Best review of Farenhiet 9/11 I've read

[Guest Cerebus]

I've read a lot of reviews for F9/11 so far, but none that hit it as hard on the nail as this. It's pretty long so here are some choice exerpts :

 

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental.To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

 

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

 

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible.

 

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

 

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet.

 

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them.

 

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

 

Yeowch.

[NoCalMike 0]

so by best, you mean most biasedly against it........gotcha

[Guest Cerebus]

Well I did find Ebert's pretty good. But if you read the whole thing, its hits everything on the nail. You know me NoCal, I (try) to call it as I see it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You're half way to a Cold Prickly, young man.

 

Even if the rest of the movie is garbage, driving around in an ice cream truck around national landmarks while reading the Patriot Act out of a megaphone is greatness personified. Reminds me of the Homobile or whatever it was he was bothering Phelps with.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't mind if you are against the stuff presented in the movie, but what do you mean by, "hit the nail on the head" That obviously is just your opnion, and seeing as that you should watch the movie for yourself first before claiming how great a review of it is, try to hold off on proclaiming what has "hit the nail on the head" Thanks

 

 

[/bias jerk mode]

[BUTT 0]

so by best, you mean most biasedly against it........gotcha

Actually, this guy seems to be very liberal. He wrote a very anti-Reagan piece a couple of weeks ago.

[NoCalMike 0]

so by best, you mean most biasedly against it........gotcha

Actually, this guy seems to be very liberal. He wrote a very anti-Reagan piece a couple of weeks ago.

I meant the review itself, not his personal opinion.

[Guest Cerebus]

Christopher Hitchens is actually a former Marixst (he had been a staple of the leftist magazine The Nation until 2002) who broke with the "Left" after 9/11.

 

NoCal,

 

You're right, I havn't seen the movie (I probably will wait till it comes out on DVD and borrow it from somebody). I have, however, seen the trailer and read the reviews and gleaned as many of Moore's claims and presentations as can be gleaned. Hitchens, who has seen the film, does a pretty thorough job of frisking those idiotic claims which is what I meant with my "nail" comment.

[Vyce 0]

It's Slate. How fucking biased to the right can it be?

 

And Ebert's review was LAUGHABLE. Ebert's harshest criticism of Moore was "Gee, sometimes I GUESS he plays a little loose with the facts....", which is probably the mildest rebuke of Moore one can possibly make. Ebert's review of the film is so biased for Moore than it is essentially of no greater value than mine would be if, after I had seen the film, I proceeded to give it a "thumb down" for no other reason than I didn't like its ideology.

 

If you're ideologically liberal or of the left, the last thing you should do is champion Michael Moore. He makes you look about as good as Coulter does conservatives.

[Guest INXS]

Obviously the movie is balanced more in favor of Moore's views. It's HIS movie, he doesn't have any obligation to include both sides of the story. If F/911 helps to get Bush out of the white house in November I have NO problem with it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you're ideologically liberal or of the left, the last thing you should do is champion Michael Moore.  He makes you look about as good as Coulter does conservatives.

I'd say it's more like Savage. Both could make a good point possibly as long as it stays away from the usual subjects they like to spew crap about.

 

Moore's thoughts on how white people are overwhelmingly racist and building a nation that runs scared from black people is downright offensive to me.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Man, Mario Cuomo and that Republican congressman (name escapes me, he was from California, Hollywood's district even) really got close to getting into it hardcore on Wolf Blitzer's show about this.

 

The film just got denied PG-13 status and was made R. Can't say I disagree, not for the violence (which can be found on the nightly news), but on the language (which is censored on the nightly news).

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Obviously the movie is balanced more in favor of Moore's views. It's HIS movie, he doesn't have any obligation to include both sides of the story. If F/911 helps to get Bush out of the white house in November I have NO problem with it.

If he's going to call it a documentary and pass it off as one he damn well has to give both sides.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I don't see why supporters of the film get up in arms about it being called propoganda. It's something created to help persuade people to accept a certain point of view, so it's certainly propoganda. Shit, the Declaration of Independence and its reasons for leaving the Kingdom was a propogandical document.

[Guest whatitistoburn]

Obviously the movie is balanced more in favor of Moore's views. It's HIS movie, he doesn't have any obligation to include both sides of the story. If F/911 helps to get Bush out of the white house in November I have NO problem with it.

