Footnote: This is the original review I wrote back when I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 the first time in 2004. Not one word has been changed. Compare it to what I've written recently upon second viewing and it would seem as if I've seen two different films.
Fahrenheit 9/11
* * (two stars)
Directed by: Michael Moore
Let's get some thoughts you may have out of the way:
* I don't like George W. Bush
* I am not a closet or any other type of conservative
* I'm not giving this movie a negative review because everyone else seemed to have liked it.
* I have nothing visceral against Michael Moore or what he represents.
With all of that being true, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a meandering film that failed to invoke a passionate response in me to the material. To me, Moore wasn't as concise and passionate with this material as he was in Bowling For Columbine. Was the fault mine or his? I don't know, but I certainly know what I wasn't feeling during the film. In Columbine, the idea of an NRA member like Moore questioning this country's bizarre dependence on guns is much more compelling. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not as personal a film to Moore. He is attacking a presidency which certainly deserves to be attacked, but perhaps such a broad subject doesn't suit Moore as well. He sees all, but doesn't see through.
The election of 2000 will forever be marred by its controversial outcome and Moore is clearly able to state that Bush stole the election. Who would disagree? And of course Bush's abnormal amount of vacationing is lampooned. But be honest, what do you expect in a country in which most of the federal government gets a free day off because of Ronald Reagan's funeral? But then Moore depicts the Bush family's ties with the Saudis, which to me represents a stretch in attempting to imply wrongdoing.
Yes, the Bush family has financial ties with powerful Saudi bigwigs. And yes, members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country only days after 9/11. But these Bin Ladens had no real ties with the most infamous Bin Laden except the name. There is a reference to them all attending a wedding, but how many of us have to attend a wedding with people we don't like or talk to for the sake of the family? Come on, be honest. And yet, Moore clearly tries to make A + B= C, stating that the Saudis funded Al-Qaeda but because of Bush's business interests, he overlooked them. Actually, he states that 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudis and that Bin Laden himself is a Saudi. Fine. But Bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan, as stated later in the film. His base of operations was in Afghanistan, as also stated later. The Saudi ties to 9/11 were indirect at best. There is no proof or attribution that Saudi Arabia funded Al-Qaeda. I would love to totally believe the scenario, but the evidence of wrongdoing is circumstantial. As much as I would like to buy it, I couldn't.
Moore also talks about the way the media promotes fear as a way of keeping people behind the war on terror. He discussed this as well in Bowling For Columbine. But in Columbine, he also takes us to Canada, where the news isn't slanted so negatively. The episodes depicted here aren't likely to get anyone to stop the presses. But if there is one thing I would've liked to have seen more of, it's the studying of the idea that Bush promotes the cause of freedom, but here in the U.S., he promotes almost a dictatorial rule over those who oppose him verbally or otherwise. There is some of that here with the Patriot Act footage, but to me that is more interesting than even the study of a war based on a lie.
Yes, the war in Iraq is the ultimate effect of Bush's presidency. He wanted Hussein out due to a family vendetta, but it is here where the film is at its longest in terms of feel and content. Moore tends to show footage which allows the subjects to talk on and on. There is so much Moore wants to say along with his subjects, but he doesn't present it in a concise way which hammers the point home. It's here where I got the feeling that Moore didn't want to leave anything out for fear that you may miss his point. I feel this was a filmmaking error more than anything else. Moore's belief seems to be that the idea is so gripping that you won't care if the images thrown out at you don't flow or unfold evenly.
But I guess the thing I didn't like the most was the subconscious effort by Moore to depict Saddam Hussein as a harmless victim. Early in the film, Moore states that despite "evidence" that other parties had to do with 9/11, the focus was on someone else. The film then cuts to footage of Saddam Hussein dancing and for some reason, people in the theater laughed. The film also shows kids playing on the playground in Iraq before the planes started dropping bombs on Baghdad in 2003. Many kids and civilians were killed needlessly, but let's not forget that Hussein is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people. Moore points out that Iraq was a sovereign nation which never killed a single American civilian. Hussein has been painted as an innocent victim of Bush, but he is not innocent. Before 1942, Hitler had not killed a single American civilian either, but that didn't make him any less dangerous to those he had killed.
No comments:
Post a Comment