Tuesday 06th 2004f July 2004
« « Shrek 2| Spiderman 2 » »Fahrenheit 9/11
So, what to review? The opinion? The facts? The emotional content? The artistry? Bush? Moore?
Difficult to say – I suppose one of things that a review should try and deliver is some sense of what watching the movie will actually be like, and I don’t know if that’s really possible in this case. A supoorter of Bush will react differently to one who opposes him. Some people watch this movie ready and willing to believe the worst, some believing that everything they’re being told is automatically untrue. Some believe the facts but don’t quite agree with the conclusions. Some agree with the conclusions, but don’t think it’s relevant.
Personally, I’m in the camp that believes that Moore with his team of lawyers and fact-checkers has been very, very careful to ensure that everything in the film is factually accurate – but I don’t quite think he makes his case all the way. Having said that, he makes enough of it for me to find it impossible to believe that anyone will ever vote for Bush. Ever.
But I thought that already, really, and at least 49% of the 51% of Americans who bothered to vote in the last presidential election disagreed with me. And I can’t vote, so it really doesn’t matter.
But if some of his assertions don’t really overcome a bit of critical thought (very rich people with common investments having met != vast conspiracy to defraud the American people), some of them do (Bush has never been successful in anything, and everything he has ever had in his life has been handed to him by a vast network of influence he inherited from his father). I find it hard to believe that Bush is an idiot, but he certainly displays little or no verbal dexterity or oratorical ability. I wonder how people defend him against that?
But Moore smartly does more that polemicize – he offers meat. He provides a service. He shows footage that the news networks over here have not been showing. He tells the stories of some of the serving soldiers. He displays a face of the war in Iraq that hasn’t been previously widely displayed – an ugly face.
In one sense, this is beside the point – I happen to think that brain surgery is pretty gross, but that doesn’t lead me to believe that it should be forbidden; just because something isn’t pretty doesn’t mean it isn’t for the good. But Moore succeeds in making a deeper point – it’s honourable to be prepared to give your life for your country, and it’s honourable to actually give it. But where’s the honour if it seems you went to war for reasons that are dubious? Where’s the honour if it’s really not your country you’re dying for? Soldiers and their families are having to grapple with this question – there was a case for invading Iraq, but nobody made it.
Anyway, whatever your politics, this film is an emotional rollercoaster – I was played like a violin. This is not a bad thing. But it is a shame that this seems to be the level of political discourse here – it’s all about who can harness the stronger emotional message to their cause. It’s good that Moore is around – he’s skilled at that sort of thing – but it’s not good that it’s necessary. Almost the biggest villain of the piece isn’t Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld – it’s the US press. My God, they’re so vapid! They should pay Jeremy Paxman $10 million to interview Bush, but without warning Bush. Paxman could stand outside the White House and taunt Bush for being a coward until he agreed to be grilled by a journalist who wasn’t whipped.
Just so vapid. But that’s OK – I get all my news from The Daily Show, anyway.
Comment ID: 1556
At 9:33 pm on Tuesday 06th 2004f July 2004, Nigel channelledI hope to see the film soon but I do have some of the same reservations about Michael Moore. He’s just a little too fond of the grand or dramatic statement for my liking. (i.e. When he turned his quill to Northern Ireland when discussing Clinton’s visit he described Catholics as living in Arpatheid like conditions. Not entirely inaccurate but too emotive a metaphor.) Then again, look at the normal standard of political discourse in his country.
One of my biggest problems with “Stupid White Men” was it’s title. Anybody who runs the world can’t be stupid. Ignorant, selfish, ill-informed? Yes, maybe. But stupid?
I was more or less opposed to the war until it had been going on for a week or so. The main anti-war groups here were organising a rally to call for the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq. Bad enough that Sinn Fein’s peaceniks were ‘opposed’ to it without wooly logic like that being on my side.
I’m looking forward to seeing this but I agree that it’s a pathetic indication of how poorly served the American public are by their media that this film is one of the most high profile critiques of the regime.
Have you read Hitchens’ review of it?
Comment ID: 1570
At 2:30 pm on Saturday 10th 2004f July 2004, Ivan was inspired to addRambling and a bit of a mess, and for me not serious enough at the right times. I think he should have made two or three documentaries as he failes to tie up all the seperate elements of this one.
It starts very well with Bush and his cronies stealing the election and bullying the country into giving him the top job, and the ‘my pet goat’ bit is genuinely funny and terrifing at the same time, but then it loses its way. The section on The Carlyle group and the Saudis is weak and resorts to ‘the Saudis are an unknown and dangerous influence in American policy’ type statements of a similar quality to the admittedly poor quality of american news media. Something, i believe, that can potentially lead to xenephobia directed at the Saudi people. At best funny, at worst ignorant masquerading as informed.
Not to be cold hearted or insensative but of course a grieving mother wants answers, so do I, I am not going to get them from her so why spend so much time with her? I know all politics are local, but do the experiences of one patriotic family in America really deserve so much time in a documentary which is supposed to be about how the actions or inactions of a group of greedy dangerous fundamentalists resulted in 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion/home invasion/rape/humiliation?
Sometimes very worthy, sometimes the opposite. A film people should see for the facts and then go find out more.
Its a pity that Moore subscribes to the same ideology as the news networks, i.e. that people need to be told what to think.
Comment ID: 4223
At 3:03 am on Tuesday 18th 2005f October 2005, JIMI declaredI didn’t like the way he MANIPULATED that woman who lost her son in Iraq. Sometimes Moore feels like a fake to me, especially when he emotes on screen (he did a lot of that on Bowling for Columbine – a bit of anger I can handle but when the narrator overdoes the “I really care” routine it just starts to piss me off – I don’t really care what Michael Moore thinks, just give me the facts and I’ll decide if I care but don’t do your crybaby routine for me – be a professional please).
So there…