If he's going to call it a documentary and pass it off as one he damn well has to give both sides.

No he doesn't.

 

First, calling F9/11 a documentary is a stretch at best. We all know it's a propaganda peice.

 

That said, theres no rule that says a documentary has to give both sides of a story. At the core, a documentary film maker is still storyteller. And as a storyteller, they usually have a certain story they're attempting to sell. They are not obligated to give all the facts or to give all sides of the story if it effects their message.

 

Of course, it usually helps when you give a different perspective, as if the different one can be made to look bafoonish or silly it can enhance the core message.

 

Don't delude yourself. Everyone has a message. We all take different approaches to it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow. Just saw a TV ad for this on the network America trusts for fair and balanced news. Well, that was money well spent...

[BUTT 0]

Man, Mario Cuomo and that Republican congressman (name escapes me, he was from California, Hollywood's district even) really got close to getting into it hardcore on Wolf Blitzer's show about this.

 

The film just got denied PG-13 status and was made R. Can't say I disagree, not for the violence (which can be found on the nightly news), but on the language (which is censored on the nightly news).

Supposedly, the movie contains footage of a public beheading. I think that's a little more extreme than what they show on the news.

[Guest CronoT]

Man, Mario Cuomo and that Republican congressman (name escapes me, he was from California, Hollywood's district even) really got close to getting into it hardcore on Wolf Blitzer's show about this.

 

The film just got denied PG-13 status and was made R. Can't say I disagree, not for the violence (which can be found on the nightly news), but on the language (which is censored on the nightly news).

Supposedly, the movie contains footage of a public beheading. I think that's a little more extreme than what they show on the news.

Yes, the movie has a depiction of a beheading. There was a story about it in my local newspaper, The El Paso Times, about a week ago.

 

Also, to call this film purely biased is to forget President Bush is a social and moral retard.

[Guest MikeSC]

Man, Mario Cuomo and that Republican congressman (name escapes me, he was from California, Hollywood's district even) really got close to getting into it hardcore on Wolf Blitzer's show about this.

 

The film just got denied PG-13 status and was made R. Can't say I disagree, not for the violence (which can be found on the nightly news), but on the language (which is censored on the nightly news).

Supposedly, the movie contains footage of a public beheading. I think that's a little more extreme than what they show on the news.

Yes, the movie has a depiction of a beheading. There was a story about it in my local newspaper, The El Paso Times, about a week ago.

 

Also, to call this film purely biased is to forget President Bush is a social and moral retard.

Ah, more loveliness from the left. "We care about people --- unless we want to insult the right. Then fuck the handicapped"

-=Mike

[Guest CronoT]

Man, Mario Cuomo and that Republican congressman (name escapes me, he was from California, Hollywood's district even) really got close to getting into it hardcore on Wolf Blitzer's show about this.

 

The film just got denied PG-13 status and was made R. Can't say I disagree, not for the violence (which can be found on the nightly news), but on the language (which is censored on the nightly news).

Supposedly, the movie contains footage of a public beheading. I think that's a little more extreme than what they show on the news.

Yes, the movie has a depiction of a beheading. There was a story about it in my local newspaper, The El Paso Times, about a week ago.

 

Also, to call this film purely biased is to forget President Bush is a social and moral retard.

Ah, more loveliness from the left. "We care about people --- unless we want to insult the right. Then fuck the handicapped"

-=Mike

Bush is a politician, not a saint.

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush is a politician, not a saint.

So, that makes insulting the mentally handicapped OK?

 

Cute morality.

 

Besides, nice irrelevant comment to the point made.

-=Mike

[The Mandarin 0]

If I was reviewing this movie for a magazine, I'd judge it entirely on the cinematography, and the text in the end credits.

 

Whatever I'd say about the movie's context, I know I'd get tons and tons of hate mail for it either way.

 

No mercy for the movie critics.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Bush is a politician, not a saint.

So, that makes insulting the mentally handicapped OK?

it's an insult to the handicapped to link them to Bush?

 

really..

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush is a politician, not a saint.

So, that makes insulting the mentally handicapped OK?

it's an insult to the handicapped to link them to Bush?

 

really..

Well, I do hesitate to insult shit by comparing it to Moore.

-=Mike

[Guest CronoT]

Bush is a politician, not a saint.

So, that makes insulting the mentally handicapped OK?

it's an insult to the handicapped to link them to Bush?

 

really..

Well, I do hesitate to insult shit by comparing it to Moore.

-=Mike

Pot, kettle, black.

 

Also, Moore admits he's a far-left liberal. Bush said he's a moderate Republican, and as soon as he got elected, showed his true far-right conservative colors.

 

Also, I feel sorry for people who automatically vote for Bush because they are Christian. If the "religious voting block" wasn't such a large group, Bush wouldn't give a shit about them.

 

Bush is a politican first, and a Christian, second. That, to me, is more of an insult than anything.

[Guest MikeSC]

Pot, kettle, black.

Wow, feces = handicapped people?

Also, Moore admits he's a far-left liberal. Bush said he's a moderate Republican, and as soon as he got elected, showed his true far-right conservative colors.

Bush is a moderate conservative, hate to break it to you. Look at his domestic policies. Look at his spending.

Also, I feel sorry for people who automatically vote for Bush because they are Christian. If the "religious voting block" wasn't such a large group, Bush wouldn't give a shit about them.

As sorry as you feel for blacks who vote Democratic?

Bush is a politican first, and a Christian, second. That, to me, is more of an insult than anything.

And you base this on what, exactly?

-=mike

[Guest CronoT]

Pot, kettle, black.

Wow, feces = handicapped people?

 

Gee, I thought you were smarter than that. I guess I'll have to explain it, in really small words. You called us bad for mocking and insulting people. Then, you turn around and so it yourself. That's called being a hy-po-crite. If you don't know what that word is, I can put up a dictionary definiton for you.

 

Also, Moore admits he's a far-left liberal. Bush said he's a moderate Republican, and as soon as he got elected, showed his true far-right conservative colors.

Bush is a moderate conservative, hate to break it to you. Look at his domestic policies. Look at his spending.

 

Look at all the people he goes to for advice and also look at his friends. He seems far too buddy-buddy with too many oil companies. Don't even make me play the Haliburton card.

 

Also, I feel sorry for people who automatically vote for Bush because they are Christian. If the "religious voting block" wasn't such a large group, Bush wouldn't give a shit about them.

As sorry as you feel for blacks who vote Democratic?

 

If you vote for someone, you should vote for them because of their stand on the issues, not because he jumps up and down and says, "I'm a Christian! I'm a Christian! Vote for me!"

 

Bush is a politican first, and a Christian, second. That, to me, is more of an insult than anything.

And you base this on what, exactly?

 

Bush will take any chance he has to score political points, no matter how it looks, or how it reflects on him.

[sfaJack 0]

Look at all the people he goes to for advice and also look at his friends. He seems far too buddy-buddy with too many oil companies. Don't even make me play the Haliburton card.

Just two minor things:

 

1. It's spelled "Halliburton" with two L's, not one.

2. Halliburton is NOT an oil company.

 

If you vote for someone, you should vote for them because of their stand on the issues, not because he jumps up and down and says, "I'm a Christian! I'm a Christian! Vote for me!"

So do you approve of John Kerry's apparent method of reading a poll of how Americans feel about an issue, seeing which side is the majority, and then standing up screaming "Vote for me! I support this!" because that's "where he stands" on an issue?

 

Bush will take any chance he has to score political points, no matter how it looks, or how it reflects on him.

You're not dumb enough to think that this doesn't go for most politicians, regardless of party affiliation are you? You'd be real hard pressed to very many candidates that DON'T do this.

[Vyce 0]

Bush is a politican first, and a Christian, second. That, to me, is more of an insult than anything

 

Wait - it's a BAD thing he's putting his politics before his religion?

 

Aren't we sort of fighting an international war on terrorism against guy who do the exact opposite?

[Guest CronoT]

Bush is a politican first, and a Christian, second. That, to me, is more of an insult than anything

 

Wait - it's a BAD thing he's putting his politics before his religion?

 

Aren't we sort of fighting an international war on terrorism against guy who do the exact opposite?

I'm not exactly saying that. I'm saying that people who automatically vote for him because of his religion are, in my opinion, morons. There's a reason it's called the herded sheep theory.