Posted on 06/23/2004 12:52:28 PM PDT by NYC Republican
* * *
Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" arrives today in a blaze of hype and glory.
This diatribe against the Bush family, and especially against George W's handling of America's response to 9/11, is powerful enough to turn the stomach, if not a few votes in the upcoming presidential election - particularly on college campuses where the movie's questioning of authority and mocking tone are like mother's milk.
The movie is unabashedly political, yet it is entertaining enough to possibly become the top-grossing documentary in history. The thing is, it's not really a documentary.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is more reasonably seen as a filmic personal essay, drawing on all the things that make Moore both successful and infuriating - fun, provocative, messy, ingenious and slippery.
The movie is mostly an indictment of the Bush family's financial ties to the Saudis and the Bin Laden family. This complicated tangle of relationships - money and glad-handing, Moore argues - clouded the administration's judgment in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
By following the money trail, Moore makes a damning case for, at the very least, conflict of interest, and at worst, transgressions against the American people.
I was in tears after first seeing "Fahrenheit" at Cannes (the final version has been slightly tweaked since then). The images were powerful - a maimed Iraqi baby, a Michigan mother grieving for her dead soldier son before a cordoned-off White House.
My tears do not mean the movie is perfect. Moore goes off on tangents and takes cheap shots that could turn off even the people who side with him. Those shots may be okay for a popcorn movie, but they don't build a solid case. If Moore's intent truly is to unseat a government, he'll need more facts and footnotes, not just clips of Bush mangling the language and looking like a buffoon.
Statistics fly without attribution or substantiation - that the Bushes have accepted more than a billion dollars from the Saudis, that Saudi Arabia owns a hefty slice of America and receives unusual government perks as a result.
There is also a lack of context, particularly with footage somehow obtained from Iraq. An inert Iraqi detainee is shown being touched inappropriately and ridiculed by U.S. soldiers. Was the detainee beaten? Dead? (Turns out, Moore told a press conference, the detainee was merely drunk.)
Moore doesn't always fight fair - but he does fight funny, including a hilarious roll call of the Coalition of the Willing, those nations who pledged us their support. Amidst the fun, a higher truth emerges, one that is enraging, even if it's old news - little people are the ones who pay the price for the war in Iraq and the limits on personal freedoms under the Patriot Act. Meanwhile, the rich get richer, and the powerful even more so.
There is less of Moore on camera than in "Bowling for Columbine" and "Roger and Me," but he still can't resist guerrilla-style humor. In one effective stunt, he asks congressmen on the street to enlist their own children in the military to show support for a war that is killing so many other people's kids. Naturally, they decline.
The most devastating footage speaks for itself (even though Moore narrates over it).
Moore obtained the full reel of President Bush sitting for nearly seven long minutes in that Florida schoolroom chair after learning that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. While everyone else in the world was rushing to a TV set or collapsing in grief, Bush continued to read "My Pet Goat."
That footage sums up the message of "Fahrenheit 9/11." The information here isn't necessarily new, but it is packaged in an acid-tongued way along with powerhouse visuals that drive home the filmmaker's nakedly political views. ________________________________________________________
Moore Does Less With Facts When I read in Lloyd Grove's column in The News last week about an encounter between Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly in the lobby of the Ziegfeld Theater, I thought wouldn't it have been great if they'd put the gloves on and settled everything right there. They're two big guys, possibly the meanest and loudest voices of the political left and right, respectively. Let 'em punch it out and may the best man win.
But, wait.
There is no best man. Moore, the Sparkplug of Flint, and O'Reilly, the Factor Flash, are both ideological thugs who play loose with the facts while fostering hatred in an increasingly polarized country. We need to give them less attention, not more.
I don't want to raise or lower the temperature on the debate over Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." I consider the movie to be neither the Kerry campaign pamphlet Bush supporters wish to label it, nor the courageous burst of singular outrage that Moore would have us believe it is.
Like his earlier essays on corporate greed and America's gun culture, "F 9/11" is a personal rant embellished with a mix of verifiable facts and eye-popping conclusions, seasoned with sarcasm and ridicule, heavily skewed with selective sources, and dressed out as a kind of feature-length editorial cartoon.
For a movie critic who shares Moore's political views but disdains his style, "F 9/11" presents a dilemma. Anything that helps convince people to vote against George Bush is good, but anything that flatters the pompous filmmaker is bad.
I was the movie editor at the Los Angeles Times when Moore arrived there with "Roger & Me" in 1989, and his Mr. Smith Goes to Hollywood act was fun for about 10 minutes, until it was clear how cannily manipulative he was of the press.
