Hi all,
This is going to be the first serious entry on politics, and what of what could it be that got me thinking: FAHRENHEIT 9/11 --> BUT OF COURSE.
Let me make something clear for those who haven't seen the film yet: It's without a doubt a propaganda film, and while previous Moore projects were filled with humour: this one starts off funny, but becomes so serious in it's tone that you won't laugh anymore. I don't agree with some of Moore's tactics, for instance that he supplies the viewer with so much information that it is tough job to follow his arguments and it blurs a lot of dubious links that Moore suggests between all the persons he presents in his film. But I've always said I'm a fan of Michael Moore, but don't agree necessarily with what he says or how he says it. I still recommend this film very highly because it shows a lot of things that are absolutely mind blowin'. And with the team of fact checkers that Moore has hired he is never simply lying as adversaries might suggest. He has actually a walkthrough on his website: www.michaelmoore.com. It shows that most of the facts he presented are verifiable by journalistic sources. It also shows that facts only get a meaning through their interpretation of course :)
SPOILER ALERT!-----SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't seen the film yet the following may spoil the fun a bit.
So the film has got a strong message, actually one so strong that the eventual interpretation of this film is entirely dependent on the viewer's preferences on the political field, his or her opinion of economic structures, his or her ethics on what means are allowed. Because of this, it remains doubtful whether Moore’s film will persuade viewers to change their vote.
He focuses a majority of the film on the connection between Bush and Bin Laden, and especially the indirect relationship with Osama, and these arguments aren’t so strong. He mentions himself that the Bin Laden family is a big family, and of course there are some ties between Osama and the rest of the Bin Laden family (for instance the fact that they are relatives, DUH). Moore however links the whole family with Osama, while it seems that most of the Bin Laden are just businessmen. If Moore would have focussed solely on the business contacts between the Bin Laden’s/Saoudi government and the Bushes, without dragging Osama into it, it would have been a better argument to prove the biased nature of the Bush administration.
Furthermore Moore firmly believes in ‘it’s all about the oil’ credo. He does not give for instance sufficient attention to the Neoconservative movement, the Project of a New American Century with those scary people such as Wolfowitz. These persons have a much more ideological view on the American role in foreign politics. Why doesn’t Moore do this? I think because attacking an ideological view of the USA's involvement in the world could estrange a lot of viewers, because it is more easily interpreted as unpatriotic: a BIG nono for most Americans (left or right) who are so conservative and proud of their country. Moore in fact presents himself as one of those proud Americans. An Ideological debate would severely harm the propaganda aspect of this documentary, and would force Moore to be, OH NO!, nuanced! It is interesting to see that while in Bowling for Columbine he introduced fear as a universal corrupting force in American Society, Fahrenheit blames this culture of Fear directly on the Bush administration. Bush and his henchman force the American people to accept such things as the Patriot Act (info on it here) or the attack on Iraq. By creating the fear of ever-present terrorist danger and maintaining this by lowering and raising warning levels and terror warnings, without ever giving sufficient information. In comparison to Fahrenheit 9/11 even BfC seems nuanced (which it wasn’t of course).
So Moore doesn’t think that ideologies and ideas motivate the Bush government: Greed is the main motivator for them. He carefully presents this picture by mentioning the importance of the Carlyle Group, Haliburton, Enron, and the ties between them and the government and the Iraqi war. From the start of the film, with Bush ‘stealing’ the 2000 elections, Bush and co. are presented as fake and greedy little man.
But isn’t it great that such a harsh statement can finally be heard in theatres all over America, and with tremendous box office success! In a conservative and pragmatic country as the United States of America! I’ve been following Moore for a while now and really admire his strength and continuing efforts. Starting out making television shows for the BBC (TvNation) that only then could cross the Atlantic. Gaining popularity with every step, so that he now is a significant force in American politics: With Fahrenheit 9/11 he isn’t an outsider anymore, he is in there: his message is strong, different and loud, just as loud and determined as Bush’s war presidency!
As a critical viewer I have a lot of comments on this film, but don’t let that spoil your fun in watching it I enjoyed the ride very much…..I’m very interested in hearing all your opinions! There’s a lot Moore to say about this!
Some interesting links:
On Iraq, the weapons inspectors and the DUTCH government: a thought provoking Zembla report: http://www.omroep.nl/vara/tv/zembla/welcome2.html?20040415/zembla
Some nice films I enjoyed lately and recommend :
Classics:
Ran (Kurosawa, 1985)
Paths of Glory (Kubrick, 1957)
Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971)
Full Metal Jacket ((Kubrick, 1987)
New:
Supersize Me (Won’t see in a Micky Dee for a while)
Eternal Sunshine of a Spottles Mind (SUPERB FILM: script by Charlie Kaufman! in dutch theatres 16-9-04: go and see it!)
21 Grams (some serious sh*t!)
