Fahrenheit 9/11

8/10

I watched "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the New York public premiere late last night in the early hours of Wednesday, June 23rd, the first opportunity for anyone not connected with Hollywood or the media to see this film. I say this so that you take prior reviews (particularly those dismissing the film outright) with a hefty dose of skepticism. I am also a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Desert Storm, and thus am acutely aware of the realities of war and its intended use only as a last resort when all alternate options are exhausted.

I've seen all three of Michael Moore's films; "Roger & Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and now 'Fahrenheit.' Of the three, this current film has a far more disciplined approach. There is generally far less music, grandstanding, and general joking-around. While perhaps disappointing to his long-time audience of liberal partisans (myself among them), this more even-handed approach is truly welcome, because it instills the documentary with a sense of reason and perspective that will appeal to independents and perhaps even conservatives. Moore's audience here is not his long-time left-wing choir; it is the millions of Americans who trusted a President to be one thing and who has turned out to be quite another indeed.

The major newspaper reviewers justifiably point to the first 20 minutes and the last 20 minutes, about Bush's Saudi links and the carnage in Iraq, as the strongest segments. Indeed, the sequence where a series of minority representatives are gaveled to silence in the Congress is shocking in the extreme. Yet the film is fascinating throughout; it is sometimes inchoate and contradictory, but it constantly encourages and demands critical thinking. This is perhaps the real target of Moore's fury; the unaccepting, unthinking acceptance of authority figures and 'leaders' who have not earned that respect. He uses Britney Spears to make this point with devastating finality and grim hilarity. He asks, indirectly, which side are you on-that of unquestioning obedience to a betrayer of the nation's best interests, or the side of truth, criticism, and transparency. It will be hard for Bush supporters to muster the energy to defend their addled puppet after Moore's calmly launched but devastating salvos. Furthermore, it asks the American public to take responsibility for sending its children (mostly middle- and working-class) into harm's way for less than convincing reasons. The deaths of our servicemembers are the price we pay for this president's leadership, and Moore demands that the viewer analyze this war with a eye to its true costs and motives.

I am sad that there are so many in this country who will refuse to see this film for head- in-the-sand political reasons. Moore lets Bush and his cabal do most of the talking, and as such lets them indict themselves far more effectively than Al Franken or Howard Dean ever could. The film makes an absolute mockery of this president, and it is *richly* deserved. It is likely that this effort will finally 'screw to the sticking place' the courage of a national media that has shamefully aided and abetted this belligerent and bumbling national disgrace.

All this being said, this is not a depressing film, at least not for me. Many of the images and themes are certainly profoundly discomfiting, yet the very existence of this film (in nationwide release) is a testament to the endurance and beauty of the American system. This country has tolerated and then dismissed other scoundrels and crooks, and soon enough this current pack of liars and cranks will be added to the dustbin of history. You can thank Moore for his courage and true understanding of our freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that you have the opportunity to see this film and form your own judgment. Do that. Its high time for all Americans to become responsibly informed, and to consider anew the true ideals of American democracy and freedom which have lately become so distorted.

Election day is November 2nd. That's the most important review of all.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is an important film, dealing in detail with the great issues of current American society, with a degree of skepticism that our newsmedia has proven entirely incapable of exhibiting in the last decade. Lone gadfly Michael Moore cannot singlehandedly reverse the effects of a servile corporate media, but he can -- and does -- fling it right back in their faces. Is it any wonder televised interviews with Moore have been less-than-cordial of late?

It doesn't matter. For a film like this, any publicity is beneficial, and Michael Moore has gone out of his way to thank his conservative detractors for their support.

As a movie, it's a whirlwind tour of corruption and diplomatic deceit at the highest levels of the industrial-political machine, mixed with direct examination of the lives of the "ordinary" people affected by the decisions of the aristocratic few. Much like a roller-coaster ride, it pulls you up the first steep incline with images of the 2000 presidential election followed by the major players in the bush administration getting ready for their performances, and then comes the first plunge: a stomach-wrenching drop into the black screen, with only the sounds of that awful day in September when "everything changed". Fade back in on the people of New York, confused, hurting, seeking their loved ones in the rubble.

From here on, there is no stopping for breath. We observe the flight of Saudi aristocrats who, but for their political connections, might have been held as material witnesses. Moore depicts vividly the links between the Bush family and their Saudi friends, one of whom (Prince Bandar) "earns" the Bush surname. On it goes, fact after fact after irrefutable and disgusting fact. Many of us entered the theatre thinking we knew the score, but seldom has an overview of each tree led to such a complete vision of the forest.

Along the way, we'll see behavior from members of the bush administration that cannot be described as flattering -- but once again, this isn't up for debate. It's the facts, it's what they themselves said. You can argue context, but the footage speaks for itself. And more than anything else, this is where Michael Moore proves he's grown as a director. No longer are his films chock-full of his narrative, he lets the evildoers hoist themselves on their own petards without as much overdubbed commentary. His statement rests in the overall structure of the film, rather than his usual assortment of shame-defying pecadillos and exposes.

Which is not to say that fans of his spirited antics won't have something to watch, as he drives around the capital building in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot act to the representatives who never bothered to read the legislation they passed, or chases after congressmen trying to get them interested in enlisting their children for a tour of duty in Iraq.

Aaah, Iraq. The second half of the film deals with the buildup to and execution of our current adventure in nation building. Iraq is shown with a brief clip from before and a whole lot of after -- with its people confused, hurting, seeking their loved ones in the rubble. Our soldiers are also given plenty of time on-screen, time to describe what it's like, time to proclaim the thrills, dangers, and ennui of life as an occupying army. Far from being unsupportive as claimed by its detractors, this film makes every effort to give the front-liners their say. Wounded soldiers are treated with no less compassion than the other victims in this film. And unlike the corporate newsmedia, Moore's cameras dare to follow the injured to the Walter Reed medical center and into their underfunded rehabilitation.

