Perhaps it is because I am more familiar with the information that Moore hands
out than other movie-goers were that I didn't feel the indignation and
rising outrage as the film progressed as other members of the audience
evidently did.What Moore presents is a series of visual sound-bites, news reports, 'to
camera' pieces, interviews, and a collage of material from elsewhere, all
running alongside his own voice-over, a personal take on what's wrong with
America today, and particular it's President, George W Bush.
It is not a documentary, and Moore never claimed that it was. Indeed he has
stood up and loudly shouted that it is not documentary, but that is the genre
in which it has been placed, and for that categorisation the right-wing have
attacked him.
It certainly is propaganda, it is the message that Moore wants to present, and
he presents his side of the case, his argument, and in the way he wants to. If
you expect to see a balance of opinion then go make your own film, don't expect
Moore to do the job for you.
Whether you choose to believe everything Moore says or not - and you'd have to
be stupid and gullible to believe that Moore can any better than the rest of us
read what was going through Bush's mind as he sat 'gormlessly' in a Florida
classroom after being told that America was under attack - it is not so much
what he says as what he presents; factual evidence that has not been disputed
by those who have set out to criticise or tear down his film.
Maybe Moore is wrong to suggest there is something amiss when he gives us Bush
confidently telling us that he "will take Florida", points out that it's
his brother Jeb who is the Governor there, and that the first to call Florida
for Bush, in the wake of everyone else saying Gore had taken it, on election
night was another relative of the Bush clan. But it certainly raises eyebrows.
As too do the revelations of the inter-tangled lives of some of the world's
biggest players, and not least the details of the Bush family's involvement with
the family of the Master of All Evil (TM) - Osama bin Laden. For those who have
been aware of it, Bush's close relationships with Saudi Arabia have raised many
question, most of which remain unanswered.
It is undeniably true that 15 of the 19 terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11
atrocity were Saudi Arabians and that some 28 pages of the official
investigation relating to Saudi involvement were censored by the White House,
so it is not hard nor unreasonable to ask why, and wonder what the motives are.
Why, when so many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, is that
country still embraced with a warm handshake while Iraq gets bombed ? Why was
the whole bin Laden family whisked out of America the minute the ban on flights
after 9/11 was relaxed, depriving the security services of their chance to
interview those who were closest to the mastermind behind the largest terrorist
attack on US soil, and well known to be behind attacks on other US interests
earlier ? It's hard to believe we are getting the full picture from official
sources.
When Moore presents members of Bush's Administration adamantly telling us, in
2001, in their own words, that Saddam had no offensive capability it is
obvious that something is seriously at odds with the original opinion when
so soon after the entire opposite is uttered by the very same players.
It is not what Moore tells us that opens people's eyes, but what the players
say themselves. Moore just puts it together as he thinks it fits, and lets the
audience make up its own mind, to decide if his point is right or wrong.
And that is what has made Fahrenheit 9/11 so appealing to so many people,
and especially those who have only a cursory interest in the political world,
which is to be honest, most people. Moore puts the thoughts of everyday folk on
screen, and confirms to them that they are right to be concerned and that their
worries may not be unfounded. For those who knew nothing of the more shadey
side of Bush's past, the film will be undeniably revealing and shocking.
Moore may be manipulative - his cutting of scenes of happiness in Baghdad to
those of destruction and devastation play on the emotions of an audience - but
then so too has the current US Administration; is one devil better or worse
than another ? Can Moore be legitimately criticised for playing the game the
same way the Bush Administration has ?
Neither is Moore afraid of the cheap-shot; Britney Spears' sycophantic and
pretty much glib and gibberish call to put all faith in the President, serves
his argument well, but it wasn't he who asked Spears to sound so outstandingly
stupid and misguided. If Bush makes himself look like an idiot or a bumbling
buffoon, then why should Moore be faulted for showing it as it is ?
There would appear to be little that could be called new to those who have
closely followed the events alongside Moore, but even so he still manages to
reach out and shock the most cynical, anti-Bush, hardened activist by showing
us the true horror of war, on both sides. All too often it is easy to forget
that war is intense suffering, and casualties are not one-sided. Even those
'in the wrong' suffer tremendously, and while we may be inclined to dismiss
their suffering as being deserving of it, it is heartless and blinkered.
Moore shows us the true face of infinite suffering, both Iraqi and American.
The anguish of one soul-torn mother who has lost her son in Iraq is but one
thousandth of the whole anguish of American women who have lost their loved
ones in Iraq, and just one-tenth of a thousandth of mothers in Iraq. It is
a powerful statement, following the footage of Army recruitment officers
scouring the streets of poverty stricken America to feed the war's killing
machine. The naivity of pimple-faced youths with few options but to sign-up to
get a life for themselves in the US Army is highlighted well as Bloodhound
Gang's Fire Water Burn crashes in crescendo - "Burn motherf---er burn" -
and contrasts with the reality that their decision may well be
the precursor to the end of their lives on Bush's bidding.
Whether Moore has got it right or wrong, it is clear that there are a great
many questions that we need to ask about Bush, the reasons behind the recent
military actions the US has engaged in, and the motives that lay behind them.
His source material, primarily video footage taken from on-air transmissions,
transfers poorly to the big screen, which detracts from the visual quality of
the film, but that is not really his fault. The editing is impeccable, and
Moore has pulled a massive range of material together to present a coherent
whole that generally avoids meandering, and makes the two hour film feel much
shorter.
Moore has done an excellent job on the whole, and his efforts were indeed
greeted with a round of applause from some sections of the audience at the end;
and this was in no metropolitan-liberal or left-wing, activist stronghold.
Perhaps I'd become desensitised or over familiar to the information
presented, but very little of the film really moved me. I'd expected some truly
amazing revelations, but it was generally the same old story. I can however see
why it would be so emotionally greeted by those to whom the information was
generally new. That is perhaps what has riled those who object to what Moore
presents; that he is taking the old news to a new audience.
I'm not so sure that Fahrenheit 9/11 is deserving of the high accolades
it has been given, but that is only the view from my perspective. I'd have
prefered to see an academically inclined, hard-hitting, evidence laden,
documentary linking the facts together and hammering the links home, but that
is not Moore's style, and nor would it necessarily be good cinema.
Moore does present facts, and he does make the links, and it's notoriously
hard to join the dots when the whole 9/11 affair has been wrapped in secrecy,
disinformation, misinformation, untruths and lies. He presents a film in his
own style, which appeals to many, but not to all. It is a fine attempt to do
what it sets out to do, and does it well, it just didn't rock my boat as much
as I'd hoped or expected.