Posted: 06/29/2004

Fahrenheit 9/11

(2004)

by Scott Jones

I imagine other writers around the country are finding it difficult to review Fahrenheit 9/11 without their personal politics coming into play. The film is unapologetically political and proudly one-sided. My reactions to the film as political participant vary greatly to mine as a movie reviewer. But I imagine most come to this site to read a review, not my political ramblings. I’ve stood in line at the DMV; I know what it’s like to go conduct your specific business only to be shanghaied by the rants of those around you. Despite all the attention the film is receiving in the political arena, to review Fahrenheit 9/11 with my politics represented would be like a reviewer for The Passion of The Christ trying to lead people to Christianity in the process. (Yes, we’re aware that this site is guilty of this approach). But first and foremost the work in question is a film.

To call Fahrenheit 9/11 one-sided would be a hypocritical claim from ANY administration or political party. Let’s face it, every organization, be they left or right, wants to focus on their agenda, accentuating their positive and the other’s negative. The controversy arises from the fact that the voice here comes from someone very popular and powerful. (The White House stated recently that Moore is “outside the mainstream”. Hardly. Outsiders don’t spend weeks on the top ten of the Nonfiction bestseller’s list.) So the inevitable has already begun with cries of the film showing only those moments that support Moore’s point of view. But guess what? Every film you see does that. Perhaps some do it more subtlety than others but every film must to truly be successful. Its called theme, folks, and it are something everyone should recognize without having taken that Filmmaking 101 course. And Moore charts a strong, researched theme.

Love him or hate him, when Michael Moore got up to accept his Oscar for Bowling For Columbine and launched into his antiwar speech he spoke for a lot of people who felt they had lost their voice. With that act Moore thereby sealed his role in history as a figure of dissent in the company of, say, an Abbey Hoffman or Bobby Seale. Now we’re afforded the opportunity to understand his argument behind that speech. With a brilliant opening credit sequences that finds the “usual suspects” of the Bush administration preparing for their time before the cameras Moore makes us aware with whom he has ax to grind. Throughout the entire film you can’t help but get a sense of urgency as the director tries to stop what he sees as a hemorrhaging of lies and missteps. But the rush also finds Moore biting off more than he could chew. He takes on everything from Bush’s military record, his business ties to Saudi money, the Patriot Act, the handling of pre 9/11 intelligence, and the current Iraq War. Each of the subjects provides enough fodder for a single two-hour documentary, therefore the film doesn’t have the luxury of examining many various angles as Bowling For Columbine or Roger & Me did before it. In fact, it comes the closest Moore has come to creating the classic, conventional documentary.

What happens is a much more “just the facts” approach rather than the satirical vignettes that dotted his previous efforts, yet this makes sense given the very current, serious nature of his topic. We’re presented with material concerning various happenings before and after 9/11, leading up to the Iraq War, and most of the information appears solid, most of which audiences should already be familiar with. Clearly anyone who sees this film will be left questioning much of what he presents. With this weighty subject matter, Moore doesn’t lend himself as a character as much this time around, and though I missed him I struggle to see where his wit and cynicism could be used without being offensive. The funny moments are there, however, and he has knack for finding the most ridiculous footage of Bush (If you’ve seen the proper trailer you’re already with me on this one). There’s also a particular Today show segment featuring an inventor’s presentation of an “easy to put-on” high-rise parachute (which his daughter proceeds to struggle with) in case of actual terrorist attacks.

The “half-truths” accusations that are thrown at all Moore’s films weren’t readily apparent after one viewing although I did have a hard time accepting footage of a pre-war Iraq containing smiling pedestrians and a child flying a kite. It seems to undermine Moore’s own argument to suggest that things were fine in the country beforehand. But the film does stress that liberation of the country is far from complete as we see citizens killed by U.S. armory, sexually mistreated by soldiers, and terrified by pre-dawn raids. This was supposedly what we came to deliver them from, not continue.

What I realized with Fahrenheit 9/11 is that with each film Michael Moore isn’t just trying to create a single documentary but a complete body of work that rails against one subject: poverty. Moore’s films always return to his hometown of Flint, Michigan and I finally understood the affect the trials of that town and its people have had upon him a person. No, Fahrenheit 9/11 isn’t exactly about faults of the Bush administration but about providing a voice for those in poverty. His strongest argument is that war is fought on the backs of those who struggle most and have the most to lose and nothing in the film does it better than the presence of Lila Lipscomb, a soldier’s mother from Flint. When Lila reads the last letter from her dead son expressing his disappointment in Bush’s Iraq war we find a voice of dissent that speaks louder than Moore ever could. A later scene finds Lila in front of the White House overcome with grief and for anyone who believes their opinions take precedence over other’s feeling they receive a lesson in the form of a gut punch when a woman steps in to suggest Lila’s grief is “all staged”. Lila makes us realize the true meaning of patriotism and that there a lot of stories that aren’t represented on our evening news that need to be.

For some in the audience the film will be a gathering of information they already knew, for others a series of revelations, and, yes, for that rare few who found their way into seeing it, a misleading attack. But I suspect this isn’t the exact audience Moore was reaching for. It seems to be made for those who weren’t previously interest in the issues and their consequences. Perhaps it’s audiences is all those kids who tore up Woodstock in the pre-9/11 world, having nothing to be angry about so they chose to take it out on expensive vendors. If Fahrenheit 9/11 is able to engage the passionate concern of passive citizens for either side of the political pendulum, is that so wrong? See the film and engage your own passion for politics and cinema.

Scott Jones is a writer and filmmaker in Chicago.

Got a problem? E-mail us at filmmonthly@gmail.com