03 July 2004Cinema
Fahrenheit 9/11
I finally saw F911 this week and I've had some time to reflect on it so here it goes. The film brought up a number of emotions and when I sat in the theatre watching it, I was supremely uncomfortable. The opening scene about the 2000 presidential election opened up old wounds. I can remember driving home from work on election day. I was driving up the 101 to Burlingame listening to NPR report that Gore had taken Florida. That settled it essentially, the election was over. But by the time I got into my apartment, the situation had changed.
Now I'm not a Democrat or Republican. I'm a independent moderate. I had wanted John McCain to win the election and still think we'd be far better off with the Arizona Senator in the White House than any of the 3 choices that the we had in early November 2000. I wasn't a gigantic Gore fan, but I was decidedly anti-Bush.
Then there's the scene in the movie with all the members of the Congressional Black Caucus offering protests against election fraud in Florida presided over with grace by Al Gore in his role as VP and President of the Senate, and it makes you realize once again what a different country we would be now if the Democrats had won office.
But that's not what bothered me about the movie, it just set the tone. What really disturbed me were two scenes, not about the Saudis or the Bush family connection to the bin Ladens, not the lying about the war in Iraq, not Bush sitting in the Florida classroom not knowing or comprehending what to do, not that members of Congress don’t read bills they vote for, not the lengthy presidential vacations, not anything except Bush speaking in 1992 vis a vis his role with the Harkin Oil company about his access to the White House and the scene where the two Marines are out recruiting in the worst part of one of the worst cities in America.
The interview which Bush gave in 1992 is greatly disturbing because it shows his tendency towards an abuse of power. You could just see this young, immature kid successful only because of his connections to power, taking huge advantage of a situation that very few of us will ever have. Inside the smirk that came with the remark was the sum total of the incurious, won’t take responsibility for anything, lazy individual who is now the President of the United States.
The scene with the Marine recruiters sweeping the poor suburbs of Flint, Michigan for warm bodies was chilling. It would be one thing if we were diligently prosecuting a war against the people who attacked us, but we’re not. We’re engaged in a diversion of questionable expedience to keep the American people on edge in an effort to support a war of indefinite length. This ongoing war requires soldiers. At the same time we’re sending young Americans off to fight, we’re finding soldiers not amongst America’s elite, not even in the families of the Middle Class that politicians like to talk about, but amongst the poor, the destitute, the lowest of the low of American society. There is something fundamentally wrong about that.
My hopes for the movies is that it will get people taking about the issues Moore raises in the film and get people off their asses and register to vote. You can like or dislike the filmmaker, but that shouldn’t stop you from discussing the merits of our special relationship with the Saudis or whether America deserves a president who works hard. I’ve been watching CNN and FOX and MSNBC, and they almost never talk about the issues in the film. What they do is talk about the politics of the filmmaker and the film’s possible impact on the election. The political right, most notably the fiends at Fox and a folks on the conservative side of Crossfire don’t want a discussion on the merits because they know it raises too many questions they can’t answer. Instead they spend their time discrediting Michael Moore. (Scarborough Country had a piece entitled, “Does Michael Moore Hate America?”, for example).
It’s not my job to defend Michael Moore. I have my problems with the man. I think his films would be greatly enhanced were it not for his egotistical need to insert himself into his own documentaries in inflammatory situations such as reading the Patriot Act over the loud speaker of an ice cream truck to the members of Congress. But you have to hand it to him. He is a political provocateur par excellence. And while members of the Fox All-Stars are arguing over whether his film is a documentary or propaganda, they can’t stop hundred of thousands of people from going to see this film, quite the opposite. The more they discuss. The more they rant and rave. The faster the turnstiles flip.
You know that CNN and ABC and Zogby and just about every other news gathering organization on the planet is going to be doing exit polls. I have no doubt that they will be asking voters if F911 had any effect on their vote. I hope people will say that the movie didn’t swing their decision one way or the other, but it was F911 that inspired them to register to vote for the first time.
Posted by andrew at July 3, 2004 11:47 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference:
http://www.americanidle.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/740
'Fahrenheit 9/11'.
OK, let's talk the merits.
First, there are a lot of things I liked about the movie.
But I put in the "propaganda" column, rather than the documentary one.
Why?
1) Michael Moore claims that the war in Afghanistan was all about the ability to furnish UNOCAL with an oil pipeline, rather than attacking the Taliban because they harbored Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and wouldn't hand him over.
2) Michael Moore said that "Saddam’s Iraq was a nation that “had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.”
Technically - very technically - perhaps true. Iraqis killed many Americans in the first Gulf War, as we killed many Iraqis. That's not considered "murder." But why even use the word "murder"? Also, Saddam attempted to have George H.W. Bush assassinated. Attempted murder is obviously not murder either, but the intent is there. Saddam also gave safe haven to Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, the former being one of the most prolific terrorists of all time, the latter being the guy who shot and threw Leon Klinghoffer over the deck of the Achille Lauro.
3) Michael Moore shows Bagdhad scenes before the war. A carnival with kids and a wedding. But absolutely no atrocities committed by the Ba'athist regime at the hands of Saddam. No mention of Kurds or Shia killed. No mention of admitted weapons programs. That's propaganda.
Now, obviously the Bush administration engaged in some shell games themselves, but that's no reason to ignore what Saddam, Uday and Qusay had been up to.
My reaction: interesting movie. Well done - pulled at your heartstrings at times. Will motivate those who are either dyed in the wool Democrats or fairly uninformed.
People who like George Bush won't be moved though. To me, it doesn't seem like it would play that well in the swing states. Even if they saw the movie - which is doing record numbers for a documentary, but in overall viewership doesn't seem to be coming anywhere near to touching that sizeable a chunk of the electorate - will they remember it come Novemnber? Doubtful.
The election hinges on two things. The economy - which by most accounts is getting better - and Iraq. If few people are dying in Iraq in the fall, he will probably win. If it's still a mess, Kerry will win.