Smack that Bush (Fahrenheit 9/11 double disk extra features (DVD))

Name: rdobbie

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Fahrenheit 9/11 double disk extra features (DVD)
Date:	25/04/05 (227 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Well made, Delivers its message with powerful blows, Raises very important questions

Disadvantages: Occasionally wavers off the topic and sometimes lacks momentum, Arguments not always backed up convincingly

This film is particularly hard to write an objective review about because it naturally stirs up strong feelings in just about everyone who watches it, and it’s easy to label it as brilliant, or appallingly bad, depending on your stance on the emotive subject matter. I myself was guilty of leaving some scathing comments about the_mad_cabbie’s review on Ciao of this film because I felt it was flavoured with too much of his own political bias and he put his own misleading spin on the messages that Moore delivers in the film. Rather than criticise other people’s reviews, however, I’d like to stand up and be counted by attempting to deliver a review which strives to be objective in the face of my own sentiments towards the issues in the film.

I’ll put my cards on the table right now and say that I was horrified by the war on Iraq. Not only was it illegal under international law and carried out without any mandate by the United Nations, it was wholly unjust and unnecessary – and created far worse problems than those that we were told it would solve. We now learn that there was never really any evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that nobody is to blame for going to war on the back of one huge lie. Very convenient. With conservative estimates putting the death toll of innocent Iraqi citizens at at least 11,000, I feel strongly that Blair and Bush should stand trial as war criminals alongside the likes of Saddam and Milosevic. So there lies the declaration of my beliefs (which I held long before ever seeing this film).

Anyone familiar with the writer and filmmaker Michael Moore’s previous work, Bowling For Columbine, Stupid White Men and The Awful Truth, will be well aware that he is an outspoken critic of US government policies and likes to maul the men in high places who he believes to be corrupt and dishonourable. Fahrenheit 911 is a spiked attack which is aimed squarely at George W Bush, and there is no coincidence in the fact that it was released in the run-up to last year's US presidential election. Moore hates Bush with a passion, and wants him out of office. This film is Moore’s own Operation Shock and Awe with which he aimed to smack Bush right on the nose.

It is hard to categorise what this film actually is. Is it fact or entertainment? Much of the criticism it receives seems to centre around the obvious bias against George Bush and the lack of objectivity. But such criticism implies that this film is being mis-sold to the public as a balanced documentary, and I would dispute that. I don’t think Moore ever set out to make an episode of Panorama or Sixty Minutes; he deliberately crafted a very one-sided story and, to my knowledge, has never made any secret of that. In fact, the film comes across as a party political broadcast by the anti-war lobby and is hard to confuse as being anything other than this.

Fahrenheit 911 picks up in Florida during the 2000 election, where Moore alleges that George W Bush should not have been given the title of president, but only achieved it through acts of corruption and rigging. By coincidence I watched the film on its opening night whilst on holiday in Florida, just six miles from the location where the film begins.

Moore narrates his way through the film chronologically, taking us through to the present day, in a solemn and dry voice with frequent sarcasm and only a couple of brief appearances on camera. We are taken through to the aftermath of the 11 September terror attacks, and revelations that honorary members of the Bin Laden family were given VIP flights out of the USA “for their own safety” at a time when all aeroplanes were grounded. Moore goes on to examine the US government’s close ties with Saudi Arabian royalty and asks why Bin Laden’s family were given preferential treatment when they could have been interrogated as to the whereabouts of the world’s most wanted criminal. Critics of Moore’s film are quick to point out that Osama Bin Laden has long been estranged from his family and that the film fails to make reference to this. That is a valid criticism in part, although Moore does reasonably ask why the Bin Laden family members were not questioned “even for a few minutes”, no matter how remote the chance that it may lead to clues.

The film contains numerous other grey areas in which Moore selectively picks out certain facts while very blatantly ignoring other key information which may very well lead the viewer to an alternative conclusion.

President Bush and his father, George senior, are placed under heavy scrutiny as Moore examines the family’s history and their links to Middle Eastern oil companies. Bush is characterised as not only a crook but a buffoon of the highest ranking, with the inclusion of many clips of his gaffes and regrettable remarks in front of a microphone. Much is made of Bush’s excessive holidaying in the months immediately after becoming president, and here we see the now famous statement where Bush condemns terrorism whilst playing golf. Fahrenheit 911 is peppered throughout with humorous moments, achieved through a mixture of barbed comments by Moore and careful selection and editing of archive footage. Unsurprisingly every laugh in the film is made at the expense of Bush, with the ceaseless implication that he is an imbecile. Even those who disagree with the political messages in the film would find it hard not to laugh at the portrayal of the president.

