Roger Ebert: (Fahrenheit) '9/11': Just the facts? (in defense of Michael Moore documentaries)

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.

That would not sway voters and it certainly does nothing to challenge the vile propaganda being pumped by the left.

I say show a dozen decapitation videos (Daniel Pearle, Nick Berg, the old footage of a Russian solider, footage of missionaries...). Show the abuses at Abu Ghraib under Saddam.

Show the hoaxed images of British soldiers urinating on "Iraqi" prisoners. Show the headlines that reveal that the editor was fired. Show the investigation into that antiwar propaganda effort. Show the internet sex site photos of "US soldiers" "raping" "arab women and prisoners". Show how the arab press (and even the Boston Globe) printed those photos as fact. All of this before the Nick Berg decapitation. Ask if this propaganda was responsible for giving a false impression of just what happened at Abu Ghraib.

Show images of the hundreds of people who fell from the WTC on 9-11-2001 (not falling, but the after effects).

Show the protest banners at the "peace" protests:

I'm sick of the lying media and any "conservative" film designed to combat Michael Moore's propaganda film must (A) show why we fight in Iraq (Frank Capra made these type of films for the US Government during WWII) and (B) just who it is that makes up the ranks of the "antiwar" movement.

Explaining how Americans rose up to take down flight 93 does nothing to either end and recreated dramatizations only waters down a documentary.

Look at some of the Disney produced WWII cartoons (like Victory Through Airpower or Education For Death, The Making Of A Nazi) and you will see some powerful filmmaking (that despite the titles, was not explict in regards to Nazi attrocities).

This FLASH animation film does not get explict but for a short film, it does a lot to help people remember (although there is nothing on the "antiwar movement"). Watch this and you may not need to see a 911 film made, forward the link to your friends and associates:

Don't Ever Forget - Remember The Blood Of Heroes

Michael is challenging the rating (on his site he has also encouraged underage viewers to sneak in anyway)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?messageDate=2004-06-18

On top of all this, the MPAA gave the film an "R" rating. I want all teenagers to see this film. There is nothing in the film in terms of violence that we didn't see on TV every night at the dinner hour during the Vietnam War. Of course, that's the point, isn't it? The media have given the real footage from Iraq a "cleansing" -- made it look nice, easy to digest. Mario Cuomo has offered to be our lawyer in appealing this ruling by the MPAA. Frankly, I would like to think the MPAA is saying that the actions by the Bush administration are so abhorrent and revolting, we need to protect our children from seeing what they have done. In that case, the film should be rated NC-17!
However it turns out, I trust all of you teenagers out there will find your way into a theater to see this movie. If the government believes it is OK to send slightly older teenagers to their deaths in Iraq, I think at the very least you should be allowed to see what they are going to draft you for in a couple of years.

The only "proper" way for minors to see R rated films is to attend with their parents or legal guardians. Michael Moore did not ask them to persuade their parents to take them.

There is also this lie: MoveOn.org is a pair of Clinton Cronies. Grassroots my ass. They had stated their socialist goals online in an earlier incarnation of the website. Algore lost the 2000 election, they need to "move on".

(The members of MoveOn.org—an ACTUAL grassroots organization—have done a very cool thing. They are pledging to send a message to theater owners and are planning to attend a showing of the film on its opening weekend.)

Only in a society where multiple views are expressed and examined can you truly have a democracy. Who can you imagine initiating a book-burning - Bush or Moore ? When you compare the films that Moore produces to Nazi propaganda, you had better be able to defend yourself. Making deliberate comments to devalue a human's life by comparing him/her to Nazi germany without evidence is reckless and dangerous.

Just because an individual has an opposing point of view, does not make them a Nazi. Nazi's were intolerant of the Jews - can you not say the same about how you react to the left.

It seems odd that the left you dislike so much will at least listen to your opinion. How many liberal talk shows/web sites do you know off ? How many conserative talk shows/web sites do you know off ? A conservative friend of mine and I were talking about this and he could only name one - NPR - which ironically includes conservatives when discussing issues. Once I pointed that out, he could not think of another.

My point is only that hate, anger, prejudice and ignorance seeks to divide humans.

I challenge each of you to watch the movie and make your own decisions. Check the facts - most of which can be checked against the 9/11 commission report. I have seen several reporters question Moore as to the accuracy - for example, that the Saudis/Bin Laden families were interviewed by the FBI (not all of them mind you - something like 30-40 out of 130) - and the movie is in line with this. However, why are they focused on this when the fact that the administration gathered Saudi/Bin Laden families to fly them out of the US - does anyone here agree with the Bush Administration flying out these people ??? How can you possibly defend this ?

