Fahrenheit 9/11 Review
by Richard A. Zwelling (razwee AT yahoo DOT com)July 6th, 2004
FAHRENHEIT 9/11
** 1/2 (out of ****)
a film review by
Richard A. Zwelling
In writing criticism, I try to stay as close as possible to the area that I'm trying to criticize, in this case film. No matter what the film is about, no matter what its intentions are, my primary mode of operation is to state my opinions about the work as a piece of cinema.
But with the external factors surrounding the release of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which took top honors at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, there is little possibility to do this. So much of Moore's public persona revolves around the creation of controversy, and lately, much like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, the primary topic of discussion has not been the film itself, but the controversy it has engendered.
There's the issue of whether or not the Cannes win was politically motivated (although the judges publicly stated that the award was for filmmaking and not politics). There's Disney, who refused to distribute the film, creating more press for Moore and Disney's subsidiary, Miramax Films, headed by the not-so-revered Weinstein brothers.
The Weinsteins immediately sought their own means to ensure the film's release, and although many staunch left-wingers praised their actions, I feel that they are naïve if they believe that the Weinsteins' motivations had anything to do with politics and artistic expression.
Keeping true to his form as a persistent self-publicist, Moore (on his website and in public interviews) preached his liberal agenda, drawing attention to those who were trying to ban the film from being released, and attempting to inflame dissident passions.
The right-wingers did not help matters when they went public with vehement cries against the film. It seems that they did not learn from the lesson of Gibson's film: if you draw intense attention to something, even if it is negative attention, it only makes people more anxious to see what the fuss is about.
So what about the film itself? It has been described as Moore's one-man crusade against President George W. Bush, a man who Moore decries as an ignorant, lazy, incompetent jerk-off in glaring dereliction of duty. Moore's publicly stated goal: use the film Fahrenheit 9/11 to "expose the truth" that Bush forsook the concerns of the American people and pushed his own corrupt, selfish political and financial agenda, and hope that the film influences the outcome of the 2004 presidential election (but more commentary on Moore's so-called intentions later).
Most prominent is Moore's claim that the Bush administration used 9/11 as a manipulative tool to condition the American public into rabid fear of terrorism, thus ensuring that the country would get behind the eventual decision to go to war with Iraq. This despite the fact that no conclusive connection has ever been made between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks at the hands of the fundamentalist terrorist organization Al Qaeda, headed by Usama bin Laden.
Does the film explore relevant issues that all Americans should consider? Absolutely. Although the duplicitous Bush agenda has been public for several months now, this does not make it common knowledge. No matter how much Moore strains credibility, there are basic facts presented that anyone should know.
We went to war with Iraq, a country that has never attacked the U.S. and has not proven to be linked to 9/11. The Bush administration pushed for the attack claiming that there were WMDs (weapons of mass destruction), although they were never found.
We went into Iraq not knowing when or how we would get out, leaving many soldiers stranded in a purgatory of counterattacks by various extremists.
Usama bin Laden's family has political and financial ties to the Bush family and were allowed safe exit from the U.S. by plane immediately following the 9/11 attack, when all other planes were grounded.
These and other facts are important to bring into the limelight, and now I feel is a good time to bring up Moore's previous film, Bowling for Columbine, which explored America's predilection for firearms. The film was my favorite from 2002 and still is, partly because of my agreement with the politics, but mostly for another reason.
It was the cinematic equivalent of a well-considered, deftly constructed essay that did not merely touch on various salient issues without follow-through. It was incendiary and thought provoking, but never without context and always with direction. Gun-craziness, the media, social inequalities, and corrupt corporate agendas were all presented as part of a greater whole that truly inspires one to ponder the true state-of-affairs in our country today.
By contrast, Fahrenheit 9/11 is the cinematic equivalent of a polemical editorial drowning in free-floating anger. No matter how Moore tampers with veracity, I certainly believe him to be impassioned, but with Bowling for Columbine, he was able to channel that passion into effective, logical argument that flowed smoothly and convincingly.
In Fahrenheit 9/11, we are barraged by an inundation of facts, statistics, and many of the cheap jokes that permeate Moore's films. The film meanders with no apparent intention other than to be angry, and the result comes across as more of a rant than a persuasive political statement.
In my mind, it also does not help that Moore is notorious for fabricating documentary footage and playing with the facts. Every time I heard Moore state a "fact" without evidence (which he does pervasively here, unlike Bowling for Columbine), I had to wonder what the truth was (and why Moore was continually resorting to tenuous fact-spewing).
There is a powerful sequence in which Moore spends time with a family in his impoverished hometown of Flint, Michigan. The mother has lost a son in Iraq and is overcome with a grief so consuming that she grows increasingly bitter towards the Bush administration. Is this sequence effective emotionally? Yes. Is it true? Who's to say?
