biased
31 August 2006