This Divided State

Despite the fact that it is a Michael Moore-style documentary starring Michael Moore, it is in fact directed by the not-so-well-known Steven Greenstreet. If I had known this before I started watching, I may have just assumed that this is one of Moore's fans trying to piggy-back off his success and earn a few dollars. I'm glad that I didn't realise until the closing credits.

The documentary follows the enormous controversy surrounding Utah Valley State College's decision to host a speech from Michael Moore in the lead-up to the 2004 Presidential Election. It follows the protesters on both sides and in particular the student council leaders responsible for the event.

I must say I was somewhat amazed by the lack of blatant view-pushing. The documentary captured exactly what the title suggests - two fiercely opinionated and divided camps. There is very little intervention by the film-maker, and given the shocking nature of some of the material, any nudging towards the direction of free speech really isn't necessary.

What I saw shocked me far more than I expected. I mean, I know that Utah is the reddest state in the Union, and I know that they are 75% Mormon, and I know that they don't like Michael Moore, but I was absolutely dumbstruck by their complete intolerance and ridicule of "liberals". Sean Hannity is a well-respected Republican figure in the state, and the film includes footage of his speech given to a packed stadium at Utah Valley State College in the lead-up to Moore's visit. During this speech, when Hannity asks for a show of hands as to who will be voting for Kerry, any person who dares raise their hand is booed, called a "fool" and told that they are still young so they will learn. Hannity even goes so far as to mock liberals for being poor and singles out one proud Democrat who he brings up onto the stage offering to "Hannitise" him before feeding him to the wolves. Apparently, "liberals" such as Moore are corrupting us with "evil filth" when we choose to listen to him.

The telling part for me, is that whilst Moore aims to shock (with the noble intention of moving people to action instead of apathy), at no stage did he resort to such tactics in his speech at the university. He spoke about freedom of speech, about the war on Iraq and about non-discrimination. Pretty decent goals really.

I live in Utah and sadly, this film portrays the typical mindset here. We tend to be xenophobic, intolerant, and hateful of anything different yet it is cloaked in a message of "love thy neighbor." This film does a wonderful job of portraying the all-too-common view that Utahns are unable to handle outside ideas and any type of diversity. In looking at the anger spewing out of the mouths of putative Christians, in particular Mr. Bryson, I am reminded of the looks of white southerners in the 50's when the schools were about to be integrated. The seething fury and irrationalism of these people is shown all too well by the filmmaker. I recommend seeing this excellent film and if it makes you avoid visiting or moving to Utah (especially the Provo/Orem area south of Salt Lake City) it will have served a good purpose.

To be honest---not quite a 10 (probably a 7 or an 8)---but I rated it 10 to offset the all the ones given to it by the anti-Moore crowd. A frightening look at a community trying anything (including bullying, bribery, and law suits) to stop Michael Moore from speaking at a conservative Utah college. It's a peek at the American brand of fascism. The effort is organized by Kay Anderson---who has made many attempts to stop events in the community before. I think all Americans conservative and liberal should agree on one thing---Freedom of Speech. Anderson is quoted as saying "Free speech works because most of us know when to keep our mouths shut". This misses the whole point of freedom of speech. The movie is flawed in spots. The segment about the guy who looks like Moore comes to mind. Overall its a very good documentary and it really shows the colliding attitudes in our country today.

This is a fine, fine documentary.

Stangely--or, perhaps, tellingly--the only "weak" part is the footage of the "provacative" speaking engagements by Hannity and Moore. At the end of my viewing of the main movie, before watching the extras, I was left with impressions of these appearances as being weaker than the dialog (and diatribe) shown in the rest of the film. What the editors decided to show was pretty much the "feel-good" aspect of Hannity and Moore's deliveries; the playing-to-the-crowd, singing-to-the-choir stuff. However, there were two extras tracks featuring more of the content part of these talks, which were significantly more substantive, especially Moore's, than what you see in the movie. Bonus tracks are nice, but in the end a movie needs to be able to "stand alone." As it was, it left me with a feeling that all the community fire and passion which had gone before had been ill-spent on these unworthies; that's it's one thing to vociferously defend the right of someone to challenge prevailing thought, but it's another to have your beneficiary then use that podium to pat backs and not hit the issues hard. Again though, the extra footage showcasing Moore's substantive positions mitigated this, and, to a lesser extent, with Hannity.

In my humble opinion, if you keep that proviso in mind, you'll find the movie well worth viewing, and in fact a pretty good picture of red-state mentality. Remember: It *can* happen here.

I have to admit, I'm baffled by the constant attacks on Moore, (that his films are supposedly sloppy, poorly researched, one-sided and full of "lies.") I'm not saying that every single detail in "F911" is true, but I think Moore's films are a lot more accurate and balanced than he gets credit for. I think Moore's films, by and large are every bit as accurate as most "serious" documentary films (the only difference being that Moore's films generate blockbuster box office). Most of the attacks that I've seen on Moore's work are often highly selective, misleading and full of lies themselves. And these days, what exactly is the "truth"? I mean, Bush tells more lies in a typical 15-minute speech than you'll get from watching any Moore film. (But you'd never convince a brainwashed fanatical Bush supporter that their beloved hero lies about anything). And Fox "News" spews out lies and right-wing propaganda 24 hours a day. Even the media that the intellectual Left respects (The New York Times) is full of lies these days. I mean, reporter Judith ("Bush's Case for War is Solid") Miller told many lies in a highly deceptive manner. Bottom line: if Moore's work was so full of "lies," then he would not have been the target of the extraordinary and vicious attacks and deaths threats that he's received from the Right in this country. Instead of going through Moore's work with a fine tooth comb and trying to pick out tiny flaws, I suggest you examine the central premise that Moore raises in his work. Most of the investigative legwork in "F911" for example was done by Craig Unger, who's "House of Bush, House of Saud" was a devastating indictment of the Bush Crime Family. Unger's work was, by the way, completely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media----so we ought to be grateful to Moore for giving Unger a platform that he otherwise wouldn't have had. And as far as the "lies" in Moore's films, instead of slandering the man's films with sweeping generalizations, how about someone here actually specifically detailing a few of these "lies" for a change?