Fahrenheit 9/11
Review: Michael Moore's new documentary is more ranting and raving than effective filmmaking.
 
June 24, 2004 - Controversy is nothing new for Michael Moore. Bowling for Columbine was Moore's most successful film to date and it made him a household name. Whether you agree with Michael Moore's politics or not, his effectiveness as a filmmaker is undeniable. Columbine was sharp, witty and biting in ways that few documentaries are able to accomplish. While some have spoken out vehemently against the film, I think even they would be hard-pressed not to find a few points in that film that they could agree with. In the hoopla surrounding the success of Columbine and its ultimate victory in the Best Documentary category at the Academy Awards, Moore became a much more visible figure. His notorious outburst at the Oscars against Bush drew both boos and cheers.


Enter Fahrenheit 9/11. In the wake of Moore's Oscar win and President Bush's growing legion of haters, Moore has made a film that is essentially the feature-length version of his Oscar outburst. Bush detractors should enjoy the film much like going to an anti-Bush rally, but the narrow vision of the film makes its chance of actually accomplishing anything or converting any newcomers highly unlikely.

What made films like Roger and Me, The Big One and Bowling for Columbine so effective was Moore's skillful presentation. Using comedy to expose often difficult and dramatic subject-matter, Moore entertained while he educated. He also presented multiple points of view. Of course, he effectively weaved these points of view through his own lens, but he still presented them and let things play themselves out more naturally. When we are taught to write our first report papers in grammar school, teachers always stress that we must present both sides of the story in order to write an effective paper. Moore could benefit from taking this lesson again.

Now, I know what many reading this are going to say: Bush is an idiot. There is no other side to it. Without taking a political stance one way or the other, all I can say is that making a film which only placates those already on the anti-Bush wagon really serves no purpose. Fahrenheit 9/11 shows endless footage of Bush looking like a buffoon. Some are scenes we've seen before and some are lesser known footage Moore has obtained over the years from his insider contacts. This is a one-note joke that gets tired fast. With each passing clip, Moore appears all the more desperate.

Fahrenheit works when Moore is doing what he does best: presenting information he's acquired and allowing conclusions to be drawn. Of course, Moore always does what he can to help these conclusions along as much as he can. Things like Moore's belief in the Bush family connections to Al Qaeda and the information he shows to prove that the 2000 Presidential election was bought are interesting, whichever side you are on. When Moore shows the attitude change of a woman whose son was killed in the war in Afghanistan, the film truly loses focus. At first, the situation is a powerful one, the once patriotic mother reading a letter from her now-dead son in which he says that Bush doesn't know what they are doing over there. As the scene goes on and on and on, Moore's manipulation reaches a fever pitch from which it never recovers. Instead of being pulled into what should be a powerful moment, I found myself tuning out after a while. Still, Moore stays on the woman, using her pain as a vehicle for his own voice.

The best moments of Moore's films have always been his gags. Besides providing laughs, they communicated points and demonstrated issues using the adage that laughter is the best medicine for anything that ills us. In The Big One, Moore challenges Nike head honcho Phil Knight to a foot race. Moore's deal is that if he can beat Knight, he must bring a Nike factory to his hometown of Flint, Michigan. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore brings two of the school shooting's victims to the K-Mart headquarters, a stunt which actually accomplishes a decision on the part of K-Mart to stop carrying ammunition. While these scenes are clearly manipulation, they have a sharp focus and wit. They are effective and attempt to accomplish something. The gags in Fahrenheit are stale, feeling more like outtakes from one of Moore's own TV shows. In one sequence, Moore drives around outside the House of Representatives in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot Act. Later, Moore shamelessly bombards members of Congress on the street, asking them to send their own children off to war. These moments provide some brief chuckles, but mostly feel forced and uninventive. Wouldn't this have been more effective if Moore had tried to contact these people instead of just walking up to them on the street? After all, there reaction is exactly what we'd expect, so who cares?

I would imagine that the intent of the film was to bring what he believes to be an unjust system and disreputable presidency to light, to show those who may trust our President some facts and situations that may change their mind. Fahrenheit is unlikely to win Moore any new supporters. Those who already see his perspective should enjoy a feature film of Bush-bashing, but isn't that like going to see your favorite baseball team play against an opposing team that never shows up? Now, before you click on my name below and send me a message of hate, understand that I am a fan of Moore's filmmaking and my thoughts on the film have nothing to do with my political leanings one way or another. What I am saying is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a product of Moore's own ego, and its narrow focus ultimately serves no one outside Moore himself.

-- Jeff Otto

Gags?  I don't know about you but I didnt see any "gags" or comedy in Bowling For Columbine.  What a bullshit review.

heres a quick summary of the reaction of critics to the film:

 It's hard to tell whether many reviews of Fahrenheit 9/11 are expressions of political sentiment or artistic appraisals. Indeed, several critics suggest that politics is the overwhelming factor here and that reviews may be superfluous. As Ann Hornaday observes in her review in the Washington Post: "Most people reading this already know whether they're going or not." The majority of critics are showering it with high praise, but it is clear that several of them clearly loathe it. Some critics are of two minds about it. Writes Carrie Rickey in the Philadelphia Inquirer: "As its worst, Fahrenheit is a work of political vaudeville in which Moore is guilty of many of the things he accuses Bush of: arrogance, agitating the electorate, playing to the base. At its best, it is a magnificent piece of filmmaking that listens to the woman on the street and to the man in the trenches about their changes of heart vis-a-vis Iraq." Among the cheer leaders, Roger Ebert writes in the Chicago Sun-Times that the movie "is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader." Michael Wilmington in the Chicago Sun-Times cheers louder: "It's another howitzer blast of heartland humor and journalistic chutzpah from director-writer Moore--his cheekiest, gutsiest, most hilarious assault yet on the halls of the rich and mighty." Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times agrees, writing: "With expertly deployed footage and a take-no-prisoners attitude that echoes that of his conservative betes noir, Moore has made an overwhelming film. It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth, and too much here is taken from the record not to have a devastating effect on viewers." But Moore has plenty of detractors among the critics, too. "Moore is so anti-Bush that he becomes a Bizarro-world version of Bush himself: tone-deaf, spluttering, incapable of framing an intelligent debate," writes Michael Sragow in the Baltimore Sun. Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal calls the movie, "a postmodern, postliterary piece of agitprop, coming at a time when truth is often the first victim in supermarket tabloids, radio talk shows, campaign commercials on network TV and gabble-fests on cable." And Terry Lawson in the Detroit Free Press labels the movie "a kidney punch."

source: www.us.imdb.com

the article is right. it would be impossible to trust any critic when talking about a political propaganda film such as this one.

i cant wait to see this but it sounds like he is just gonna cover alot of the same ground he wrote about in "Dude, Where's My Country?"

its a good movie, some funny shit in there, now someone post what was incorect with the movie