Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"
So much controversy has come of this film that it's hard to judge what's true about this film. Before the film came out, left wing pundits (members of the "left wing media machine" ::snort::)lauded the film for its honesty, while right wing talking heads (such as Joe Scarborough on MSNBC and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News) denounced the film as packed with lies. Keep in mind this was before the movie was even released to the American public. Thus, its likely that neither side had the whole story and, by the time they DID get it, they were unable to simply change their mind. So they did what all talking heads and pundits do: try and shout their opinion over the others. At this site, I'm the only one talking. It is because of this that I've chosen this forum to convey how I've felt about the film.
When I left the theater Monday night, I was speechless for a good five minutes. Normally after a movie is over I want to talk about my favorite parts, parts I thought could have been better, etc. This time was different. I couldn't quite wrap my head around all I had seen. As some time passed, though, certain ideas seemed to be settling in.
The first was that this was, cinematically, a better movie than Bowling for Columbine. The ideas had a clear flow. He was making a point with this film, and he used the information at his disposal to back it up. At no point does he make outrageous factual errors like others claim he made (he clearly does not, for example, say that the bin Ladens were shipped off before the flight bans were lifted). You can argue with his analysis, but I have yet to hear someone point out a specific fact he got wrong. This says to me it's not Moore who's afraid of the truth, but the ones who criticize him.
The most important aspect of this film, however, is the fact that it raises very important, pertinent questions. Why did all 100 senators refuse to sign a protest against the election results, even when a number of representatives had signed? Why did we not see the same drive to get Osama Bin Laden as the effort to get Saddam? For that matter, why was it that Afghanistan was abandoned in favor of Iraq? If, as Powell and Rice were shown to have said in the movie before 9/11, Iraq was NOT able to arm or aquire Weapons of Mass Destruction, how were they able to justify a reversal of their position only two years later?
Most importantly of all, why are these not issues that have been brought up by the media? After all, if the media is truly "liberal," these issues should have been beaten to death. Instead, we are treated to how Moore is "pro-Saddam" for showing images of happy Iraquis. Nevermind that he might have been showing that PEOPLE actually lived in Iraq as opposed to faceless masses. People who worked and had fun and lived just as we do. The fact we can not accept the contradiction of people having fun AND being under an oppressive dictator is what gives this film such a controversial edge: we must face things we may not want to face. The other charge, of course, is that the film is anti-soldier. This, too, could not be further from the truth. Moore depicts a wide range of soldiers with one clear message: they're there to do what they're there to do. The soldier is depicted as a hero and a family's gift to America. That doesn't mean, though, that their orders are right, merely that the soldiers are doing their duty to the country.
Of course, my view is that the media is, on the whole, neither liberal nor conservative. It's simply there to push talking points. The media did not cover this war in an unbiased fashion...but it's not the hypercritical left wing slant you've been lead to expect. It's the march in step, rally behind the flag conservative war cry. I came to this conclusion before Farenheit...I just never realized the scope.
This is not to say I agree with everything. Moore purports that the Afghani end of the "War on Terror" was all about a pipeline of natural gas from the Caspian Sea. Was it a benefit of the war? Absolutely. Would Bush have installed the new Afghani regime had they not agreed to the pipeline? That argument could certainly be made. That it is the sole or even main reason for the war, however, is implausible. Also, though the connections between the Bushes and Saudis are intriguing and probably result in some form of protectionism, I don't doubt that, for example, the secret service detail at the Saudi embassy might have more to do with the potential of hate crimes than any political connections. Like I said earlier...its not the facts that are amiss in this movie, but rather some of the conclusions.
In conclusion, this movie is brilliant. Moore shows he has the guts to stand up for what he believes in while maintaining the humor and workman like attitude that made his prior films so successful. For the issues it raises and for telling the other side of the story, Moore has made a film that should be required viewing for all who wish to participate in civil discourse in America. Nothing like this has ever been seen before. Is this movie fair? No. It is an op-ed piece that shows Moore's take on the film. Some may call this propaganda...and it is. Just as Fox News is propaganda. Just as the Bush and Kerry campaigns are propaganda. Moore isn't trying to be fair. Moore expects us to question what he says, just as we should with anyone who attempts to influence the way we think. Please don't take my word with this review. Go see this movie and bring friends. Discuss what you've seen. The worst that could happen is that you lose ticket money. At best, though, you could discover things that you never knew. This is, despite the words of talking heads and RNC members (no that wasn't a shot...I talked to a member of the RNC who categorically trashed a movie she not only hadn't seen, but wasn't planning to see). Just remember, all you have to lose is $5-10 and your ignorance.
10/10