Fahrenheit 9/11

LINKS
—Overview
—HJ Roundtable Discussion
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

I arrived at the theatre at 7:22 p.m. Fahrenheit 9/11 was scheduled to start at 7:30. The film was showing on two screens that night, one of which, I discovered, was already sold out. When I got inside, I realized I should have come earlier. Way earlier. The place was packed. It was all I could do to find a seat.

During the previews, I looked around the theatre and marveled at the crowd. This was a Saturday night, in Canada. By all accounts, we should have been out drinking beer and participating in some sort of hockey-related event. But we were all here to watch a documentary. About the United States, no less. On a Saturday night. Perhaps what Michael Moore said during his Oscar acceptance speech for Bowling for Columbine was true, I thought. Perhaps we really do prefer non-fiction to fiction. The question remained, however: In which category did this film fall?

That question was answered for me over the next two hours as I watched what could best be described as an exercise in fear mongering of the worst kind. Even though this film won the Palme d’Or in Cannes, I have to say that, as a documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 is not particularly good. As a purportedly non-fiction film, it scores even worse. And as entertainment? Let’s just say it’s no Bowling for Columbine.

Without going into too much tiresome detail, and at the risk of piling up a small mountain of adjectives, my summary of Fahrenheit 9/11 goes something like this: unfocused, snide, contradictory, paranoid, emotionally manipulative, exploitive, and, at some points, outright delusional. By now, we all expect a certain amount of chutzpah from Moore. That’s what I love about him. He never fails to see the humorous side of the serious issues he explores. He’s a master at mixing information with entertainment, and he isn’t afraid to go out on a limb to stir up controversy and discussion. But this time, I fear the limb may have snapped. Rather than tackle a serious issue in a semi-serious way, as he did with Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me, Moore attempts to place George W. Bush at the center of the biggest boondoggle of all time. For two painstaking hours, Moore does his best to convince us that Bush is some kind of Manchurian Candidate planted in the White House to serve the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And Moore has all the funny looks and scary music to prove it!

While I am not a big fan of George Bush’s administration or the war in Iraq, Moore lays things on a little too thick in Fahrenheit 9/11, even for an avowed fan like me. For example, at one point Moore asks us to believe that “Big Tobacco� pressured the Department of Homeland Security to allow matches and cigarette lighters onboard commercial flights so that smokers could light up immediately upon landing, even though such items could be used to ignite bombs like the one convicted terrorist Richard Reid hid in his shoes. Or how about this: After outlining the admittedly extensive connections between the Bushes, the Bin Ladens, and the Saudi royal family, Moore asks something along the lines of: “If someone is paying you $400,000 per year to lead their country but, over the years, the Saudis have paid your family $1.4 billion, when you wake up in the morning, who are you going to worry most about pleasing: The Saudis or the American people?� Moore’s premise here is that the only thing that motivates George W. Bush is money. However, as I listened to Moore draw this conclusion, I began to wonder who was more concerned about making money off the Saudi-Bush connection: George W. or Michael M.? As with any blame game, it isn’t long before the finger you are pointing at others turns around and starts pointing back at you.

Refreshingly, Fahrenheit 9/11 does include a couple of Moore’s trademark publicity stunts, such as when he rides around the Capitol building in an ice cream truck while reading the Patriot Act over a loudspeaker or when he approaches congressmen on the street and asks them to enlist their children to serve in Iraq. Once again, if Moore had resorted to more of these antics instead of using a conspiracy theory approach, the opinions he expresses in this film would have been much easier to swallow, because it would be obvious that he considers them just that: opinions. Instead, he presents his opinions as facts, and he expects us to embrace them as such. I’m sorry, but in this age of 24-hour news and the Internet; such obvious propagandizing just doesn’t cut it.

That’s not to say Fahrenheit 9/11 does not have its moments. The footage of young American soldiers talking about the type of music they like to listen to as they blow up Iraqi neighborhoods with their tanks is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. War as a video game come to life. Thankfully, Moore balanced these interviews with the accounts of soldiers for whom killing had become a face-to-face affair. Their disturbing version of the conflict led me to believe that the pimple-faced push-button killers in the tanks had yet to encounter the victims of their carnage firsthand. Taken together, their testimonies, as well as Moore’s coverage of grieving mothers on both sides of the conflict, present a grim picture of modern war and its effect on us—equal parts desensitization and soul-rending tragedy. If Moore had only stuck with something along these lines, I think this film really would have amounted to something.

Recently, I expressed my doubts that Fahrenheit 9/11 would change anyone’s mind about George Bush or Michael Moore. Having been pre-conditioned by the media to hate one or the other, I proposed that viewing the film would only solidify people’s preconceptions, because most would go into the theatre looking to confirm their particular point of view rather than challenge it. However, in my case at least, viewing the film had exactly the opposite effect. I went in a Michael Moore fan. And while I didn’t emerge as a convert to the George W. gospel, I definitely lost a lot of respect for Moore and his ability to play fair with the facts. I also have serious doubts about his preference for non-fiction over fiction. His film may feature real people and real events, but you don’t have to dig too deep to realize the yarn he attempts to weave out of this mish-mash of footage and fallacies is anything but the truth.

At the same time, I cannot dispute that Moore has tapped into at least one fundamental truth: People are outraged with a political system that strives to keep them ignorant and powerless. They are tired of an administration that withholds information from the very people who elected it, one that uses fear to manipulate them into sanctioning its agenda, for good or for evil. People want the truth; they demand it. Sadly, however, truth appears to be in short supply these days. We live in an age of inquiries and commissions, conspiracies and suspicion. As an auto mechanic featured in this film says, “You should never trust anyone you don’t know. In fact, you probably shouldn’t even trust the people you do know.�

Many people hoped to find the truth in Fahrenheit 9/11. An astounding number, actually. Even though the film opened on less than a quarter of the screens of its closest rival, it still topped the weekend box office. Unfortunately, while people may believe they have found the truth in Fahrenheit 9/11—people actually applauded the film where I viewed it—I fear they may have unwittingly bought into the very thing Moore’s film purportedly condemns: Fear packaged as truth in order to sway them in a particular direction. This time, however, they weren’t taught to fear Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or a host of nameless, faceless Middle Eastern terrorists. They were taught to fear George Bush, the American government, their neighbors—even themselves. Jesus said, “the truth will set you free.� In this case, however, Moore’s “truth� doesn’t offer freedom. All it provides is a different type of bondage.

LINKS
—Overview
—HJ Roundtable Discussion
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections