Fahrenheit 9/11

Written and directed by Michael Moore
R	some violent and disturbing images, and for language
narrated by Michael Moore

Reviewer: Nate Clarke

I am not a big Michael Moore fan and I am not a big George W. fan — for many of the same reasons. They both seem so focused upon their own dogma that they often miss the subtlety of life in a complex world. Our world is too complicated to be boiled down to this political position is right and this one is wrong. So Fahrenheit 9/11 pits these great pillars of conservative and liberal ideologies against one another, yet would either emerge as victor? Or at least a little less unscathed?

As long as the O'Reilly Factor is not standard viewing fare, Fahrenheit 9/11 will leave you somewhere between frustrated and angry at the Bush administration. Moore paints a picture of an administration who serves a constituency that consists of foreign Saudi investors and not the poor voters who bear the brunt of the administration's foreign policy decisions. It is here that Fahrenheit 9/11 is most powerful and influential. Sure, Moore inundates us with context free statistics and often declares guilt by mere association. But an important question emerges — to whom do the Bush clan owe allegiance? The implication is that at the best, the Bush family is focused upon their own financial gain and at the worst, Moore wonders if they are at the service of the Saudis. Either way, according to Moore, our President has abandoned the ideals of his institution.

But how does one keep that reality from the public? Fear. In a continuation of ideas from Bowling for Columbine, Moore suggests that the White House has used the events of September 11 and subsequent fears about the threat of terror to blind Americans from the questionable agenda of the Bush Administration. After all, focus the nation on itself and people will be blinded to the sketchiness in Washington.

After Moore "exposes" the unethical tactics of the Bush administration, he then aims his criticism on the impact they have had upon the people of Iraq and the disenfranchised of urban centers like Flint, Michigan. It is not the politicians who bear the burden of war, it is the poor who are destroyed by American bombs and the eighteen year olds who have little choice but to enter the armed forces and kill in the name of "freedom." Moore raises point after point of convincing argument, yet by the end he is left capitalizing on the trauma of a mother whose son has been killed in combat in a sequence that feels border line exploitation.

And this takes us to the central dilemma surrounding this film. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not all Frontline type material. Moore has a personal bone to pick with Bush. For example, in a telling choice, Michael Moore uses the entire bloated opening credits to show clips of Bush and his cabinet prepping for on air interviews — we get to see those 30 seconds before the camera roles and before the viewer sees a primped and made up politician ready to spin the latest development in foreign policy. Does this prove some existential point about the vanity of Bush and his disciples (and I am sure that Moore has never tended to his beard or hair before speaking on the Daily Show or accepting an award?) Or is it that Moore's choice to use this footage points to the fundamental problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 — he is so concerned with defiling the image of the Bush administration that he lingers in the absurd and speeds over the sublime points he raises.

Moore has created a film that is cheer out loud for those already signed onto the Democratic party yet I doubt whether its intense partisanship and questionable ethics will convince a lot of independents and even fewer Republicans to vote for Kerry. Beyond that, Moore has missed a great opportunity. Instead of a shocking investigation into the relationship between money and politics or an empathetic exploration of the impact of war upon the poor, we are left with vignettes of a silly man playing a lot of golf. I am sure you have heard all the criticisms laid upon Moore — his impartiality, his penchant for telling only one side of the story, using facts and statistics out of context. Just type Michael Moore into Google and I am sure you will find countless sites and articles nit picking apart Fahrenheit 9/11. However, what is most frustrating for me is that by the end of the film, Moore has chosen the easier route of mockery than the more complex avenue of investigation. There are issues in here with which we as individuals and as a nation need to wrestle. Yet I doubt that Fahrenheit 9/11 is the catalyst to start a nation wide self investigation — which is a shame.

Moore has made a film whose goal is to remove Bush from the White House at all costs. However, at what cost has this been to Moore, his integrity as a film maker, and his cause?

© InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA ® \| Privacy Policy
Questions about the website? Contact
Member of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students