Michael Moore, Farhenheit 9/11 (2004)
Posted by Pierre Igot in: MoviesOctober 15th, 2004 • 1:07 am
I had the opportunity to watch this movie on DVD this week. Even for someone who’s stayed reasonably well informed over the past few years, there were enough surprises and unseen footage in it to keep it fresh and powerful. It really is amazing. I keep reading in the media about how George W. Bush can be “charming” and that is one of his strengths, but I really don’t see how he can have this effect on people. I think people are mostly scared that such a person has so much power, and can’t help but feel disbelief when they see how he behaves and talks. How this would amount to “charm” for anyone is beyond me.
John Kerry is accused of being aloof and elitist, but then you have George Bush Senior responding to Michael Moore’s movie not by addressing any of the issues he raises, but by saying that he’s a “slimeball“. Who’s the elitist now?
The problem with the Bushes’ elitism is that it is totally undeserved, and that makes it even more despicable. Basically, George W. is a jerk. With or without 9/11, he was and remains a total jerk. Of course, there are still enough checks and balances (for how long?) in the US political system to ensure that even the most complete jerk can become and remain president without bringing the entire system down, but that doesn’t make him any less of a jerk.
Some of the most successful parts of the movie, as far as I am concerned, are the scenes where Al Gore, by virtue of his position, presides over his own demise. I didn’t realize that not a single senator (Democrat or Republican) had been willing to support the unsuccessful attempts to derail Bush’s illegitimate accession to power. This was a major ethical failure on the part of elected representatives, and to a degree America as a whole is still suffering from the consequences of this.
Other rather powerful scenes include the sequence on 9/11, where the most striking (and well-known) pictures of the attack are not used, but only the soundtrack, over a black screen, and then less spectacular, but emotionally charged scenes, such as the dust and paper falling from the sky, provide a welcome “alternative” version of the event.
I was also quite shocked (call me old fashioned) by the fact that the movie started with a screen warning the viewer that the contents of the movie are “for entertainment purposes only“. I know it’s just legalese intended to avoid litigation and what not. But I still found it shocking.
I also found it rather hypocritical of the Cannes festival jury to emphasize that the award had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the artistic merit of the film. This amounts to treating the viewer as an idiot. Who can deny that this movie is a political statement? Who can deny that it has very little in common with what a movie usually consists of, i.e. actors, a story, a set, etc.? There is simply no way that this movie can be compared to typical festival fare. It might not be a “documentary” per se, but it’s certainly not a work of art either. I am not saying that it doesn’t have artistic merit, but it is impossible to imagine (and therefore pass judgment on) the movie without its political content and context.
Michael Moore himself is of course happy to play the game — but surely he’s fully aware of the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
What makes this movie so special is not its structure, its execution, etc. It’s the fact that it is true, that what is depicted is real, did happen, that what we are watching are, in many scenes, not Michael Moore’s own filming, but existing footage — and the fact that no one can honestly claim that it is only the way that Michael Moore put the whole thing together that makes it so powerful. In other words, Michael Moore didn’t take existing footage and use that to build a new truth, something fictional that has nothing to do with the reality. What he did, in most cases, is let the images speak for themselves, with minimal interference. And all you can do is shake your head in disbelief. That’s the real power of the movie.
Of course, there are debatable aspects. There are some cheap blows. There are some rather unimpressive gimmicks. But on the whole the fact remains that the administration of the most powerful country on earth is currently in the hands of a complete jerk surrounded by despicable people. A lot of what the immediate future holds depends on what happens on November 2nd. And Michael Moore’s movie might just end up having played a major role in the way that history will unfold.
October 16th, 2004 at Oct 16, 04 | 1:52 pm
I agree with your reaction to the film and the president. Through what is, essentially, a massive marketing campaign, Bush has managed to fool people into thinking that a son of privilege, a Yale graduate, frat boy, an MBA with massive crony connections that have managed to put his unqualified ass in the Oval Office, is somehow a folksy every-man – the kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with.
The jokes on the rubes who believe this bunk, however. Not only would Bush never have a beer with them, he won’t even allow them into his well-orchestrated speeches unless they sign an oath of loyalty.
Remember, most of us didn’t vote for this guy the last time. And we’re ashamed our institutions failed us and installed him in the White House. We hope to set it right this time around.
October 16th, 2004 at Oct 16, 04 | 11:35 am
” I keep reading in the media about how George W. Bush can be “charming” and that is one of his strengths, but I really don’t see how he can have this effect on people. I think people are mostly scared that such a person has so much power, and can’t help but feel disbelief when they see how he behaves and talks. How this would amount to “charm” for anyone is beyond me.”
“What we are trying to do is give Hitler a three-dimensional portrait, because we know from all accounts that he was a very charming man,” said director Oliver Hirschbiegel. “A man who managed to seduce a whole people into barbarism.” <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019248/>
I sincerly hope the citizens of the US are not fooled by Bush’s ‘charm’ when they go to vote next month.
October 17th, 2004 at Oct 17, 04 | 2:06 am
Seth: Of course, to a certain degree, Michael Moore builds his own truth. Everybody does. But my point was that, in many cases, in Farhenheit 9/11, the images speak for themselves. Michael Moore did little more than group them together. One of the main problems with Bush’s presidency is that he’s been able to take refuge behind the natural tendency of the American media to overanalyze things to the point that they totally lose perspective on the subject and miss the obvious. And you certainly cannot blame Moore for overanalyzing. In fact, there is so little analysis that it’s precisely what makes the movie so powerful: the evidence against Bush is simply overwhelming.
I also don’t quite understand why you are quoting this thing about Bowling for Columbine. We’re talking about Farhenheit 9/11 here, which admittedly you haven’t seen. Are you questioning the validity of Farhenheit 9/11 based on the questionable validity of Bowling for Columbine? That’s not what your first sentence says (you say that you were a Moore fan until F9/11). In any case, the problem with Bowling for Columbine and the particular incident you mentioned is similar. I don’t really care whether you can actually open an account and get a free gun right away. I believe that Moore used this more as an (exaggerated) example of the obvious: that guns are far too easily accessible in the US, and that the US is (in part) based on a culture of violence and taking matters into one’s own hands that is really not acceptable in a modern, civilized society.
But I certainly don’t want to start a discussion about gun control here :). I think it is OBVIOUS to everyone else in the world that America has a problem with guns, violence, and crime. The idea that there can be any kind of connection between opening a bank account and getting a gun is ridiculous. Whether you can get the gun right away or in a few week is largely irrelevant. That’s overanalyzing in order to mask the obvious.
October 17th, 2004 at Oct 17, 04 | 1:38 am
Pierre,
First a disclaimer: I have not seen Farenheit 9/11. However, until this film, I was a fan of Moore’s. I loved Roger and Me.
The film is not a “documentary.” Period. Ken Burns made documentaries. Michael Moore made an opinion essay on celluloid.
What?!?
What Michael Moore did, explicitly, is “take existing footage and use that to build a new truth.” That’s what he does; it’s his MO. I’m literally stuttering in disbelief at your statement.
I can’t get too detailed in a blog comment. Suffice it to say that the man has proven himself to be a misuser of facts. He puts misleading images before the audience and stands quietly back while they follow them to the wrong conclusion.
An example, from a column posted by Andy Ihnatko: