| |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
Fahrenheit 9/11
I know that when I first started this site, I insisted that I was only going to review smaller, under-the-radar film, unless “I truly feel like I have something important to say about a film with a high profile.” I meant those words when I said them, and I mean them still. What I’ve found, however, is that the more I watch recent, highly prolific films and discuss them with peers, the more I realize that I have plenty to say about them. After all, if art reflects life, it’s better to look at what the mainstream is looking at, in order to understand and comment on the state that our society is headed—even if that means I have to subject myself to an occasional Exorcist: The Beginning or Van Helsing. Otherwise, as a film critic, I’m only alienating myself from the “real world” by exclusively reviewing small films that no one’s heard of. Understanding this, I’ve decided to toss in reviews of more prolific, well-known films here and there. And let’s face it—how can you possibly get more prolific than Fahrenheit 9/11? It’s impossible to separate Fahrenheit 9/11, documentary-director Michael Moore’s dissertation on corruption and manipulation of the Bush administration, from politics. Those who favor Bush will dismiss it as being full of lies and accuse Moore of being only in it for the money. Those who hate Bush will declare his work flawless, and view Moore as the second coming of Christ. You have already noticed that I’ve awarded the film a three-star rating, which means I’m somewhere in the middle, but leaning a bit closer to the left (though I’ll be the first to confess that Moore is no Christ; at best, he’s closer to Richard Burton in Exorcist II—jumping up and down and overacting in an attempt to drive out demons, all the while never considering that a subtler, simpler approach would have been more effective). In fact, in order to fairly judge this film, I really have no choice but to make my political affiliations absolutely clear—the whole film hinges upon whether or not you agree with its views, and if you do not, how you intend to disprove them. So, skip down a few paragraphs if you don't give a darn about my view of the world; otherwise, you've been warned. I am very proud of my moderate position, and I consider both main American political parties to be flawed. In my view, as I’ve explained to my peers, a Republican sees a hungry person in a ditch, screams, “Go get a job!” and marches off, irritated that a hungry person dare be anywhere near any ditches that the Republican should have to walk by. A Democrat sees a hungry person in a ditch and invites him over to his friend’s house, where he proceeds to feed the hungry person all of the food from his friend’s refrigerator. When his friend asks the Democrat what he is doing, the Democrat snaps, “Hey, show a little charity for your fellow man!” In the meantime, both parties spend most of their time screaming at the top of their lungs over which one of them is right, and consequently, not many hungry people in ditches get much help. But never mind: As Moore insists, the situation has grown much more complicated than Democrats vs. Republicans. On that note, I’m also not happy with the current war in Iraq, which, in my opinion, has only crippled much of our foreign relations and allowed the Al Qaeda to regroup stronger than ever. The bottom line is, no matter what the intelligence reports said, Iraq seemingly has no weapons of mass destruction, which is the reason we entered into the war in the first place. Instead of assuming full responsibility for this mistake, our current administration refuses to acknowledge that their decision for focusing all attention to a country that has no connection to 9/11 was a miscalculation, not only for the lives lost on both sides, but for fighting a stronger War on Terror. Had we followed through in the war in Afghanistan, we would have drawn out terrorists anyway, and Hussein’s dynasty would have probably eventually folded under political pressures, but I feel that President Bush got impatient and reacted impulsively, with tragic results. His attempts to cover up his mistakes didn’t help; after we didn’t find the WMDs, the administration insisted that Hussein had links of Al Qaeda. As that proved unlikely, the motivations for invasion continued to, er, flip-flop. As the facts continue to pour in, the only real reason for entering the war that the administration has to stand on is that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who tortured and killed his own people. Certainly this notion, the only motivation for entering the war that has proven to be true, is a correct statement. But how many ruthless dictators are there currently in the world, killing and torturing innocent people? (If you don't know the answer, think South and Central America or Uganda and do some research.) Why aren't we attacking them? Why couldn't they potentially be "the next Hitler," as Hussein has so often been labeled? What we're seeing here are excuses for a war that are being stripped away clearly and quickly, and the only motivation left for the war in Iraq is a double standard. Though Hussein certainly needed to be ousted, it all could have taken place with less sloppiness if we had stayed the course in Afghanistan, and with better results for all of the Middle East. But enough about me. Let’s talk Moore. I’ll spare you the long, drawn out conspiracy theories that Moore offers in Fahrenheit 9/11—if you’ve read this far, you’ve probably already seen the film, and if you haven’t seen it by now, you probably don’t intend to. While I believe that the war in Iraq was probably an act of foolishness and impulsiveness from a weak president, Moore seems very set on the fact that Bush and his administration (read: cohorts) had a clear intention with it, using it to divert attention away from the Bush families’ ties with the House of Sauds and, consequently, the terrorists responsible for September 11. To connect these dots, Moore offers plenty of speculations mixed in with some pretty interesting facts that speak loudly enough on their own. They speak so well, in fact, that I sort of wish that Moore had simply presented the footage that he offers and let them do the talking for him. Even without the dots to connect, the screen captures of Bush and the war in Iraq that Moore digs up are more than enough to sway this voter. I generally enjoy Michael Moore's films, but let’s face it: He does have a bad tendency to distort facts, particularly in Bowling for Columbine. Without going into that debate, the inaccuracies that BfC get blamed