Fahrenheit 9/11

written and directed by Michael Moore (Bowling For Columbine)

starring Michael Moore

        “The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.”
        -Abraham Lincoln

        Let us have a new Woodstock with documentaries instead of rock bands. The bill will include new films by Michael Moore, Jehane Noujaim, Mark Achbar & Jennifer Abbott, and heck even Morgan Spurlock. Thousands could attend the film festival and wear themselves on their sleeves if not on their t-shirts. In attendance at the original concert were plenty of apathetic youths paying more attention to a general idea of peace and love than politics. Nothing is different today as millions watch Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 except that the new companion to peace is hatred. Whether this hatred is for Moore or George Bush makes no difference.
        I am reminded of the last election year when I had the chance to meet Jello Biafra after a spoken word show became a rally for his presidential candidacy on the Green Party ticket. Fans of The Dead Kennedys, a punk band fronted by Biafra, were persent, many who could put aside the icon’s lack of procedure in support of his rabble-rousing. Biafra told me, flat out, that he had no idea how to achieve things promised to his audience.
        Moore’s documentaries are similarly absent of any modus operandi. Previously, while putting the ‘ass’ in ‘assertive’, he at least amused with bold pranks and relevant gags, falling somewhere between a modern Abbie Hoffman and a more political minded Jay Leno. His films and shows had the same effect of getting your news from stand-up comedy. Sure they sparked discussion and debate but while most good art makes one think, the same is not true in reverse. The ability of Fahrenheit 9/11 to excite conversation and awareness is no more important than the ability of The Day After Tomorrow to do the same.
        The new film begins with the 2000 election, a topic with which Moore has notably injured his own reputation by continually referring to President Bush with the title in quotations, and continues as conspiracy. Could Bush have avoided 9/11? Maybe. Is he in the pockets of the Saudis? Probably. Is the Terror Alert meaningless? Definitely. And Kennedy was likely killed by the CIA or similar. It doesn’t really matter. Ray Bradbury could have his way and the title could change to GWB. Oliver Stone may complain, though, as JFK depicts the confusion of such things more than just depicting such things. Fahrenheit 9/11 is just a general pot of ideas better explained in books like Craig Unger’s “House of Bush, House of Saud” or in close examination of a newspaper. If Moore is able to get some people to read more, great, but I have doubts of such widespread influence.
       The film eventually grows tiring. The initial argument that the Bush administration is deceitful and corrupt is complete within an hour before turning into an anti-war treatise complete with a too-specific story exploiting one Lila Lipscombe’s mourning of her son. The attempts to reach the heart are more manipulative and forced than in past Moore documentaries. When Lipscombe yells in defense of her presence not being staged, I wondered if she is somewhat addressing the audience. Bowling for Columbine was most effective in its balance of jokes and tragedies, the peaks and pits of which provided for extreme reaction. When Fahrenheit peaks early on in its Bush jabbing, there isn’t far enough to climb up or down in emotion.
            The fact that Harvey Weinstein supported the movie’s release is interesting. I liken the treatment of Bush in the film to the treatment of the Miramax head in the recent book “Down and Dirty Pictures”, maybe not slanderous but certainly overbearing. Weinstein’s role in the Democratic Party is also significant as it increases the feeling that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a two hour ad for John Kerry. Now I know that Moore voted for Nader in the last election and maybe he’d like to do the same this year, but I have a feeling that he’s changed his mind since his letter from November 7, 2000 stating that strategic voting for the lesser of two evils is bad democracy. It is good to see that nowhere in the film are third-party candidates blamed for Bush’s win, as that case would plainly argue for Kerry.
       My screening, full of young impressionable adults with at least enough sense and curiosity to attend, ended with laughter. The picture closes with another funny Bush moment that even his supporters found humor in. Well, why not? Jessica Simpson says some pretty stupid things and she’s popular too. Verbal slip-ups do not verify incompetency. When the people walked out, their minds hadn’t been changed. The conservatives were still conservative; the liberals were still liberals. Some people became angrier with Moore; some became angrier with Bush. A few people decided to check out a website called:     "Johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com." That is what makes me most upset about Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore’s omission of literal solutions for an ignorant society allow for vague speculation. The possibility for the film to sway independent voters toward a lesser of two evils or, worse, electoral abstinence is one of the most unfortunate things a film can do.

Expectation Key


there's no possible way we will even see this

we'll eventually see this but we aren't really expecting much

anticipating the release of this one but we're sure to be left unsatisfied

such high expectation of this film only leaves room for disappointment