Fahrenheit 9/11: Impossible to Ignore, Unfortunately
Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, has generated considerable controversy with good reason. It is difficult to imagine anyone viewing the film, especially during an election year, without developing rather strong feelings about the subject matter. From the title of the film alone, the viewer prepares for a gut-wrenching experience in preparation for watching a documentary that intends to shoot from the hip and does so relentlessly and without apology. Producer/director Michael Moore’s appearance in his own film makes it clear that he acts purely from personal motivation in creating such a film at such a strategic time. The question that many are trying to ask is: is Michael Moore pro-American, anti-American, anti-Bush, or what? How can any person conceive of such a disturbing film to show to a public that is still living in the trauma of the event s of September 11, 2001 unless he is trying to convey a message? Even more of a question is: just what are we supposed to understand from this film? Is this Michael Moore’s day in the sun, or is it an indictment of President George W. Bush?
Moore’s dislike of President Bush and the Bush family is obvious from the start. The film paints a very negative picture of the Bush family as being driven only by oil-based wealth that is linked directly to the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royal family, and various corporate entities that are all apparently “in on the deal” in terms of generating profits from all the events that developed before and after September 11, 2001. Moore makes it a point of presenting the idea that the tragedy of September 11, 2001 was a carefully orchestrated event performed with the knowledge and, more than likely, consent of the Bush family at a time when Bush was, as the film states, “on vacation” as his popularity rating plunged. The film is truly a cynic’s delight in making the point that everything that took place on September 11, 2001 had but one purpose: to generate more wealth for the Bush family and the Saudis, both of w hom enjoy an immense amount of protection by the Secret Service.
Moore’s appearance in the film adds an element that makes him open for caustic criticism, as he is neither photogenic nor particularly tactful. The one element that compensates for what many may believe to be Moore’s exaggerated ego in making himself a feature in his own film is the obvious sincerity in which he pursues his subject; nobody viewing the film can doubt that he believes very strongly in what he says. His visit back to his hometown of Flint, Michigan hits hard, as he shows the economic devastation in the city and the aggressive efforts to recruit the many young people affected by the economic blight into the military. The footage showing the bereaved family of Sergeant Michael Pedersen hits home in a way that cannot be ignored, unfortunately, by anyone viewing the film.
The filmed carnage of the war in Iraq, a major feature of the film, evokes memories of the Vietnam War for persons old enough to remember that era; persons from later generations for whom the Vietnam War is only a name from history cannot ignore the grim reality that the war in Iraq is something that has already impacted American society permanently. The film, however, makes a compelling point that the one and only motive for launching the war in Iraq was commercial and suited the needs of the Bush oil empire more than protected the American people, which was the reason President Bush appears in the film as stating as the objective of the war. Add to that the sight of Lila Lipscombe, the mother of Sergeant Michael Pedersen , who, by her own admission, is a “conservative Democrat” and who states openly that she is proud to be American, weeping over her son’s death, and the result is a frontal attack that has provoked talk in the Bush admi nistration of possibly banning the film. Should the Bush administration take such an unprecedented measure, Michael Moore will become a martyr nationwide immediately, and the impact of such an action on Bush’s chances for re-election will be felt acutely.
The actual attack on September 11, 2001, interestingly enough, takes up so little time in the film that it might seem to some viewers almost insignificant, but it is, in fact, the focus of the entire film. Moore depicts the attack as an event of which the Bush administration had ample prior knowledge and could have prevented simply by monitoring the many Al Qaeda members, most of whom were Saudi nationals, residing in the United States and studying in American flight schools at the time the attack took place. President Bush is depicted as a President-on-vacation throughout the entire period of crisis, and the message that comes across is that the September 11, 2001 attack was only one part of a scheme to manipulate the public into a mindset of terror so that a grandiose scam could be carried out that would generate profits for American firms connected with defense contracting and fossil-fuel energy sources, as well as the Saudi royal fam ily, who, according to the film, is so close to the Bush family as to be regarded as related.
The film makes no pretense at being balanced in its views. No attempt is made to convince the viewer that the report is nonpartisan or unbiased. The audience sees exactly what Michael Moore wants it to see, and Moore does a superb job of presenting his views in a clear, concise manner on film. The viewer is, therefore, compelled to decide whether to accept the film as an accurate documentary or political propaganda aimed at dislodging George W. Bush from the Presidency. Most readers who are either homeless or sympathetic to the plight of the needy, Bush’s rather hostile policies toward the underprivileged sectors of the population will probably mean that the film will generate almost unanimous support of Moore’s views, especially when they see the exploitation of the victims of the economy. In light of the way Moore points out accurately that many of the people living in the current economic plight in the United States live in conditions not altogether different from those that exist in war-torn areas of Iraq today, persons who are currently wondering if they have anything to hope for in terms of simple survival will surely express their views in November.
