|
| . |
|
Fahrenheit 9/11 2004 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Michael Moore
R, 116 min. (some violent and disturbing images, language) |
 |
Starring: Michael Moore, George W. Bush Administration
Producers: Michael Moore, Jim Czarnecki, Kathleen Glynn
Screenplay: Michael Moore
Cinematography: Mike Desjarlais
Distributor: Lions Gate Films, IFC
Released: 6.24.04 (Wide) |
Rating:
 (out of ) |
Fahrenheit 9/11 finally arrives in theaters amidst controversy and the glaring presence of Michael Moore, whose
film won the Palm D'Or at this year's Cannes Film Festival. Moore has always been a rabble-rouser for the liberally-inclined,
but he's also a brilliant filmmaker; efforts like Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine (although factually flawed) prove that he can entertain while
presenting a quasi-documentary with "hard" facts to bolster his beliefs. But, unfortunately, with Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore
has gone off the proverbial deep end, unveiling so-called "truths" about the Bush Administration that anyone following
politics in the media has already discovered for themself. In a nutshell (and not the least bit surprising) Moore suggests
that George W. Bush, his cabinet (who are made to seem superficial, stupid, and members of an axis of evil), his connection with Big Oil, and his well-protected friends are not only corrupt but
immoral, evil leaders of a country that is too ignorant to know it has been "duped." Gone (for the most part) is much of
the entertaining aspects of a Moore documentary, replaced by such intense hatred and disgust for anything connected
with Bush that the film becomes a tedious expose of tired Democratic talking points.
The irony of Moore's accusations against the Bush Administration - the president will exploit anything ranging from fear to
creating a phony war to make a profit - is that Moore himself will make millions of dollars off the arguably exploitive nature
of this film. As each point is glossily checked-off throughout a sophomoric effort, what stands out is not the obviously
one-sided argument against Bush, but what the film does not say. As is the case with any piece of propaganda
(there is no question this picture is nothing short of it), its inherent weakness comes from the silence of the other side;
that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not objective is not offensive, but the shady effort to present all of his arguments as facts
surely is. At best Moore convicts Bush with highly questionable circumstantial evidence; at worst his film is based on
flat out lies. Now, it may be that Bush and his handlers are corrupt and deserve replacing in the upcoming election, but
Moore offers no concrete, indisputable fact that Bush is indeed corrupt. He may prove that Bush was incompetent and
at the very least unprepared to deal with the war on terror, yet it soon becomes clear that Moore wants it both ways.
For example, Moore is against the war in Iraq but then complains that Bush didn't send enough troops to get the job done.
Which is it? It soon becomes transparent that Moore believes Bush can do nothing right. It's not difficult to envision Moore attacking Bush
regardless of what he did or did not do, much like right-wing conservatives attacked Bill Clinton for whichever side of an
argument he happened to espouse.
The film opens with a dreamy sequence (from Moore's POV of course) that Al Gore had just won the Presidential election
of 2000, that Florida had "justly" gone into the Democratic column. Suddenly a coup has taken place, the Republicans
have used fascist tactics to strong-arm the Supreme Court into deciding the contest, and the nightmarish presidency of
George W. Bush has begun. There is an eerie scene where then President of the Senate Al Gore gavels into silence
members of the House of Representatives (mostly African-Americans) who objected to the outcome of the election -
they only needed one Senator's backing to bring the matter to discussion, yet none stepped forward. Moore argues
that the early months of Bush's presidency were toiled in disaster, that is until 9/11 itself. In the film's most compelling
scene Bush is seen looking sheepishly lost for over seven minutes after being informed of the attacks; he looks on in a
daze as the Florida elementary school classroom continues to read "My Pet Goat." Moore suggests that a paralyzed Bush
contemplates who "screwed me."
Could it be the Bin Laden family, who had a close business relationship with the Bush family? Although Moore goes to
great lengths to suggest that Bush's connection with Saudi oil planted the seeds for the eventual war in Iraq, again there
is no direct proof. The claim that Bin Laden family members were flown out of the country (preferential treatment) at a time
when all flights were grounded has already been debunked by several media sources - even if this assertion were true there
are three problems: 1) the FBI interrogated a majority of them before they got on any plane, 2) Richard Clarke has taken
complete responsibility for their departure (unbeknownst to the president), and 3) the 9/11 commission has concluded that
''each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."