ZOT! (not by my hand).

When you compare the films that Moore produces to Nazi propaganda, you had better be able to defend yourself.

The film stands singular in its purpose, does not let fact stand in the way of the message, and is promoted by the terrorist organization Hezbollah in the United Arab Emirates.

Even this liberal is quick to admit that it is purely a piece of propaganda:

Harry Knowles' "Ain't It Cool News" FAHRENHEIT 9/11 review

At last. Finally. I’ve seen FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and frankly, having seen the film, I think the title is all wrong. The temperature at which freedom burns isn’t really the goal of the film. Yes, this film does have tangible real world goals, with every sprocket hole, this flick is asking you to not re-elect that Bush dude. This is propaganda.
I love propaganda, it’s fascinating. [snip]
So how does FAHRENHEIT 9/11 stack up to Capra’s great work of Propaganda? Well, pretty damn good actually. In some ways, I feel the title of the movie should be: WHY WE VOTE, because honestly… that’s what this film is about and for. Like Capra, Michael is looking to erase any sense of propriety from this administration. Michael Moore shows the viewer how this isn’t just one Bush, but all the Bushes that we need to burn.
[snip]
If Michael Moore’s purpose was to reinforce my beliefs that Bush and his cadre of criminals must be removed from office this November, then by golly… he succeeded!

Read this user comment on the German film, The Eternal Jew:

A film used to "educate" the German public on the "danger" allegedly posed by the Jews, this film does all it can to paint Jews as subhuman (or better, anti-human) monstrosities.
Randall Bytwerk points-out in his biography of Nazi leader Julius Streicher (an excellent book which is much more about anti-Jewish propaganda techniques than it is a biography) that it was impossible for the Nazis to actually make the mass of Germans actively hate their Jewish fellow citizens. Bytwerk argues that the propaganda machinery focused on the idea of making Jews seem so wretched, disgusting and hateful that they would appear to be beings simply not worth caring about. This film, it seems to me, takes that as its motivation.
There is one interesting moment that hurts the filmmakers' cause: the camera panning over the crowds in the ghetto, when a group of Jewish youngsters are shown plainly trying to look over one another's shoulders and heads, grinning at the camera. Such moments would remind the average person that these were plainly people like anyone you might know.
Overall, however, the Berlin Gestapo reported that audience reaction to this film was "highly favorable," particularly the scenes equating Jews with disease-spreading rodents.

It seems odd that the left you dislike so much will at least listen to your opinion. How many liberal talk shows/web sites do you know off ? How many conserative talk shows/web sites do you know off ? A conservative friend of mine and I were talking about this and he could only name one - NPR - which ironically includes conservatives when discussing issues. Once I pointed that out, he could not think of another.

NPR has a number of programs (it is not merely one show). I pay taxes for it. How many conservative programs do you pay taxes to put on the air?

Pacifica is also Federally subsidized. All liberal, all the time.

Certainly you've heard of Herr America, Al Franken's failed attempt at a Liberal Radio bloc.

Here is a sample of what was said there by a host:

Liberal radio is airing bad jokes and worst taste (GM will no longer run ads on Air America)

President Bush should be taken out and shot.

(Randi Rhodes, I think)

When we go to the alphabet networks (ABCBSNBCNNPBS) the liberal dogma is enforced.

No liberal websites? Surely you are joking. Democratic Underground, Indymedia, MoveOn.org...

Campaign Finance Reform does not permit a Bush supporter to buy air time to broadcast a response to this movie even though it will be flooding video store shelves on the eve of the election.

Do you think this movie was made for any other reason than as a smear campaign to sway an election? Why not release it at Christmas?

I challenge each of you to watch the movie and make your own decisions. Check the facts - most of which can be checked against the 9/11 commission report. I have seen several reporters question Moore as to the accuracy - for example, that the Saudis/Bin Laden families were interviewed by the FBI (not all of them mind you - something like 30-40 out of 130) - and the movie is in line with this. However, why are they focused on this when the fact that the administration gathered Saudi/Bin Laden families to fly them out of the US - does anyone here agree with the Bush Administration flying out these people ??? How can you possibly defend this ?

Who does Michael Moore champion in this film? Richard Clarke. Who is responsible for the decision to permit the Bin Ladens to leave? Richard Clarke.

Who turned in Ted Kazenski? His brother. Not all families share fanaticism or like to see their names turned to sh*t.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.