No sooner had "Roger & Me" caught the fancy of the country than Film Comment revealed how cannily manipulative Moore had also been with the facts, events and time references within the film - deceptive enough for the late Pauline Kael to denounce him as having broken faith with the audience. Moore and his many supporters brushed that criticism aside as nitpicking, as they would again when Moore was caught being maliciously creative in "Bowling for Columbine."
The transgression that stuck in most people's craws was his spectacularly boorish behavior with actor Charlton Heston, the celebrity head of the National Rifle Association. Moore wheedled his way into Heston's home for an interview, then demanded that Heston apologize to the people of Flint for making an NRA appearance there shortly after the shooting death of a 6-year-old girl. While Heston retreated, Moore chased after him holding up a picture of the dead girl and yelling shame.
It was later revealed that Heston had made no such NRA appearance in Flint. He'd shown up there months after the shooting as part of a three-state Republican get-out-the-vote rally.
In the publicity run-up to the release of "F 9/11," Moore has been dazzlingly obnoxious. He spent much of May bad-mouthing America to the delighted French and telling anyone who would listen that the American press could learn a little about hardnosed journalism from him (God help us).
Proving he still knows how to manipulate the media, he hoodwinked even The New York Times editorial page into accusing the Walt Disney Co. of censorship, after Michael Eisner refused to allow his Miramax division to release "F 9/11" - something Moore knew he was going to do a year earlier!
Moore is obviously aware of his credibility and image problems. To address the latter, he kept his own appearances in the new film to a blessed minimum. To address the former, he has hired a stable of fact checkers to counter any charges of breaking the faith, plus a trio of lawyers to sue anyone who dares libel him.
He has already been caught in one whopper of a factual error. He says in the film that members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country while airports were grounded in the aftermath of 9/11 and that they were not interviewed by the FBI. Wrong on both counts.
"I don't want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree," Moore said, when asked about this by a New York Times reporter.
I think that's two trees. But who's counting?
A question, are you member of the NYPD or FDNY? What is it, are trying to climb your way up the union leadership ladder, thus your Monica like admiration of michael moore.
It really doesn't matter what Bush did -- Michael Moore would have found a way to twist whatever he did into something negative as he does in all of his "documentaries". That's what he does - he distorts the truth for his own purposes by omitting facts and turning every film clip into a biased scene that can be perceived as negative. If it had not been the school scene, he would have found another situation to use. He's like the typical lousy reporter who uses every quote out of context.
I agree that's what really irks me about him. We got suckered punched on 9/11 due to 8 years of neglect by Clinton. The first WTC bombing, Somalia, Khobar towers, the African embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, and moore twists it.
GW Bush just like all of us is a human being, I guess michael moore would have rather had Bush scream around like a chicken with its head cut off. Bush was calm, cool, and collected, gathered his thoughts and got a plan of action and mobilized forces within a month and dealt a major blow to al-queda in Afghanistan and he told all of us that this war would be different than any war we faced before and it is.
"Those long minutes give the left irresistable ammo and they are using it."
Good Lord! Get some perspective!
Minute 1 & 2: Oh my God, America, the America and whose citizens I am responsible for is truly under attack. As the leader of this nation, I feel the sudden weight of the world on my shoulders. This is going to be tough and I'm pissed!
Minute 3: I cannot panic this room full of children and educators and need to keep my composure. My heart rate is too high, I need to focus.
Minute 4: I have and America has competent people who are doing their jobs, gathering information for me as soon as I leave this place. I have to trust them. Let the kids finish their story. God please give me strength to carry this burden and guide me in making the decisions that must be made this day.
Minute 5: Making mental notes of questions I need answered immediately upon leaving this facility.
Minute 6: I am using too much time here. If I wait too much longer the loyal opposition (Gag) just might use this as ammunition against me during re-election 3 years from now, what am I thinking?!
Minute 7: Geez, you know they're going to make a movie about this and people all over the country are going to be outraged because I didn't make it all stop during these 7 minutes that I've just been sitting here. I should be on the phones ordering planes shot down and grounding all flights and finding the perpetrators and I should be in front of the cameras soothing the fears of the American people and promising mass retaliation and, and....
Gotta Go.
Minute 8: Good thing I didn't stay any longer than seven minutes. If I had, the world just might have ended! Whew!
hahahahaha!!!
LOVE it!!!
