« Open Source/Trojan Horse? | Main | 42.06N 76.09W »
July 31, 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11
It took me a while to digest this movie and form an opinion about it. It's something like waking up in the middle of the night with the feeling that something isn't quite right. Then you wake up a little more and start to think that maybe the seafood you had for dinner wasn't so fresh. Eventually, you realize that you're going to be sick.
The only other Michael Moore film I've seen is Bowling for Columbine, in which I thought Moore raised some good questions about guns in the US. I went into Fahrenheit 9/11 expecting something similar; while I realized that it would be based on Moore's point of view I also hoped that the film would be about raising issues and questions. Instead I found it to be propaganda in support of Moore's conspiracy theories and apparent dislike of the Bush administration.
On the surface, Moore certainly succeeded in making the Bush administration and Congress look bad. He traced a line of people who know people to get from Bush to the Saudi government and tied this relationship to a coverup since so many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. He showed members of Congress unwilling to send their children into harm's way. He exposed the dark side of the war in Iraq with disillusioned soldiers, prisoner abuse, and Iraqi families devastated by civilian casualties.
Some straightforward fact checking provides explanations that contradict many of Moore's assertions and demonstrates the extent to which he twisted events to support his point of view. Regarding elements of the coverup such as a blacked-out name on National Guard records, it turns out that federal laws require this. Regarding Congress's unwillingness to have their children serve in the military, it turns out that not only have a high percentage of members of Congress served, but several of them currently have children in the military (Moore quoted statistics of only those serving in Iraq.) It also turns out that one of the senators who Moore showed walking away doesn't even have any children. Moore took quotes from the Bush administration out of context in some cases to suggest they were making the completely opposite point. While the points he raised regarding the military in Iraq were valid, I had to wonder whether this was also a one-sided view designed to prove Moore's point. I assume that there are also soldiers who are not disillusioned with the war and who find prisoner abuse repulsive, and that there are Iraqi families who are glad that Saddam is gone; but that Moore left this out of the film because it didn't agree with his thinking.
What bothers me the most is the idea that viewers may accept this as a documentary. I believe that there are important questions regarding the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq, and hope that someone is able to ask them and truthfully represent all sides of the story. If nothing else, Moore demonstrated that there is another side to what we've been seeing so far.
I understand that Moore hoped the film would turn voters away from Bush this November. I had already been seriously considering this after reading Al Franken's book . I'm not sure how other viewers are reacting, but after seeing 9/11 I've found myself turned off by the anti-Bush camp. I realize that Moore is not their official representative, but I have also realized that I don't know why Kerry/Edwards is a better choice. At least I have a few months to try and figure that out...
Posted by nickh at July 31, 2004 10:58 AM
Comments
I haven't see this yet and am not sure how much I really want to. It is so political and released so closely to elections.
Posted by: Bonnie at August 4, 2004 12:23 PM