I am not saying that it is not true, and if it is, I have the utmost sympathies for the family and mean no slander on them. My comment is merely that there is a nugget of doubt in my mind, and that objectively, there is certainly no way of knowing whether or not it is true within the immediate context of the film.
Some would say that it does not matter, so long as the message gets across. I disagree. If Moore's goal is to show the effect of Bush's actions on the everyday American, he should ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that his material comes across as free of fabrication. Otherwise, we are subject to dramatic manipulation, which is appropriate for fiction, but not when one is claiming that what is onscreen is nonfiction.
Also, in lampooning Bush repeatedly with cheap jokes, Moore is caving in to pleasing those who are already firmly against Bush and will applaud all things anti-Bush by reflex. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely abhor the guy, and I think his presidency has been a disaster for the nation in many ways.
But if you repeatedly resort to low-end comedy (thus excessively diverting from your logical arguments), you dilute whatever chance you may have in impressing your political view on the general public (and advancing your supposed agenda to supplant Bush).
Despite these glaring flaws, there are several sequences in the film that are successful and intensely powerful. The first is footage of Bush in a Florida classroom on the morning of September 11, 2001. When he is informed of the attacks, we do not see a decisive leader, but something more akin to a deer caught in headlights. The confusion and incompetence are readily apparent.
(Unfortunately, Moore taints this sequence by splicing together several clips and showing a clock that implies Bush sat without action for several minutes. There's no reason why these clips might not have been a few seconds apart rather than a few minutes, as Moore would like us to believe.)
There is the disturbingly immediate footage from Iraq that shows the U.S. military personnel as stranded and directionless, but also oppressive and inhumane. In this footage, Moore is at his best, as he pulls no punches and feels willing to present gruesomely unpleasant images previously concealed from the American public.
Finally, there is Moore's exploration of the government's use of fear as a manipulative device. Moore interviews several experts who convincingly argue for the notion that the Bush administration bombarded the public with messages conditioning Americans to be afraid of terrorism and prepare for an attack by anybody, anywhere, at any moment. By interspersing these opinions with the Bush administration's vague declarations of "imminent terrorist threats", Moore successfully defends the initial premise.
But what exactly is Moore's end goal here anyway? I don't doubt that Moore truly aligns himself with the ultra-left politics of his films, but I honestly can't believe that his actions in promoting Fahrenheit 9/11 are entirely genuine. At the end of the credits of the film, for example, a caption displays "Do something" and then lists the URL for Moore's website.
If Moore were solely interested in this film being a political tool, I would think he would use the conclusion of the film to divert attention from himself and urge true political action and not engage in further self-publicity. He might even suggest other films one might see.
One that comes to my mind is Errol Morris's recent documentary The Fog of War, which did no business compared to that which Moore's film is about to do. In Morris's film, the explorations of war tragedies are more focused and genuinely illuminating than anything you will see in Moore's film.
Sadly, Moore has replaced effective cinema with sensationalistic self-promotion, and at no time was this more apparent to me than when I looked at the people around me at the screening. Various political and religious organizations (some of which just downright scared me) came and handed out booklets and flyers. The obviously left-oriented audience clapped every time someone said something denigrating about Bush or Republicans in general.
One gentleman carried on about various political conspiracies and even shouted various expletives at Bush during the screening. While waiting in line to go into the theater, someone drove his vehicle past the theater, honked the horn loudly, and whoever was in the passenger seat launched his arm out the window and displayed the one-finger salute.
I lament the fact that this film is becoming a frenzied political event, making many feel that they can come out and picket, accost, and preach viewpoints entirely unrelated to the film. On top of that, the film seems to be a fad, a sort of "in thing" to do on this particular week.
Let's also not forget the fact that if most of the people who see this movie already tend definitively towards the left, there is no change in voter outcome. Similarly, many who lean towards the right will hate the film without seeing it. Again, there is no change in voter tendency.
That leaves the moderates, and I seriously doubt many will say, "I voted against Bush because I saw Fahrenheit 9/11."
Moore may be relaying some important information through this film, but make no mistake, this is not about Bush, Iraq, or the upcoming election. It is about Moore and his attempts to impose himself as a public figure. His goal is to stir up emotions and draw attention to himself, an action which will unfortunately widen the political schisms amongst Americans and the directionless anger currently running rampant.
I admire Moore's talent as a filmmaker, but I have to speak firmly against his shameless exploitation of prevalent anti-war sentiment, and I find it sad and ironic that so many of the people who criticize blind support of the war in Iraq are the same ones who blindly throw themselves at Moore's feet.
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
