EVENT
“…it may be that the confusions trailing Mr. Moore’s narrative are what make “Fahrenheit 9/11″ an authentic and indispensable document of its time.”
– A.O. Scott, The New York Times
“At its best, “Fahrenheit 9/11″ is an impressionist burlesque of contemporary American politics that culminates in a somber lament for lives lost in Iraq.”
– Joe Morgenstern, The Wall Street Journal
“…few films can claim to reflect as potently this tumultuous, polarizing American age.”
– Ed Bradley, The Flint Journal
* * * * *
EDUCATION
And there you have it: the one common point of reference between the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Let me make this clear: Fahrenheit 9/11 told me absolutely nothing I hadn’t heard before. It only educated me in the sense of a few clarifications, and even those I must reexamine and cross-examine before I accept them without reservation.
It has nothing to do with suspecting Michael Moore of falsehood.
It, rather, is an impulse to follow my father’s advice to “scrutinize arguments with which you agree.”
And I agree with Moore’s argument almost whole-heartedly.
* * * * *
MOTION
The movie educated me very little.
It moved me greatly.
Not the score. The score was often irritating. It weakened Moore’s argument.
Not Moore’s occasional antics and moralizing. That weakened his argument as well.
No.
Indifference that canot be feigned.
Grief that cannot be feigned.
That moved me.
* * * * *
ACTIVATION
On the way out, I commented that I enjoyed the movie, and Elisabeth answered “I don’t think of it as enjoying it, but as a tool.”
As a tool for the left, for the democrats, for the anti-Bush league, the film is valuable.
It also leaves some things to be desired.
On the one hand, most of Moore’s facts and many of his assertions are well-substantiated by multiple sources.
The film’s most galvanizing moments are straight from the source itself: the conduct of our elected officials, the thoughts and feelings of soldiers of the field, Iraqi civilians, and families on the homefront.
Fence-sitters who sit through to the end may be compelled to reexamine their past support or complicity towards Bush and the war.
All that said, Moore is most vulnerable where credibility is concerned. A blockbuster-worthy musical score, jokes and humerous juxtapositions, and occasional leaps of interpretation all raise doubts about Moore as a critical observer. This will not sit well with an already-skeptical audience.
Moore has made no secret of his hope that this film will help push the election toward Kerry.
To this end he has exercised more restraint than usual… but even so, I wonder if he exercised enough.
* * * * *
THERE IS NO BOTTOM
The film is nevertheless genius, and probably in a way that Moore did not intend or predict.
This has occured to me gradually since I saw it, but I think I am finally able to express what I’m thinking.
The Flint Journal, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, all in their different takes on Fahrenheit 9/11 draw their attention to a permeating sense of confusion, contradiction, and turmoil. Moreover, they state that this sense is somehow reflective of our nation’s present dilemma.
And here is where Fahrenheit 9/11, taken as one whole beast will be felt most powerfully.
This is not the craftily-edited attack of Roger and Me, nor is it the carefully deployed argument outlined in Bowling for Colubine. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a Frankenstein that somehow escaped its creator’s control and exerts a broader and deeper power than a simple indictment of the Bush administration.
If I seem to move by dramatic flair, let me outline what I’m thinking:
Michael Moore conceived this project as an attack on the Bush administration based on its most prominent and controversial arc: the leadup to 9/11 and its fallout through to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Moore has also conceived this project for mainstream consumption; he’s not happy with disenfranchised autoworkers or Naderites anymore. He wants fence-sitters to vote against Bush.
But mainstream America won’t sit through a four hour documentary on anything.
A four hour documentary would be barely adequate to make the argument he wants to make.
His narrative sequence seems to clearly set up a cause-and-effect relationship between events.
But he cannot develop the connections in the time he has allotted himself. Furthermore, he cannot separate his own emotion from the charges he is making.
So we are, in the end, possibly convinced that the Bush administration was motivated by greed, that our government has behaved with incompetence and irresponsibility, and that the burden has been shouldered by innocent Americans and Iraqis.
Everything else is up for grabs.
Fahrenheit 9/11 leaves us stranded at a point of doubt, uncertainty, and shifting points of reference.
There is no place to stop and take root.
How, after all, are we able to verify anything, when our government, our media, and our oldest political traditions are all revealed at their most flawed and problematic?
How deep is the water in which we swim?
Have we any way of knowing, treading water out here alone?
Inasmuch as the scattered doubt inflicted upon the Bush administration is damaging, I think this movie may well achieve its intended effect.
But the sense of inertia and confusion, I think, is not a deliberate vehicle.
At some point Michael Moore stopped designing a film and the film structured itself.
How can we trust?
Who needn’t we doubt?
It’s what we’ve been worried about all along.
In the (paraphrased) words of one anonymous man in Fahrenheit 9/11: “You can’t trust anyone you don’t know… actaully, you can’t even trust anyone you do know.”
~ Connor