With all due respect, Presidents Bush's world is a whole lot bigger than yours and he had to weigh many more issues than you did. He had to take it all in and make decisions for millions of people. Your ultimate concern (rightly) was your immediate family. Give the man some credit. 7 minutes is an absolute non-issue. I do not believe he was sitting on his hands doing nothing while on that plane. His job was different than yours that day.
I commend you for your help during that awful time, and that came 26 hours later. Though I am sure it was as immediate as you could make it.
Jami's review was a thumbs up, although I notice her enthusiasm for the movie is a bit less than her original review after seeing it at Cannes. But Jack's article isn't really a review; plus, although he readily admits he dislikes Bush, he doesn't care for Moore or Moore's filmmaking. I wouldn't consider his column a thumbs up by any means.
He was writing a letter to his readers wishing that the terrorists had hit a state that had voted for Bush, instead of New York. He has since pulled this article from his website.
My one and only point was that Bush's seven minutes delay gave the left an issue and it's rather difficult to deny that they are running with it. If they weren't we would not be having this conversation.
Ah! But then, the target was their beloved St. Jack... would not do to sully his reputation. The President, on the other hand... have at him.
____________________________________________________
Panic and running out of the building was his only other option? I think not. Perhaps decisive action ala Rudy's offers a third way.
If there were an assassination plot under way why would you suggest that staying in a room full of kids was the thing to do? That suggestion is ridiculous no matter how many times it's posted on this forum.
I'll say it one more time (and I'm typing slowly for your benefit) Bush's non-reaction, for whatever reason, gave moore and his boys a hammer and they are using it. If that were not so we would not even be talking about it.
Stating that fact does not make me pro-Moore or anti-Bush.
What I don't see you doing is extending the same consideration to the President.
You are sitting in a room full of children, who are reading for the President. Andy Card whispers in your ear... "second plane into the second tower."
You know that you are at war. You are away from the White House. Children are reading. You have to get out of the situation gracefully... because, after all, they are children.
You know the whole layout of the day because it is timed. In 7 minutes, comes a break. The children continue to read. The press begin to buzz...
At the first break, you stand up and leave. You announce the horrible tragedy and excuse yourself from the rest of the day.
Now... I would like to know the answer that howlin and dane asked... what would you have done in the President's situation....
If Bush had left immediately, moore would be saying he was trying to hide. You don't seem to understand that no matter Bush did, moore would try to twist it and you are aiding and abetting his lies.
Stating that fact does not make me pro-Moore or anti-Bush.
Actually propagating moore's lies puts you in the pro-moore camp, IMO.
If I am reading your posts correctly...you are angry with the President because after being told of the worse attack on our land... he didn't have the political wherewithal to realize that if he sat there...that some fat, liberal idiot would use a stop watch on him, put him in a movie, and mock him for being incompetent.
With all that was going on that day... that this thought should have been front and center that day.
Thank goodness that was not the President's chief thought that day.... For that, I'm eternally grateful.
Show me how my statement of what the left is doing with those minutes is wrong. Take a look at what I've been writing, not the insulting responses. My point is that the delay, no matter what the reason for it, is being used by the opposition. Can you explain to me how that's inaccurate?
_______________________________________________
****I cannot panic this room full of children and educators and need to keep my composure. My heart rate is too high, I need to focus.*****
Why do you think that his only alternative was to panic a room full of kids? Do you want us to believe that there were only two ways to go, panic or sit still? Give me a break.
____________________________________________________
****Making mental notes of questions I need answered immediately upon leaving this facility.****
Why wait to get the "immediately" needed answers? We were under attack of unknown magnitude. Those kids and teachers sure didn't have any immediately needed answers, did they?__________________________________________
***....what am I thinking?!****
Well, that's the crux of the issue isn't it? By sitting and doing nothing he left a void for the moores of the left to fill any way they want. That is what they are doing and that is my point.
I haven't seen the movie (or any moore film) and I won't. Moore is an anti-American asshole but there are millions who want to believe him. He twists and distorts. The trouble with this particular issue is this...reviews say that moore runs the seven minutes uncut and with no commentary or music under it. The audiences who go into the theater wanting to have their opinion of Bush endorsed sit and love it. It is the one issue that Moore doesn't have to twist and that is the point I've been making.
And you are giving vredence to that point. You agree with moore. Face it you are playing the perfect 20/20 hindsight game and it is disgusting, when you and moore do it.
BTW, you still haven't explained what you would do.
I guess you are afraid that I could tear apart your reaction also, but I won't, even though your hubris does need to knocked down a bit, IMO.
Again what would you do. I am willing to wait until hell freezes over and I probably will have to.
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.