Is the film worth seeing? From a historical standpoint, it is. It is, however, definitely not for the faint of heart, and a person who seeks to keep stress levels down might find the film unduly upsetting. However, even if a viewer agrees or disagrees with Moore’s documentary, the film has recorded beliefs held by the public that will not go away, regardless of what the results are in the upcoming election.
Copyright © 2004
Moore’s dislike of President Bush and the Bush family is obvious from the start. The film paints a very negative picture of the Bush family as being driven only by oil-based wealth that is linked directly to the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royal family, and various corporate entities that are all apparently “in on the deal” in terms of generating profits from all the events that developed before and after September 11, 2001. Moore makes it a point of presenting the idea that the tragedy of September 11, 2001 was a carefully orchestrated event performed with the knowledge and, more than likely, consent of the Bush family at a time when Bush was, as the film states, “on vacation” as his popularity rating plunged. The film is truly a cynic’s delight in making the point that everything that took place on September 11, 2001 had but one purpose: to generate more wealth for the Bush family and the Saudis, both of w hom enjoy an immense amount of protection by the Secret Service.
Moore’s appearance in the film adds an element that makes him open for caustic criticism, as he is neither photogenic nor particularly tactful. The one element that compensates for what many may believe to be Moore’s exaggerated ego in making himself a feature in his own film is the obvious sincerity in which he pursues his subject; nobody viewing the film can doubt that he believes very strongly in what he says. His visit back to his hometown of Flint, Michigan hits hard, as he shows the economic devastation in the city and the aggressive efforts to recruit the many young people affected by the economic blight into the military. The footage showing the bereaved family of Sergeant Michael Pedersen hits home in a way that cannot be ignored, unfortunately, by anyone viewing the film.
The filmed carnage of the war in Iraq, a major feature of the film, evokes memories of the Vietnam War for persons old enough to remember that era; persons from later generations for whom the Vietnam War is only a name from history cannot ignore the grim reality that the war in Iraq is something that has already impacted American society permanently. The film, however, makes a compelling point that the one and only motive for launching the war in Iraq was commercial and suited the needs of the Bush oil empire more than protected the American people, which was the reason President Bush appears in the film as stating as the objective of the war. Add to that the sight of Lila Lipscombe, the mother of Sergeant Michael Pedersen , who, by her own admission, is a “conservative Democrat” and who states openly that she is proud to be American, weeping over her son’s death, and the result is a frontal attack that has provoked talk in the Bush admi nistration of possibly banning the film. Should the Bush administration take such an unprecedented measure, Michael Moore will become a martyr nationwide immediately, and the impact of such an action on Bush’s chances for re-election will be felt acutely.
The actual attack on September 11, 2001, interestingly enough, takes up so little time in the film that it might seem to some viewers almost insignificant, but it is, in fact, the focus of the entire film. Moore depicts the attack as an event of which the Bush administration had ample prior knowledge and could have prevented simply by monitoring the many Al Qaeda members, most of whom were Saudi nationals, residing in the United States and studying in American flight schools at the time the attack took place. President Bush is depicted as a President-on-vacation throughout the entire period of crisis, and the message that comes across is that the September 11, 2001 attack was only one part of a scheme to manipulate the public into a mindset of terror so that a grandiose scam could be carried out that would generate profits for American firms connected with defense contracting and fossil-fuel energy sources, as well as the Saudi royal fam ily, who, according to the film, is so close to the Bush family as to be regarded as related.
The film makes no pretense at being balanced in its views. No attempt is made to convince the viewer that the report is nonpartisan or unbiased. The audience sees exactly what Michael Moore wants it to see, and Moore does a superb job of presenting his views in a clear, concise manner on film. The viewer is, therefore, compelled to decide whether to accept the film as an accurate documentary or political propaganda aimed at dislodging George W. Bush from the Presidency. Most readers who are either homeless or sympathetic to the plight of the needy, Bush’s rather hostile policies toward the underprivileged sectors of the population will probably mean that the film will generate almost unanimous support of Moore’s views, especially when they see the exploitation of the victims of the economy. In light of the way Moore points out accurately that many of the people living in the current economic plight in the United States live in conditions not altogether different from those that exist in war-torn areas of Iraq today, persons who are currently wondering if they have anything to hope for in terms of simple survival will surely express their views in November.
Is the film worth seeing? From a historical standpoint, it is. It is, however, definitely not for the faint of heart, and a person who seeks to keep stress levels down might find the film unduly upsetting. However, even if a viewer agrees or disagrees with Moore’s documentary, the film has recorded beliefs held by the public that will not go away, regardless of what the results are in the upcoming election.
Copyright © 2004
posted by MasterWriter at 1:11 a.m.
0 comments
