Release Date: June 25, 2004
Directed by: Michael Moore
Written by: Michael Moore
Distributed by: Lions Gate Films
MPAA Rating: R (images of violence, language)
Michael Moore’s mission has always been to tell shockingly real stories of big corporations and sneaky politicians taking advantage of us, the less powerful and unsuspecting American people, and Fahrenheit 9/11, which essentially claims that the Bush Administration’s reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 -- leading up to and including the war in Iraq -- was a shameless attempt to raise President Bush’s popularity numbers, is certainly his most disturbing film to date. Regardless of whether you believe in this theory, Moore presents interesting conjecture with clever, attention-grabbing techniques. But while this has always been the case with Moore -- as you can see in his best works, Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine -- he is bolder than ever in this so-called documentary.
Not surprisingly, it’s a very leftist, liberal-minded film, and one that’s unfortunately too one-sided to thoroughly prove its point with any credibility. But aside from the debate over Moore’s theories, as a film, Fahrenheit 9/11 is highly stimulating and worth a look no matter what your political leanings.
You may remember Moore’s acceptance speech for the Best Documentary award at the 2003 Oscars, in which he proclaimed the 2000 election results “fictitious” and said that Bush should be ashamed of himself for attacking Iraq. As many agreed, the display was inappropriate that night, but now the audacious filmmaker has funneled all of that angst into this movie. It begins with the controversial election that gave Bush the presidency and then builds to reveal many unsettling pieces of information about the administration, its reaction to the events of September 11, and the decision to begin a second war in Iraq. Through well placed archival footage, sharp editing, clever narration, and an appropriate musical score, Moore definitely succeeds at grabbing our attention -- and never lets go.
Moore presents many disturbing ideas, and among the first are President Bush’s seemingly paralyzed state upon learning of the planes that struck the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. Many of us saw the footage of him being visibly upset at that moment, as he was reading to children in a Florida elementary school, but what we didn’t see is how he sat in the same chair for nearly 10 minutes, not making a sound or a movement. (The teacher of that Florida class happened to be taping her own video that day, and no one had seen that footage until it was used here.) This is the first of many scenarios Moore uses to make Bush look downright incompetent.
It’s these moments, the ones that sell themselves without Moore’s intervention, that give Fahrenheit 9/11 its edge. Even the most avid conservative must admit that Bush has given a lot of material for Moore to work with in that respect, and the movie is packed with quotes, speeches, and other situations that essentially show the president making a fool out of himself. Whether it was appropriate for Moore to exploit these sound bytes is for the audience to decide, but even for those who don’t like how they’re used will have to admit that director has a knack for picking Bush’s worst moments.
Moore’s case also includes information about the Bush family’s business ties to the Saudi royal family as well as the Bin Ladens (who say they have disowned Osama); how the Patriot Act was passed apparently without the least bit of scrutiny; how the Bush administration was quoted as saying Saddam Hussein’s regime wasn’t a threat in early 2001; and how the war in Iraq may be more a business decision than a fight for freedom. Not unlike Oliver Stone’s superbly assembled (but thoroughly fictional) conspiracy film JFK, Moore presents all of these things with intriguing visual references at exactly the right moments and even has us laughing at the portrait of silliness he’s painting of American government.
We see actual footage of George H.W. Bush dealing with the Saudis at business meetings; the Saudi ambassador admitting on TV’s “Larry King Live” that the Bin Ladens (some of whom were U.S. residents) might have easily known where Osama was; and an interview with a FBI official who knew about the government’s protection of the Bin Laden family.
There’s also a hilarious “roll call” scene that shows just how thin the “coalition of the willing” actually is, with nations among them that barely have a military to support us. There’s also a very funny “Dragnet” sequence that begs the question of why we didn’t interrogate the Bin Laden family as to the whereabouts of their most dangerous son.
Because of these moments, Fahrenheit 9/11 holds our attention. But Michael Moore’s point becomes so plainly one-sided that the movie becomes a mere platform for the filmmaker’s personal beliefs and not a vehicle to credibly prove anything. With all of the evidence he’s collected and cleverly displayed, he does nothing to show there are other sides to the issues.
To emphasize the drama of the war in Iraq, Moore shows a peaceful Baghdad with people enjoying themselves at outdoor restaurants and playgrounds just before the devastating attack by the United States. There is footage of huge explosions, all of which Moore fails to explain were in areas of strategic importance, not places packed with innocent civilians, as he insinuates. And he gives no time to the awful truths about Saddam Hussein’s regime, which is something that even the most staunchly antiwar protestor has to admit were much worse than anything our government has done.
Moore also visits a mother in his hometown of Flint, Michigan, and though the story of her son’s death in Iraq is truly tragic, it’s clear that he has chosen her more for her political stance than for her family’s military ties. She reads a letter from her son, written before he died in a helicopter crash, that calls Bush a fool and says the war is being fought for nothing. Why doesn’t the movie show any of the hundreds of other families who have lost sons or daughters but continue to support Bush and the war?
This makes it quite obvious that Moore had an agenda with the film, and instead of using his talent to fully convince the audience of his views -- like he did with Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine -- he lets us know only his side of the story. He fails to pose a strong case for those against him. At times it seems as though he’s merely out to irritate the many who have always disagreed with him and please those that already believe in what he does. Ultimately, Moore comes dangerously close to being what he hates most, someone who uses fear and twisted truths to achieve his goals. Still, Fahrenheit 9/11 is an intriguing and well-made film that deserves to be watched and debated, just not watched and fully believed.
-- Andy Zientek (zfilm@earthlink.net)