 |
  
Your Gateway to Music and More from a Christian Perspective Slow down as you approach the gate, and have your change ready.... |
|
Your Gateway to Music and More from a Christian Perspective Slow down as you approach the gate, and have your change ready.... |
| Subscribe
About Us Features News Album
Reviews
|
Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore's new documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, won the grand prize at the Cannes Film Festival and was greeted with one of the longest standing ovations in that festival's history. That says much more about Europe's view of our president than it does the merits of Moore's film. Not that it's a terrible film. In fact, it provides the unusual combination of being both entertaining and thought-provoking. But it also feels like a missed opportunity, with too many digressions and an over-reliance on funny musical interludes. The movie begins with a bang, literally (a fireworks display at a Gore "victory" celebration) and figuratively. Moore muses on the 2000 election and asks, "Was it all a dream?" He provides amazing footage of the protests that occurred during Bush's inauguration, material that never made it on the evening news, and then cruises through the first eight months of his presidency, highlighting the fact that the Bush administration ignored the numerous warnings about terrorism and instead was on vacation for 42% of those first months. It's a damning claim, which is then followed by Moore's provocative recounting of the Sept. 11 attacks. Unlike Bowling for Columbine, where Moore seemed to belittle the attacks by ironically playing Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World," here he makes the fantastic decision of showing neither the planes nor the collapse of the towers. Instead, the audience is left in a dark theater as we hear the planes hit the towers, and then Moore cuts in footage of horrified people gazing up at them. The effect is to take 9/11 out of politics (and the Bush administration's appropriation of that day) and remind us of its utter horror. Moore then raises the extremely provocative fact that when planes were downed for those first few days after the disaster, the Bush administration facilitated the flights of dozens of Bin Laden family members out of the U.S. As one former FBI official remarks, "Wouldn't it have been a good idea to interview those people before they left?" Why would Bush allow that to happen? It's a potential conspiracy that's worth exploring. The problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it finds conspiracies in every nook and cranny of the Bush administration. Some of those conspiracies are flimsy at best--that a Bush relative at Fox News was responsible for changing Florida from a Gore state to a Bush state, that the U.S. bombed Afghanistan not to get Bin Laden but to construct a natural gas pipeline through the country, that the Bush family is so friendly with the Saudis that George W. worries more about Saudi Arabia than the U.S. That last one is particularly irritating because Moore spends so much time arguing for it, and yet he merely comes up with insinuations. The only concrete "evidence" he presents is a montage of Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld shaking hands with various Saudi leaders. As if politicians don't shake hands with every foreign leader they see. These conspiratorial digressions detract from what should be the real meat of the film--the Bush administration's persistent and outrageous lies regarding Iraq and national security. Given Moore's cleverness with montage, it shouldn't have been hard for him to pair shots of pre-war statements from Bush and his cronies with shots of the war's reality; "we will be welcomed into Iraq" followed by footage of the current debacle, "we will find weapons of mass destruction" with the admissions that there aren't any, "democracy in Iraq will soon pave the way for democracy throughout the Middle East" with footage of the chaos throughout that region. The Bush administration gave so many different reasons for why we should invade Iraq, and almost none of them have been close to true. Yet, Moore focuses on the long digression about Saudi Arabia, the usual stuff about Halliburton (again with little _evidence_ to back it up), and a discussion of how the FBI is infiltrating peace movements. Any of those might have made for a compelling film, but not when they're offered in five-minute segments with little real documentation. I mean, if you're going to discuss the Patriot Act, at least focus on the horrible string of baseless detentions that even the Justice Dept. admits have yielded no terrorist leads. Instead, Moore spends too much time interviewing someone who was merely questioned by the FBI because he made anti-Bush remarks. As with Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 finds its stride when Moore returns to his hometown of Flint. It's no coincidence that this is where Moore largely dumps the editorial music and humorous editing. He's finally getting serious, and the movie benefits greatly. In Flint, he interviews a woman whose son, we learn, was killed in Iraq along with several other people who have family serving in the war. The moment when the mother