And it follows the heart of a patriotic woman from Moore's hometown of Flint whose soldier son makes the ultimate sacrifice for Bush's folly.

This is, above all, a sympathetic, patriotic and humanistic movie. Even its main star, George W. Bush, is given a measure of understanding. We understand that he is out of his league, unable to push for the appropriate diplomatic solutions with Saudi Arabia, forever beholden to the corporate interests that purchased his throne, barely capable of coherent thought, and not at all comfortable with the responsibilities of the presidency. He would far rather be golfing, or "lookin' for bugs", or hanging at fundraisers with "the haves and the have-mores"; the presidency is a burden he clearly cannot bear. He almost begs to be removed from office.

This movie has a lot more to say than any reviewer's encapsulation can convey. Ignore the naysayers who, in all likelihood, haven't even seen the film. Understand that the facts are the facts, the presentation is Mr. Moore's, and your opinion is your own.

My opinion: 10/10 -- If there's a documentary/editorial piece that could touch this one, I haven't seen it yet.

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 at Phipps Mall in the affluent Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta, GA, and I will say for the record:

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 attracted the most racially integrated audience I've ever seen at an Atlanta movie theater, as well as the most age-diverse audience.

2. The audience was completely in tune with what Michael Moore was trying to do. When he wanted you to be mad, people were mad. When he wanted you to be upset, people were upset, and when he wanted you laugh, people laughed. And boy, did they laugh.

3. The audience cheered (loudly) upon the film's conclusion.

Truly a satisfying moment, to feel part of a community of people, if only for two hours, who recognized that the emperor indeed has no clothes.

Is Michael Moore manipulative? Of course- he's an editorial documentarian. Does he sometimes assume too much from too little information? Of course- he's a human being. That's what human beings do. Now, you may say, yes, it may be human nature to infer too much from too little information, but as a responsible artist, Michael Moore should get his ducks firmly in a row before trying to manipulate his audience. That being said, we have libel in slander laws in this country. If Michael Moore is so far off base, where are the lawsuits and defamation of character charges? Why won't Bush or his camp respond to any of the specific allegations of Fahrenheit 9/11? Why is that, in fact, they state an unwillingness even to see the film, and yet feel qualified to have a valid opinion of it? Now who's inferring too much from too little?

What is absolutely undeniable is that a) war is horrible, b) the United States of America went to war with Iraq for spurious reasons, c) we have been conspicuously unsuccessful in capturing Osama bin Laden, in part because bin Laden has no relationship whatsoever with Iraq, d) there have been many people who have benefited financially from the war, and those people have a long and in many cases sordid relationship with the Bush family, and e) Bush has used the 9/11 attacks as a way to advance an agenda that is completely unrelated to the attacks themselves, and to infringe on our civil rights. Any attempt to dissect Michael Moore's arguments fall flat when these basic facts are irrefutable.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is ultimately a highly entertaining and justifiably scathing review of the Presidency of George W. Bush, embarrassment to himself, our great nation, and, for that matter, to the entire human race. Please help vote this buffoon out of office before he can discredit our country further.

Winner of the Palme d'Or at 2004 Cannes Film Festival and also the recipient of one of the longest standing ovations at the festival's history, the highest grossing documentary of all time generated no less amount of controversies at its time of release but there is no denying that it's a highly entertaining film that sure knows how to stir up the viewers' emotions.

Fahrenheit 9/11 offers a biting take on the presidency of George W. Bush & War on Terror and digs into the fear, paranoia, uncertainty & patriotism that was on display in the wake of September 11 attacks and which the Bush administration took advantage of to push forward their own agenda for unjust war in Iraq, and created a mess that's still ongoing in the Middle-East.

Written, directed & narrated by Michael Moore, the film takes a highly one-sided approach and is more speculative than fact-based but it also highlights rampant corruption within the United States government by showing how George Bush's administration abused the 9/11 tragedy to advance their own self-interests and wasted the public fund on a war that was totally uncalled for.

However, there are times when Moore goes overboard in presenting his critique, such as blaming Bush for continuing to read to children despite being informed about the terror attack. His voiceover narration doesn't do any good either. But there are moments when his arguments not only seem valid but also worthy of debate. It's not all gloomy though for Moore utilises humour well to simmer the emotions before flaring them up again.

The ones who benefit most from wars are the ruling party, the media & weapons manufacturers, and Moore contends that it's them who are solely responsible for the loss of so many American troops who died believing that they are doing their nation a service when in actuality their death was totally unnecessary and was all for nothing. Already amongst the most controversial documentaries in existence, Fahrenheit 9/11 is enlightening, infuriating & all things in between.

Let's admit it, it's nearly impossible to find someone or something today without a bias towards one thing or another. Fahrenheit 9/11 is clearly not an exception. I saw this film very recently and was stunned. Shocked. Michael Moore's work was thorough, concise, and extraordinary. I was truly impressed. However, there are things that the public needs to consider after seeing this movie. One- this is not the whole story.

Unfortunately, I don't know the whole story. Go figure. And two- in order to migrate further from possibly getting tunnel vision, we need to look at and seriously consider the other side. Don't get me wrong, I was enraged by the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11. If all of them are valid, I see no justification for the lies and corruption. But again, this perspective is not the only one and therefor other views should be considered and digested. Am I wrong?