Michael Moore's new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which opened nationwide on Friday, has been selling out throughout the nation. "Fahrenheit's" success, I surmise, is due in large part to the fact that the corporately controlled mass media haven't bothered to tell the whole story for the past four years and the people are hungry for the truth. (AFP photos)
'Fahrenheit': Is it a 'documentary'? Is it accurate?
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is poised to be this weekend's top-grossing movie, which greatly bothers not only the Bush Nazis but the surprisingly many members of the "left" who can't stand it that Michael Moore and his movie are getting so much attention and they're not.
Two talking points about "Fahrenheit" in the coming weeks and months are going to be:
- Can we really classify "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a documentary, since Moore takes a stance on his subject?
- How accurate is "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
The World's Most Famous Film Critic, Roger Ebert, writes in the Chicago Sun-Times that yes, "Fahrenheit 9/11" qualifies as a documentary. (I remember that some Bush Nazis claimed that Moore should give back his Best Documentary Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine" -- or that it should be revoked -- because "Columbine" is not a documentary, and since they're all experts of the cinema without an ideological interest in the matter whatsoever, who are we to argue with them?)
Anyway, Ebert writes of "Fahrenheit":
...Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on FOX News, which is so famous for telling both sides.
The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.
...Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.
I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.
While Ebert writes that there are some inaccuracies in "Columbine," he does not list any glaring factual errors, any inaccuracies that even touch the foundation of Moore's main points in the film. He writes that he believes that Moore's "ambush" interview with Heston was unfair, but I don't know about that. Heston probably assumed that he was going to get a doting interview or he wouldn't have agreed to to do it, and so it's difficult for me to feel sorry for Heston, who appeared to have agreed to the interview out of self-interest. And no one forced Heston to reveal himself on camera that he's a fucking racist gun nut. However, if Heston has at least mild age-related dementia, as he appeared to in his interview with Moore, one could argue that Moore was unfair in using the interview. But one could also argue that the interview shed important light onto the mind of a high-ranking member of the NRA, which is more important than sensitivity for the insensitive Heston.
From my review of "Fahrenheit 9/11" some might believe I don't find accuracy important. I do. Like Ebert, because I agree with Moore I want his stuff to be accurate. However, I have two main problems with the Moore Accuracy Police:
-
The double fucking standard. The Moore Accuracy Police, as their title suggests, seem to give a shit only whether every fucking word and image and nuance in Michael Moore's material is 200 percent accurate. Everyone else, such as "President" Bush and his warmongers and the corporately controlled mass media, get a free fucking pass where the truth is concerned. Huge lies are swallowed whole while irrelevant inaccuracies are hunted down with butterfly nets and pinned to a dissecting tray. (As Jesus said, "You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!") Because hey, Michael Moore's prevarications or factual errors are far more potentially devastating to the republic and to the world than, oh, say, "President" Bush's.
-
The throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater mentality. Again, I believe that Michael Moore should take pains to ensure accuracy. It sucks ass, but much more is expected from the left than from the right where truth and accuracy are concerned. People are used to the right lying through their fucking Nazi teeth. (I need only give one example to prove my assertion: Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having received a blow job and while George W. Bush still walks around as a free man even though he's a fucking war criminal for having lied about the reasons for taking his nation to war, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.) There are people out there who have the psychological need to believe that if any inaccuracy or unfairness can be found in one of Moore's films, then the entire film is an invalid piece of shit. Of course, millions of Moore-haters poring over every nanosecond of his two-hour films are going to come up with something. I, however, take the whole-picture approach. I think that Moore is doing great work and that his strengths by far outweigh his flaws. I agree wholeheartedly with The New York Times' film reviewer, who wrote that Moore "is a credit to the republic."
But have any glaring inaccuracies been found in "Fahrenheit"? None of which I'm aware. Roger Ebert wrote that he isn't aware of any, either, but don't take our word for it. Here's what The New York Times says on the accuracy of "Fahrenheit 9/11":
So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?
...After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).
Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama....
Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.
This is a very long article, so see it here (free registration required).
"Fahrenheit" jibes with everything that I've read in reputable media sources (The Associated Press, Reuters, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc.) about the Bush regime for the past four years, but I'll keep my eyes open for any confirmed inaccuracies (that is, inaccuracies that are documented by reputable parties; as for anything that a right-wing Web site or Fox News says, well, I consider the source).
Finally, I'll note that Moore's detractors, I have observed, form three main camps:
-
The elites (or, as "President" Bush calls them in "Fahrenheit," "the haves and the have-mores" -- "my base"), whose reasons for hating Moore and every populist who won't just shut the fuck up are obvious;
-
Those poor and middle-class Americans who are dumbfucks, as evidenced by the fact that the elites have succeeded in persuading said dumbfucks, through such satanic vehicles as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the National Rifle Association, White House spokesweasel Scott McClellan, Bush asslicker Karen Hughes and the FOX television "news" network, to vote against their own interests (how fucking stupid is that, to vote against your own fucking interests?); and
-
The "liberal" Moore-haters who wish that they had a tiny fraction of his success and who want us to believe that somehow The Cause is strengthened when we eat our own. (Great thinking outside of the box, guys! Very counterintuitive! You're so fucking cool!) These misguided motherfuckers should do what I'll call a Reverse David Brock: go and join the right wing, where they fucking belong.
But, love Moore or hate him -- and there seem to be few who are in between -- there seems to be no stopping the "Fahrenheit" juggernaut. And the republic will be better off for it.
11:20:06 AM 
|
|