reads the last letter from her son is emotionally wrenching and puts a human face on the abstraction of war. Moore also follows two Marine recruiters, who make a point of targeting poor, young people, knowing that they have few career options. That makes sense, of course, but it raises the very troubling realization that politicians are again fighting a war that benefits the rich on the bodies of the poor. This leads to the best part of Fahrenheit 9/11--when Moore heads to Washington D.C. and attempts to get congressmen to enlist their own children in the armed forces. Admittedly, there's something slightly unethical about Moore's brand of gotcha interviewing, but it's also gratifying to see politicians dragged out of their comfort zone and forced to deal with the reality of their own decisions. In that way, Moore performs one of the highest goals of journalism--to trouble the powerful and confront them with their own hypocrisy. His final statement makes for a stunning conclusion: "Who can blame them [for not enlisting their children]? Who would want to send their own child to Iraq? Would you?" The answer is easy, but it raises the question of why we went in the first place. If all of Fahrenheit 9/11 had been that focused, the film would've been a masterpiece. J. Robert Parks 6/27/2004
The scenes are dramatic and memorable. So why don't I seem to remember them? Is it possible that I have repressed all visual and auditory images associated with the trailer for Michael Moore's Cannes-award-winning film, Fahrenheit 9/11? Perhaps everything within my unconscious resists the distinct sense that I am being manipulated by cherry-picked, out-of-context sound bites, and sensationalized scenes, also ripped unsparingly out of context? The scientific psychologist in me wants to refrain from drawing any pre-mature conclusions about Michael Moore and his movie, based on a limited fund of knowledge on each. Yet the side of me that is sick and tired of being psychologically correct longs to write a song that expresses my true sentiments in response to this movie. Michael Moore Makes a mint Off his paranoid delusions I'm a shrink I should know You know Folks pay me I don't pay them To reveal Their paranoid delusions So why should I Pay to see this film? Sing along, altogether now: FahrenHYPE 9/11 On the brink of insanity Michael Moore It's time to see a shrink If you forget To take your pills It won't hurt your pocketbook Sometimes it really pays to be insane Oops, that was a Freudian
slip. I better put my objective, scientific psychologist hat back
on and stop diagnosing a man I have not had the opportunity to analyze
in a controlled setting, with the strictest of psychological measures at
my disposal. Going back to the trailer, I can see why the French
saw this movie as art. Or can I? Were the French film arbiters
allowing their ostensible hatred towards the United States, along with
their liberal political leanings, to interfere with their objectivity?
On the other hand, am I allowing my preconceived notions about Michael
Moore to interfere with my ability to objectively and effectively judge
this trailer?
At the Cannes Festival You were awarded for delusions They call it art I call it politics Politics With a twist Of psychotic paranoia A padded room Is all you really need There goes that Freudian slippage again. Here I go, slip, sliding away, on the slippery slope away from objective scientific analysis. Something about the scene in which Michael Moore is drawing from Bush's own utterances to depict him an incompetent, dishonorable, and dishonest idiot, urges me to probe deeper into a psyche I have only extra-indirect access to... I wonder how you got along with Daddy I wonder if Bush is like your dad Patricidal rage is not the answer It you're not cured You'll drive the whole world mad I repeat: FahrenHYPE 9/11 On the brink of insanity Michael Moore It's time to see a shrink If you forget To take your pills It won't hurt your pocketbook Sometimes it really pays to be insane... Is what I'm seeing on my computer screen objet d'art or simply sensationalized, delusion-based trailer trash? To say that the trailer has no artistic merit would be intellectually dishonest. Michael Moore is as every bit as bright, witty, and comical as he is bitterly hostile towards, and unmerciful in the treatment of victims of his vitriolic attacks. This truism comes through loud and clear in this carefully crafted sneak preview. Yet the art is often overshadowed by Moore's transparent, and perhaps partly-paranoid-driven political agenda. Hitherto, the trailer has not convinced me to see the movie, so perhaps it is an abysmal failure. I am undoubtedly reluctant to shell out even one thin dime to further Moore's misguided political ambitions. On the other hand, the trailer was the impetus behind this review, so if the inculcation of impetus in a critic, is any indicator of artistic success, then I would have to argue that it is a success. Just a minute, it's my cell phone. Hold on. I'll get right back to trashing this trailer. Michael, is that you?
Now, where was I before I was so rudely interrupted? By psychologist Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen, aka, Dr. B.L.T. Trailer Rating: www.drblt.com/freesong.htm
|
|
|
|
