Subject: BS: REVIEW Fahrenheit 9/11
From:
GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 11:19 AM
Like "Bowling for Columbine", this film deals with subject matter that is controversial, but is rarely in our national public debate. And therein lies the power of both films. I wholeheartedly agree with others reviews who claim the best thing to come out of seeing this film will be the way it gets everyone talking about it This film is all that the hype has said it is--really.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a blistering critique of Bush. There is less on-screen Moore than his other films in which he is the main actor, and the film has a more subdued pacing and tone than most of his other work. But I wouldn't say the film is better for it. Moore's video and film style--which he was widely criticized for in "Bowling for Columbine"--I consider to be a hallmark of his filmmaking style. That style made the pacing of his best work like "Bowling for Columbine", "TV Nation" and especially "Roger and Me" so refreshing and exciting. "Sleep Now In The Fire" (the Rage Against the Machine video about Wall Street corporatism, for which Moore was arrested during filming) this is not. It isn't even terribly liberal in in't content or it's tone. In that sense, this film more closely resembles Moore's "Roger and Me" follow-up, "Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint" than it does "TV Nation" or "Bowling for Columbine".
Other political figures besides Bush only get mentioned fleetingly in the film. The promise from Moore that the US media would receive scrutiny is essentially a false promise. Moore is clearly obsessed with Bush, but the film doesn't really give the viewer any genuine insights into why Moore bludgeons Bush but never mentions former presidential contender Joe Lieberman, the Bush administration's biggest Democratic cheerleader for the war on Iraq. In that sense, the film is blatantly partisan, and it loses much of it's integrity by failing to view the US war mongering through a broader lens that includes both political parties and the mainstream media. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is more about Bush than it is about any of the subjects Moore chooses to focus upon, and they are many. The film suffers for that lack.
Another problem with the film is that Moore actually has two films here, not one. It is clear that Moore sacrificed a lot in terms of the film's effectiveness by choosing to put so much focus on issues raised in Craig Unger's book (the film draws heavily from it), rather than focus on the war mongering itself. That is what makes the narrative clumsy in parts. The end result is the first half of the film, which deals with the 2000 election and the Bush family connections to the bin Laden and other Saudi royal families, is nearly forgotten by the time the second half of the film, about the wars on terrorism, Afghanistan, and Iraq, ends.
The R rating this film received is a joke. I hope that teenagers and theatre owners alike ignore the rating. This isn't just a film that teenagers need to see: they are going to want to see it. The soundtrack will appeal to them, and they will be particularly interested in the parts of the movie that directly relate to them, like the scenes of the Marine recruiters in the shopping mall. Moore has been bashed for raising this issue in the film, mostly because cynical mass media reviewers claim it, like much of what is covered in the film, is 'old news'. But this is one of the most powerful segments of the film. If we can take anything away from Fahrenheit 9/11 with us that isn't blatantly anti-Bush and politically partisan, it is the deeply disturbing scenes of the Marine recruiters going after poor kids of color, who without work or money to pay for their post-secondary education, too often join the military for job training and education and a ticket out of the hood. We need to also remember that what is old news to baby boomers in this film, will be seen for the first time by the kids who are the victims of those recruiting efforts who end up fighting our imperial wars for a couple thousand dollars a month, while the private contractors they are working side by side with, doing many of the same jobs, who are mostly white, get paid three to four times as much.
For some people, there will not be enough "connecting the dots" in the film, just as some complained about that in "Bowling for Columbine". I find that complaint to be sadly indicative of how badly we have been conditioned by mass media to have them explain everything to us, rather than allow us to draw our own conclusions, and decide for ourselves whether the dots should or shouldn't be connected. One of things that lends credibility and integrity to Moore's films, is his refusal to succumb to that sort of dumbing down of his work. He doesn't presume audiences are so stupid they won't grasp the connections. Moore's style of mixing the message by bringing together seemingly disparate subjects, and tying them together in post-production editing is a style I believe we will now be seeing more often in non-fiction film and video. It is a very effective blending of film and video, and it's effects much too powerful to ignore. The greatest strength of this film is that Michael Moore has broken through a tremendously powerful wall of mass media propaganda, and made us all realize how much we are suffocating at the hands of corporate and media mogul controlled mass media. Even though there was little new to me in the film, it was empowering to see it, if for no other reason than that. He broke through that wall that seemed impermeable and impossible to penetrate in the wake of 9/11. And for that, he certainly deserves the Palme d'Or and much more, for doing us all that great public service.
For those viewers who prefer a linear narrative to follow, this is Moore's most linear narrative. Mainstream journalists and politicians use that most simple form of storytelling, and they will have a difficult time criticizing this film on those grounds. The consensus of the political journalists who aren't professional film critics, but are writing reviews of the film because of it's political content, is that there isn't much to quibble with here. The best thing about Fahrenheit 9/11, in this sense, is the damning footage that hasn't previously been seen by American audiences, like the criticisms of the war by soldiers serving in Iraq, or the grisly war footage of American casualties that has been censored by the US media. Those media and political hacks who are focused on the political content rather than the film itself, are predictably saying this is Moore's best film. I would disagree. It is, in many ways, the most tame Moore has ever been. Those conventional pundits who were so easily disturbed and disoriented by "Bowling for Columbine" are clearly not Michael Moore fans, who go to see his films for their irreverent, raucous, scatter shot, in your face style. There is some of that classic Moore style in "Fahrenheit 9/11", but not enough for Moore's longtime fans. It seems to me that Moore has gone too far in his attempts to appease those conventional pundits here.
Which brings me back to my main criticism of "Fahrenheit 9/11". I expected it to be much more about the Bush administration's post-9/11 war mongering, and much less about Bush himself. Moore left much too much out of this film, and it suffers for it. As I said, the Democrats who have colluded with the Bush administration every step of the way, barely get mentioned in the film, which is a glaringly obvious omission, especially in light of the questionable legitimacy of this president as a result of the 2000 election debacle. There is only fleeting mention of collusion in the march to war by the mass media, and virtually no mention of the controversies surrounding coverage by America's most respected and revered journalism institutions, the New York Times and the Washington Post. There is no examination of the television coverage—just fleeting scenes of embedded coverage, and the banal and predictable clips of Fox news cheerleaders. No mention of the BBC reporting on WMD that resulted in the suicide of one of Britain's main weapons inspectors, the resignation of the top brass at the Beeb.
There is, simply put, too much emphasis on Bush, and not enough attention paid to the most important issues surrounding his administration's war mongering. It is almost as if Moore is trying to portray Bush as single-handedly getting us into this mess, when nothing could be further from the truth. I felt cheated by that. Moore is so obviously coddling the Democrats this time around, that the Democratic Party becomes the invisible 500 pound gorilla in the film. I am presuming Moore, who supported Nader in 2000, is doing this in hopes of convincing independents, Greens, and Naderites to come to their senses and reach the same conclusion he has, which is to vote Democratic this time around.
Moore's promotion of this film proves he sacrificed artistic integrity, for the sake of short term political gain. He is blatantly and arrogantly telling voters they must vote Bush out, and thereby does cross the line between art and partisan propaganda. That is much too great a sacrifice for a work of art to make, and it debases what could otherwise have been a very powerful film. The sins of omission (leaving out any examination of the roles played by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media) shows up as a glaring hole in the film.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the US war mongering in the past four years, but you'd never know it from watching "Fahrenheit 9/11". I give it 6 1/2 stars out of 10. I believe people should see the film, regardless of their political views, because it is a very informative piece of work. But there have been much better Michael Moore films, most notably, "Bowling for Columbine".
|
sj