Could it be the Taliban in Afghanistan, with ties to Unocol (a California-based oil company), which visited Texas when Bush
was governor? Hardly, since Bush never actually met with the Taliban at the time. In fact, it was the Clinton Administration
that authorized their visit and actually met with them for a while. Unocol had plans for an oil pipeline that would stretch
across Afghanistan, and, therefore, Bush must be behind it; it couldn't be just a coincidence, right?
There are a number of other assertions (which cast Bush in a negative light) that are poorly argued. Moore claims
that Bush takes too much time off, which of course begs the question how Bush compares with other presidents - his time
off is similar to that of Clinton. And, on one of those "vacations," his sit down with British Prime Minister Tony Blair cannot
be considered "work." Then Moore argues that Bush (at a golf course) is too nonchalant and flippant about his remarks about the war on
terror just before asking the media on hand to "watch this drive." What does this have to do with anything? Moore then makes
his most absurd statement - that the "sovereign" nation of Iraq had never fired a shot at an American citizen. Huh?
Has Moore ever heard of the Gulf War or the continual bombardment of U.S. planes over the no-fly zones in Iraq? And what about the attempted
assassination of the elder President Bush by the Iraqi secret police? I guess that doesn't count since there's a Bush involved.
Moore presents Iraq as a peaceful, idyllic countryside just before American bombs dropped on the heads of mothers and
their children. Of course, Saddam Hussein couldn't possibly be a monster despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
No, he didn't need replacing even though there is growing evidence of his ties to the terror network and the harboring of
Al Queda leaders. And so on.
The final segment of the film centers around Lila Lipscomb, a woman from Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, who at first
wholeheartedly supported Bush and the troops, but now bitterly condemns Bush for sending her son (who was killed in combat)
to Iraq. She sits with her mourning family, reading the last letter from her son (who calls Bush a "fool"), questioning why
God has taken her son away from her. Later, she is seen approaching the White House in anger, unconsolable and in tears
as Moore's camera slowly circles her grief. One can't help but feel outraged by Moore's shameless postering in order to
add fuel to the Bush fire. His previous premise - that only poverty-stricken youngsters sign up for the Armed Services
because they need money for college - is like a slap in the face to the thousands of affluent soldiers who come from middle
and upper class families. And, in one of his sillier segments, Moore approaches members of Congress to offer them the
chance to sign up their kids to fight in Iraq - as if the father or mother could actually sign their kids into the Army despite a possible
argument from the kids themselves.
Yet the biggest point of contention with Moore's film is that he uses a hit-and-run strategy to prove his theories. Instead of
carefully and painstakingly offering meticulous evidence to support each of his claims, Moore believes that firing-off as
many broadly-portrayed shots across the bow will somehow hit their mark. When the discerning viewer begins to research his assertions,
Fahrenheit 9/11 begins to unravel at an alarming rate. I find it particularly interesting, as insightfully presented by
Christopher Hitchens of Slate, that the very words he uses in closing his film (an excerpt from the work George Orwell)
actually defeats his own argument; had he looked a little closer he would have noted that Orwell (in Notes on Nationalism)
warns against the dangers of some intellectual pacifists who hate democracy and prefer totalitarianism. This is just further
proof of Moore's selected (and very filtered) version of the truth.
Moore's anger and sarcasm, coupled with a distinct distaste for capitalism (spearheaded by greedy corporations), slowly
transform Fahrenheit 9/11 from a work of curiousity into a grating sermon about America's pomposity amidst
a world of intellectually-enlightened benefactors. America is the problem, and a change at the top would quickly remedy
the nation's standing in a world of angry onlookers. Moore's penchant for thought-provoking material and witty comedic
interludes (save one "Magnificent Seven" animation) are strikingly absent here; this seems to be Moore's first real attempt
at serious political condemnation, and as such, the film is a rather lackluster amalgamation of liberal ideology. While it's
sure to inspire admiration and applause from the left, it's equally sure to garner despise and angst from the right. In short,
it's a push.
I have been harsh toward Moore's film, and to be fair I must disclose that I do not agree with his oversimplified politics.
However, I consider him to be a talented filmmaker, a man whose singular drive to prove his worldview is noteworthy and
commendable. I have enjoyed all of his films, including this one to a point, and I will look forward to his future endeavors.
But I feel it necessary, if not compelled, to review his work entirely; to that end, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a slickly constructed
hate-piece aimed at a man whom Moore obviously considers the most dangerous man alive. His film is not only unfair,
but smacks of the very exploitive sensationalism that he accuses Bush of fostering. Here's to hoping that Moore's
own red-hot demeanor is pacified long enough for him to return to the type of filmmaking that has made him one of the
best documentarians in cinema history.
© 2004 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
 | Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
