The reviewer is trying to compare McCarthy’s allegations to Starr’s in the sense that they are both as absurd and ridiculous. I think the reviewer is not a fan of Kenneth Starr and is on Clinton’s side, even if he might not be a supporter.

Denby’s political views states that is does not like Starr because of his investigation being “obsessional and bizarre”. This result that Denby may speculate that Denby may be a supporter of Clinton.

Denby is comparing McCarthy to Starr in the sense that they both are comical and absurd. Both of these investigations are trying to prove more personal issues than actual harmful acts.

By mentioning Starr, the audiences walk into a prescribed perspective set up by the reviewers. They will associate the “bizarre elements” from Starr’s investigation of Clinton with McCarthy.

Kenneth Starr is mentioned because he too was attacked for “having secret.” The only variation is that McCarthy was politically accountable and Starr was not. Starr is mentioned because it is similar to what McCarthy experienced in a sense that they were both accused on a highly controversial level.

Supporting the claims of communist infiltration would work against his opinion on McCarthy, which he seems to be in favor of. I think he should have added the claims because this is a review which includes his opinion in a subtle way.

McCarthy, an ambitious politician probably thought these hearings would be a stepping stone en route to a further his political career. Instead, the camera revealed to the American people that McCarthy was a fear monger.

It might have been the opinion of the reviewer to leave it out for many reasons. The reviewer might have felt that the communist subversion wasn’t of high importance and the amount of space allowed to write this review may cause a restriction. Also, the reviewer may not want to shed light on McCarthy because he might not agree with his views.

Without addressing claims of Communist subversion, the review is purely targeting the film. He does give informative background information to help us better understand the film though.

Documentaries are used in conjunction with showcasing a specific perspective of the filmmaker. This film is mainly about the theatricality of this hearing and its participants then it is a communist and/or anti-communist propaganda tool. He does not mention it because the film isn’t made for that reason. It is made to showcase the downfall of a highly influential political figure and his moronic and unfounded acts to somehow circumvent his already dwindling power.

The hearing was televised, which means everyone presenting the case knew America would be watching. Entertainment can be used to present a certain view point and persuade, which the lawyers wanted to do since everyone in the country would be keeping track.

It was like watching a comedy/tragedy, the people involved in the trial are like characters of a show given for the entertainment of the American people since the trial was televised. McCarthy giggling, Cohn’s slicked down hair looking like a baby gangster in an old movie are all part of their characterizations. Also the allegations seemed so absurd that it felt like what we were watching was a fiction.

Denby see this documentary as characters you see in fiction movie. Where The hearings are theatrical, Shakespearean drama and impassioned speeches are made. The audience laughter added this was to believe, a comedy stage play.

The editing techniques can also expand the dramatic effects of the hearing. Also, broadcasting a congressional hearing itself is a theatrical move.

There was already a well known political figure acting “madly” and a sticky plot including the controversial topic of communism. The reviewer is alluding that it was essentially meant to be packaged for entertainment purposes.

I think it’s more along the lines of how unbelievable these events were and how they managed to be showcased on such a grand scale as this one. There’s a metaphoric saying on how everyone likes watching a train wreck. This is a prime example of that metaphor. As McCarthy dug his hole deeper and deeper, I found myself getting more interested in how the other officials were gonna respond and how McCarthy went about digging his hole deeper. When McCarty started personally attacking that young lawyer in the opposing councils firm I was like “Wow, he actually went that route, somebody’s officially desperate.” It was surprisingly good entertainment; I’m still surprised this actually really happened.

I think he is trying to let the viewer know that the film is fabricated. Theater evokes some kind of emotion and I think with the use of each character, their tone of voice, and what dialogue, thats’s what were getting in Point of Order. Entertainment with a mixture of politics.

During the Watergate case, the political figure Nixon, was exposed for covering up a break in where burglars attempted to steal government information.I think that the reviewer uses this analogy to compare McCarthy for being not trustworthy to our government. Political figures can’t always be trusted and Watergate is a great example.

Political figures have responsibility to U.S. citizens (sense of decency), and political parties should realize that they should serve their country rather than their personal interests.

american politics are scandalous—especially when politicians are essentially caught red-handed being politicians (sneaky, deceptive, etc.). Both cases revealed what was really going on behind the scenes in American politics. Americans do like to feel like they do not have all of the information or say about their government and trust was lost.

This is essentially the beginnings of the death of a major politician’s political career, shown and highlighted for all to see. Watergate and the McCarthy hearings both showcase a politician overstepping their rights as public officials and paying for it in a severe enough manner that they never recover from it. The theatricality of it all to, adds to its appeal. Like you said professor, everyone was watching these hearings at the time, the same way everyone was watching as Watergate unfolded and when it came out that Clinton was having an affair. Although that one didn’t do as much damage to Clinton’s career like everyone thought it would.

His reference to Monica Lewinsky helps understand his views because as the investigation was unneccesary because of how drastic and irrational the material was.

The review accepts the documentary’s point of view because I think everyone can agree that McCarthy was a nut job in this hearing, his allegations were completely absurd especially towards the end of the trial. He ran out of ideas on how to keep the trial going and that is when Welch finally finished him. I think he referenced Monica Lewinski because the trial can seem similar to this, very theatrical with controversial topics.

Denby references Monica Lewinsky because he is comparing her situation insignificant as to McCarthy was at that time.

The reviewer accept’s the documentary’s point of view because it is easier to poke fun at the ridiculous and absurd investigation. The reviewer might also agree with the documentary’s point of view. The reference to Monica Lewinsky is to show how ridiculous and irrelevant the case was.

After all, the documentary is a work of art. If it is informational and entertaining, then accepting the documentary’s point of view means the review agrees with how the film delivers the true situation.

documentary for evidence of his bizarre character.

He’s highlighting the pointlessness of it all. The documentary highlights the absolute absurdity of it all by highlighting the more redundant, but entertaining, parts of it. The photo, the fraudulent letter, the acquisition, it literally all led to nothing, besides the burying of McCarthy’s political career. As for Monica Lewinsky, all you really need to ask yourself is what does what she reads in her own personal time have to do with her affair with Bill Clinton? It’s a pointless question that leads everyone no where when it comes to an investigation of their relationship.