for are minor compared to what works in the film, but on paper, they add up and look pretty ugly, and more "soapbox" filmmaking than documentary filmmaking. I didn't mind, of course, because I happen to agree with his soapbox. In the meantime, this website has a pretty good list of the inaccuracies in the film, and they're not pretty. It also provides some links that include additional (and less pretty) dissections of the film. They're all right-winged sites to be sure, but if you get past all their name-calling and political bias, the fact remains that Moore perhaps overshot a little in the editing process. Understanding that some of the inaccuracies in Bowling for Columbine eventually came out in the open and were used in attempts to discredit him, Moore specifically tries to make F9/11 foolproof and as accurate as possible. After all, when you’re going up against Charlton Heston, there’s probably some room for error. When you’re going up against the most powerful man in the world, at a time when he’s fighting an unpopular war and has an administration that excels in character assassination, the margin for error diminishes into non-existence. Still, Fahrenheit 9/11 is ultimately a lesser film than Moore's previous efforts like Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine, mainly because of its clear, propaganda intentions of swaying voters in November 2004. I’ll admit that I am swayed, but will Fahrenheit 9/11 maintain its longevity once the elections are over? Maybe, if Bush is reelected, but even that will only last another four years. Either way, the film is essentially contained in this era, a statement on the corruption of a president at one point in time, whereas Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine offered important, universal topics about greed and violence that will still ring true in years to come. In fifty years, those two films could still potentially leave an impact. F9/11 will only offer an outdated theory on a past dynasty, which only history buffs will want to see. Everyone else will skip straight to the adventures of the war, starring their favorite action heroes. As far as accuracy goes, there are a few minor quibbles here and there in F9/11 that have been revealed (distorting newspaper headlines, etc.), and, as I noted, Moore does make some pretty leaping speculations that would certainly never hold up in a court of law. Still, the distortions work cinematically and do not create downright fabrications, and the speculations aren't completely far-fetched when you consider the facts that Moore presents. I’m not promoting Moore’s “white lies,” but I am suggesting that the film holds up with or without them. Nevertheless, he should have been confident enough in his footage to let it do the talking for him. It is the said footage that makes Fahrenheit 9/11 work in its most powerful moments. What Moore has done, really, is provide us with invaluable footage and facts that basically speak for themselves, so that even without his connect-the-dots narration, you're left pretty jolted by what is going on in this administration. Those seven minutes in the elementary school on 9/11/01, in which Bush sits and reads with a classroom after learning that the nation was under attack, don't need much narration. The blank look on the President’s face says it all—he has no idea what to do, and he seems unaware that lingering in the school is only placing all the children there in eminent danger. There are other powerful moments, most of which have little to do with Moore’s narration and conspiracy theories and more to do with the nature of the Iraq war itself. Consider the look in the troop's face when he's singing "Burn, Mother****er, Burn," demonstrating how he sings along to his CD when he's blowing up people in his tank. It is an expression that generates more chills than any horror movie you’ve ever seen. Other moments of power include another troop’s lament, "If Rumsfelt was here, I'd ask for his resignation," and a grieving mother’s emotional journey to the White House. Her son, we learn, was killed in Iraq in the line of duty, and when she meets Bush supporters who inform her that protests against the war are all staged, and she snaps, “My SON is not staged.” Moments like this are as much evidence of why this administration needs the boot as I need. Other scenes, in which Moore reads the Patriot Act in front of the capital building from an ice cream truck, are humorous but inconsequential. As I continue to stress, if Moore had simply run the interviews with soldiers and his informing archive footage, it would have been sufficient to state his case. Certainly you can accuse Moore of finding select individuals who go along with his ideas and interviewing them, but then, the world is made up of individuals. It's difficult not to take sides with one select military man who notes that he's getting paid less for risking his life in Iraq than the American oil drillers who he happens to be protecting. But even though I don’t agree with many of the conspiracy theories offered here, Moore argues them with wit and intelligence, so that many of the theories don’t seem outlandish until after the credits start rolling. Most conservatives, of course, call Michael Moore a liar and an opportunist. I would call at least the latter accusation nonsense—a man who makes big-budget, dumb action films for a quick buck like Michael Bay is an opportunist. Any man who does the research that Moore does and defends his points with as much passion as Moore defends them is clearly trying to tell us something because he believes in his cause, not because he wants to promote his personal gain. Even if he happens to be wrong, even if he is a cocky son of a gun who is his own biggest fan, and even if he went too far at the Oscars, he's done enough work, risked enough of his personal time, and jumped in front of the gun enough for me to feel compelled to listen to him. (Incidentally, and I only mention this to avoid hate mail from readers who think I should keep my nose out of politics and stick to films, I am also intrigued by this Michael Wilson chap who's making the movie Michael Moore Hates America. Wilson is also clearly going through the effort because he feels passionate about what he's trying to say; thus, I certainly look forward to watching his film with an open mind too. No, really.) Lions Gate Films presents
a Fellowship Adventure Group release of a Dog Eat Dog Productions
film. Written and directed by Michael Moore. Rated R, for language
and violent scenes of war. Running time: 122 minutes. Original
United States theatrical release date: June 25, 2004. |
||
