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.

... and thus so is this review about a film focusing on what were seen as the effects of the second Iraq war. Let's face it. Chances are you either loved or hated this film before you even saw it. Personally, I liked it a great deal. I liked the fact that Michael Moore uses the politicians' own videotaped words to indict them, but I also disliked the insinuation in the film that American soldiers were jar-heads who enjoyed or were callous about the killing and suffering of ordinary Iraqis as a result of the war. His final thought in the film is an important one - after all the lies told about why we went to Iraq, why would anybody ever trust us again? This lack of trust was important in the context of the 2008 Presidential election cycle. It caused an unusually high level of participation of young people and saw voters of all ages largely rejecting potential nominees perceived as Washington insiders, and besides Sarah Palin, helped elect Barak Obama to the presidency. Much of this can be traced back to the level of cynicism Moore displays in this film.

Also, and somewhat off-topic, I have to wonder how it is that Michael Moore was able to see the damage that such quotable quotes from conservative politicians could do, and yet then-presidential candidate John Kerry could not in 2004? If I had been running Mr. Kerry's campaign I would have been constantly rewinding and replaying the moment when President Bush is speaking at a fundraiser talking about "his base - also known as the haves and the have mores". What could have done more damage to the President's faux image as some average Joe who enjoys clearing brush on his ranch in Texas? At any rate, I think that although it is very dated at this point, it is still an important film and is worth viewing as a moment frozen in time. Just realize that this IS Michael Moore we are talking about and that he does like to go over the top quite a bit.

Yes, Michael Moore has an agenda. However, every documentary does. Believe it or not folks, but a documentary does not just show reality, it also interprets it. Remember the experts that Ken Burns shows in all of his documentaries? He used them to interpret the facts of the Civil War, Jazz, and Baseball, among others. The Ken Burn's agenda just wasn't as controversial as Michael Moore's.

The point of a documentary is for those who see it to start making their own judgments. If you don't agree with Michael Moore's interpretation of the why's of the Iraq war, what is the right interpretation? Can you use the facts or find more facts to come up with a different interpretation? I would call that highly unlikely, but I would like to see the interpretation.

This documentary set out to answer the question "Why is the US in Iraq?" I can tell you I have asked that question a lot and I found no good reason. Michael Moore has done the same thing, just to a larger audience. While you might disagree with his assessment that it was strictly for money, it is hard to support a different view after seeing this movie. You would be hard pressed to find any evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Why? Because it doesn't exist. No matter how much Bush railed for a link, even he had to admit it wasn't there.

I guess I would like to see a Republican version of events. I just can't imagine what it would use as evidence. How can you refute the 7 minutes of inactivity of Mr. Bush in the Florida classroom on 9/11? How can you refute the fact that planes were loaded up with Bin Laden relatives on 9/13? How can you call the "coalition of the willing" a coalition if it includes countries that send no troops? These are the facts folks. Michael Moore interpreted them to slam the Bush administration. I was saying the same thing before this movie. However, I reach a small audience since I don't make movies. Thanks to Michael Moore for making this film. Maybe some of the clueless, like Britney Spears, will wake up and start questioning what is going on out there. Because, Ms. Spears, in America, we are allowed to question the president. He isn't God, he is a human being.

So, pro-Iraq war people, give me your interpretation. Why? Why are we there? Why don't we have Osama Bin Laden? Why?

Moore's film strips away the pseudo patriotic facade of the Bush administration with humor and tragedy to create a very compelling but flawed message: Bush used false pretenses to go to war while enriching his friends and letting the common people suffer the fallout. The film moves between powerfully tragic scenes( like the sound of planes flying into the Towers as the screen is blacked out to interviewing a dead soldier's mom) to parody( Bush and Cheney dressed like cowboys in a scene with Bonanza music in the background. Moore raises several provocative questions such as why did Bush sit for seven minutes in an elementary classroom without reacting? Moore suggests answers which imply Bush didn't know what to do. Moore raises questions and suggests answers which right wing critics find abhorrent. His film techniques of showing a triumphant, strutting Bush proclaiming major military operations are over and quickly cutting to a roadside bomb in Iraq exploding, showing Bush as either ignorant, stupid, or mendacious were very powerful. Moore's weakness was in trying to give his audience too many messages in a single film but he comes very close to succeeding. His success was apparent to many right wing radio hosts, who immediately declared him both a liar and antiamerican(or America hating).

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?