Hippy's Happy Film Review

Fahrenheit 9/11




Details

US 2004 122m

Director

Michael Moore

Cast

Michael Moore

Appearances

Ben Affleck, John Ashcroft, Tom Brokaw, Barbara Bush, George Bush, George W Bush, Laura Bush, Tucker Carlson, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, John Conyers, Katie Couric, Tom Daschle, Robert De Niro, Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Katherine Harris, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Colin Powell, Dan Rather, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tim Russert, Britney Spears, Stevie Wonder



Propaganda

Noun - Information, ideas, opinions or images, often only giving one part of an argument, which are broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions.

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary


Have you got the WMD ?


Moore has polarised the movie going public; you either hate this film or you love it, you either give it a standing ovation or you condemn it for its lies its untruths, and its misrepresentations.

I was therefore somewhat surprised to find that my opinion fell somewhere in the centre of these extreme views.

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.





Site Navigation

  Home Page
  What's New
  Film Reviews
  Search
  Add Bookmark
  Have Your Say
  Guestbook



Ratings



First published on Tuesday the 20th of July, 2004 at 20:31:03
Last upload was on Tuesday the 10th of August, 2004 at 23:00:29