Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? (2008) Directed by Morgan Spurlock

With more wasted potential than an Amy Winehouse concert, this film certainly left me disappointed. After the success of Super Size Me, where Spurlock took on the capitalist giant that is McDonald’s, I was expecting some real investigative journalism, some seriously hard hitting facts, and some…depth?

See the problem is when someone like Spurlock builds up a reputation for exposing one of the world’s largest company – and single-handedly tarnishing their reputation beyond repair – is that we’re all waiting to see who he destroys next … but no such luck here.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to take on the mythical bogeyman that is Osama Bin Laden and delve into the very idea of this super evil, all powerful cave dweller - perhaps even looking at the propaganda machine that furthers his image - Spurlock goes off in search of finding the man.

Is this guy serious?

It had to be the tip of the cringe-o-meter when Spurlock used dinky little cartoon characters to explain the history of U.S support for corrupt Middle Eastern dictators. Yes there are people out there that don’t know Osama Bin Laden was trained by the U.S to fight off Soviet troops, but seeing it all in South Park style cartoon characters felt beyond belittling. And since when did Pakistan become part of the Middle East? I mean what kind of audience is he aiming this at?

Clearly one who’ll be satisfied with his closing comment of “ So Muslims are just like us”. Wow Mr Spurlock. That’s deep.

Aside from the simplistic motive behind this film (did you really think you’d find him? Did you?) and the patronising monologue towards the end, this film does have good intentions and did pull in a few laughs. After all, who wouldn’t find the sight of old Osama dancing to MC Hammer’s Cant Touch This hilarious?

Overall verdict: Do go watch this if you want some *extremely* light entertainment. Don’t watch this if you want to be enlightened and are expecting some revealing truths.

2 out of 5 INQ blots Fav scene: Spurlock asks an old Afghan man: “Where’s Osama?” Man: “Whose Osama?” Translator: “The guy who flew them planes into buildings in America” Man: “Ah fuck Osama. And fuck America too”

Review by Mariam Sheikh

Review by Saba Chaudry, Artwork by Pasha

Ludicrous Diversion is an anonymously produced documentary which debunks the official account of the 7/7 London bombings. The film deconstructs the government-endorsed version of events on 7th July 2005, arguing that major inaccuracies and discrepancies have been portrayed by the authorities as fact, and upheld by an unquestioning mainstream media. The official story is by now familiar. On the morning of 7th July, four British-born men took a train from Luton to London, their backpacks filled with homemade explosives. The men parted at 8.30am, and three of them boarded different trains, triggering their bombs simultaneously at roughly 8.50am. The fourth man boarded a bus, and detonated his bomb at 9.47am. These facts have been embedded in the public memory, but Ludicrous Diversion controversially points out that the public has never seen a shred of evidence to substantiate the narrative. The account of the men’s activities is based entirely on hearsay, and their guilt has never been proved in the way that would be required in a court of law. The film argues that something sinister is afoot, and that events that day have been manipulated to suit hidden government agendas. Ludicrous Diversion highlights numerous aspects of the narrative which are undeniably shady, assembling a compelling argument with surgical precision. The government has repeatedly blocked calls for a full, independent public enquiry – an astonishing decision given that the bombings constituted the biggest attack on British soil in peacetime. Tony Blair declared a full investigation would be a ‘ludicrous diversion’ from the War on Terror, coining the phrase that inspired the film’s title.

Despite Tony’s efforts, the disputable evidence in the public domain has caused questions to abound. Why, for example, was no CCTV footage ever released of the four alleged bombers, when images should have been easily available given Britain’s dubious distinction as the most watched nation in the world? Why did the government, after a year of investigations, never reveal the kind of explosives used? The lack of reliable eyewitness testimony identifying the accused and forensic evidence, which allegedly exists but has never been made public, warrants further scrutiny. Confusion also prevails as to the timing of the bombings. Official reports stated that the suspects took the 7.40 train from Luton to London, but the alternative media later revealed the 7.40 was in fact cancelled that day. Bizarrely, a still image shows one of the alleged bombers outside Boots at King’s Cross station at 9am - ten minutes after reportedly dying in the blast. The coincidence of emergency services training exercises taking place in London that day, based on the scenario of bombs going off at the exact same times and stations as the attacks, has also attracted suspicion. The filmmakers contend that the narrative is ‘a complex but contradictory series of lies’ presented by the police, government, and media.

Ludicrous Diversion presents a well-ordered account of events in a transparent and visually effective style (an impressive feat considering it cost under £50 to make). The bombings are situated in the context of wider socio-political developments in Britain, with the alarming increase in police powers, and draconian terror laws spotlighted. Wrongful convictions, like the well-publicised cases of the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6, are
used to demonstrate the ignominious track record of British security services in tampering with evidence to secure convictions.

Ludicrous Diversion is one of a slew of recent documentaries that question the 7/7 narrative. Mind The Gap , presented by ex-MI5 whistleblower David Shayler, is another notable example. Shayler’s MI5 background allows him to debate the nature of the explosives, and their exact positioning. He infers that eyewitness reports of the train floor being ripped upwards by the impact, suggest the source of explosion was underneath the train, not inside the carriage.

The makers of Ludicrous Diversion are less direct in suggesting that 7/7 might have been an inside job. The oblique nature of the film raises questions without offering an alternative version of events (leaving open the possibility of a sequel). The filmmakers acknowledge we may never have all the answers, and refrain from overblown speculative theories. But this restraint is not necessarily a drawback, as the film remains focused on the inbuilt contradictions of the narrative. While the conclusion of Ludicrous Diversion may seem fatalistic, with viewers discouraged from seeking an explanation through official channels, the film suggests that new angles should be sought to maintain pressure on the government, so that the bombings are not consigned to the history books, and popular memory hijacked by government agendas.

Ludicrous Diversion may be viewed, downloaded, distributed and screened freely.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

Get the 1st Edition | Return to top