The post 9/11 war, or “liberation” of Afghanistan, is castigated by Moore as a failure, as is the subsequent War on Iraq which receives the most attention in the film. Disturbing footage of dead Iraqi children, killed by American bombs, is interspersed with footage of children playing in apparent peace before the war began. We then see a mother of an American soldier killed in conflict, who chokes back tears as she reads out a letter from her son, written shortly before his death, in which he describes the futility of the whole conflict and his desire to come home. I found this unquestionably the most powerful segment of the film and was almost reduced to tears by it. This, of course, is Moore’s intention.

I think that Moore has pulled off a masterpiece in striking a balance between humour and tragedy. In this respect, Fahrenheit 911 is infinitely superior to Bowling For Columbine – Moore’s previous film which was broadly centred around American gun law – which was a less specific offensive against the whole American constitution and mindset of the country’s electorate. In Fahrenheit the gist of the film is more pertinent and the motives far more obvious.

There are points when I would question whether Moore’s “case for the prosecution” really adds up to anything substantial. The footage of President Bush sitting in a Florida classroom for nine minutes with a confused stare on his face, having just been informed of the attacks on the World Trade Center, makes for interesting viewing but hardly presents concrete evidence of the president’s ineptitude. I think all of us can remember the moment we first learned of those attacks, and it is only human nature that the full magnitude should not immediately sink in – besides which, any world leader would wait for his advisors to clarify the full facts before reacting.

The screenplay brings together an assortment of Moore’s investigative dirt-digging, library footage of world events over the last four years, and occasional confrontational filming on location for which Moore became famous in his US TV series The Awful Truth. We see Moore verbally confronting a policeman who seems overly protective of the Saudi embassy in America, but Moore has certainly matured as a filmmaker and seems to have left behind his flippant stunts of the past, like camping outside corporate headquarters with a megaphone in hand.

My main problem with the film is perhaps its length; many parts of it seem to wander off topic and chip away at the overall momentum. There is a long piece about an American town (somewhere in Oregon, I think) which Moore claims has inadequate police cover. I think Moore was trying to assert that too little money is being spent on domestic issues while billions are pumped into the military, but I found this too loosely connected with the main thrust of the film to be considered important. Another segment uses a very protracted piece of footage to explain how youngsters from the most impoverished parts of America are being targeted to join the Marines; this was a little more relevant to the film but dull and obvious.

I was surprised to see that our own wonderful Prime Minister only got the briefest of mentions in the film, when you consider that his role in the Iraq war was very significant. But Moore obviously has one man, and one man alone, in his sights and doesn’t want to detract from that by talking about Bush’s partner in alleged crime.

For me, the biggest issue of the film is not the so much the questions it throws up, but the realisation upon watching the film that the media have not asked any of these questions. It may well be that Moore uses too much conjecture to arrive at the answers to his own questions – it may even be that his answers are sometimes wide of the mark – but these really are legitimate questions which should have investigated by our newspapers and television stations. The film reinforces my personal view that the American media, and parts of our own media, are state propaganda machines, and I am left wondering why it has taken one man to raise more important questions than all of the mainstream media outlets have raised in a period of four years.

Emotive? Yes. Powerful? Yes, One-sided? Absolutely. Whether or not you agree with Moore’s crusade should not affect your appreciation of this film. Above all else, it is wonderfully cheeky and controversial – and gets us all taking about politics. If we can all start arguing passionately about whether or not our leaders are saints or sinners, then I think that’s a healthy thing.

As a footnote and general matter of interest, the American audience who I sat amongst while watching Fahrenheit 911 in a Florida cinema were going absolutely wild in their support of Moore. I realise that they did not represent a cross-section of the American public but it was fascinating to observe their passionate booing every time Bush appeared on screen, and their standing ovation and applause at the end. Strange to think that George Bush’s brother Jeb was the governor of the state we were watching it in. It may give Moore one less thing to complain about, but free speech certainly seems to be alive and kicking.

Summary: