Fahrenheit 9/11 - A Distancing Documentary
In high school, I bought a t-shirt out of the back of Rolling Stone magazine that read BUSH in all capital letters, where the S had been replaced by a swastika. I felt that strongly that Bush senior was a hypocrite, because of his pandering to social conservatives, but moreso for his duplicitous circumvention in the Iran-Contra affair. It's part of what motivated my Oliver North encounter as well.
But I found myself really unable to wear that shirt much after I got it. As strongly as I felt, calling anyone a Nazi seemed cavalier, trivialing the scale of that disaster. I didn't understand Bush, or Nazis enough to make that kind of a comparison. And besides I didn't want to immediately upset anyone with my political beliefs. I had family members of the conservative persuasion, and while I might have reviled their political priorities, the longer I lived the more I wanted to bridge political distance and not increase it.
So that's what I see here - Moore is irate, excited, passionate about the hypocrisy and double-dealing of the Bush administration. He accuses Bush and his people of coercing an entire nation. In order to prove this point he leads his interview subjects, putting lines in their mouths, cuts them off mid-statement. The film is essentially an emotional appeal, which is important in it's way. I do agree that "the other team," if there really is such a thing, successfully engaged the United States in an inappropriate war through chicanery. So it's important to stir people up in opposition to those practices. I was especially glad to hear Moore quote Orwell in this regard, and to see Moore demonstrate the price of the Iraq war disproportionately paid by America's unemployed poor.
But ideally, political discourse can be a shared examination of facts and a rational conversation about collective goals. Moore's film plays like a home run for the liberal team, and less like an effort to improve the overall quality of political dialog in the United States.
Moore includes an extended montage of Bush family members greeting members of the Saudi royal family. Even though I read The Religious Policeman regularly, I don't know one Saudi royal from another. And I wondered how this footage was meant to play in Middle America? "Look at them Bushies! Hanging with guys wearing sheets on their heads! How suspicious!" Moore demonstrates the Bush-Saud friendship; we are left to wonder what kind of sinister plans they might have been making. It's a play to America's ignorance, the same thing he's critiquing.
Similarly, Moore mentions how these Ayrabs own maybe as much as 7% of America. So what? That baiting reminded me much of the "Japan Scare" of the 1980s, when just mentioning the fact that Japanese companies had bought major US assets was enough to stir some kind of unsettled feeling in the hearts of patriots. We're in a global economy Michael, people from one country buy things in another country. There are productive discussions we can have about the rights and control that foreign property owners can have in America, and special privileges that Saudi royals may have here. But I didn't feel that Moore was appealing to reason in these segments; he was playing to fear.
The film effectively skewer Bush's limited capabilities as a leader. Footage of Bush sitting in a classroom reading My Pet Goat as New York burned is just damning. The man is a smirking enigma, I would say he's a puppet. But he has his own motivations I don't entirely understand and I definitely don't trust. The film does little to get inside the head of George Bush; Alexandra Pelosi's Journeys with George is better for that - following Bush the candidate, we get a much more nuanced sense of Bush's character. He's still confusing, confounding, and he still shouldn't be president. I watched Pelosi's film and I thought, well, he'd be a fine Little League Baseball organizer, but he should let someone else run the country. Moore's film wanted me simply to hate Bush because he's an exploitative idiot - less specific grounds for political change.
I found Fahrenheit 9/11 to be one of the most snappily edited film productions I've ever seen, but maybe the film's pace and at-times glib use of pop culture only appeals to young liberal sensibilities as well. In other words, Fahrenheit 9/11 is no tikkun - no bridge, no middle way.
I went to see the film with Scott, Jen and Joanne - we were compelled by the film but they shared some of these misgivings above. We lingered hours afterwards on a balcony above the courtyard at the Arclight theater talking about politics and media. I worked to unpack this notion of "the extreme right." There are people who vote for Bush because he makes them richer. They don't care about this Iraq duplicity crap. There are people who vote for Bush because he was sent by God. They don't care about this godless carping. Who is left in the rational middle?
Critics are favoring Fahrenheit 9/11, according to reviews collected by RottenTomatoes.com. Perhaps there are enough curious citizens who will see this film and feel informed and roused by Michael Moore's muckraking. Maybe this film, with its frank portrayal of loss and grief surrounding the Iraq war will be meaningful for families of soldiers. I'm fascinated to see the effect this artful political document has on the current American political conflict, at the same time I lament the distance between the sides.