Fahrenheit Moore

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
dir: Michael "Pompous Ass" Moore

I know that I am not one of the people for whom the movie was made. This was a movie made for the mass public who barely know what is going on in politics. They don't have the time nor the gumption to read every little thing that happens, and quite frankly...not many people do. I don't have my nose in complete politics, but I know an asshole when I see it.

Michael Moore is a name which liberals tend to revere and despise simultaneously. Which is a good thing, I think. Unlike the conservatives and their pompous asses (Limbaugh, etc), liberals tend to judge their loudmouths with criticism. The problem is, the movie isn't aimed at them either...and Moore knows this.

Moore is normally a fascinating movie maker. His four movies all reflect the style and subject matter contained within. Roger and Me was shoestring; the camera work and the editing were almost subpar. The Big One -- Moore's on-the-book tour documentary documenting closed factories -- was hurried and choppy. Bowling for Columbine, Moore's timliest movie, was slick and well timed. Fahrenheit 9/11, a work solely of it's time, is a rough, choppy, and urgent work. It seems that production on it was rushed to get it in on time.

The movie, as a movie, is rather lacking. The pacing is substandard, the editing is rough, the humor is cheap, and the perp is obvious. Some of the movie's ideologies are mentally retarded (note: I'm not commenting on the movie's message against George Bush yet), and there are moments of cheap voyeurism throughout. This all begs the question: Why would a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11, a substandard movie inferior to the directors previous ouvre, win the coveted Palme D'Or at Cannes?

The movie is political, and heavily against George Bush. Actually, I will admit that the movie isn't inferior in every way, its editing is very manipulative in ways unseen since Leni Reifenstahl made movies for Hitler...or for sure since Spielberg's last movie (you know I had to say it. :-P) As my friend said, as we walked out of the theater, "You came to see a Michael Moore movie, what did you expect?"

Well, honestly, you can't expect much from a man like Michael Moore. With Bowling for Columbine being so unabashedly contradictory that you don't even know what the hell the point was, you come to see a bunch of facts, some misconstrued, that give you a firm basis for when you should go next for your worldview understandings.

Part of the glory and problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it is so recent that it can't keep up with itself. And, sometimes it even ignores facts brought up by itself. It criticized Bush's ignoring of the August 6 memo, Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States, but the memo had been declassified days after Condi Rice's nervous testimony, and she was indeed correct: it was a historical memo.

This moment comes early on in the film, as do a bunch of cheap shots against the republican party. It should inform the viewer that, yes, this movie will be biased, paranoid, unfair, on top of, misconstrued, and almost erroneous.

So, then he makes a bunch of well-made points linking th Saudis, Bin Ladens, and Bushes through companies and oil. I won't say that I knew much of the stories, but next time I see the movie I will be taking notes to do my own fact-checking and contextual placements. (Though, for a well written retort, check out Christopher Hitchens's Unfahrenheit 9/11: The Lies of Michael Moore)

The finale to the movie is pap and crap. It puts the punch in the movie full of spite aimed at Bush, except it is only a reactionary punch. He makes a point that only the poor and uneducated are the ones being recruited. Well...duh. And, money combined with boredom leads to teenage drug use. Oh, and people die in war. Did you know that one? They die in graphic gruesome ways. Really, do tell. Bombs may not be so accurate, and hit civilian targets. (actually that is news to the moron republicans *roll eyes*)

All in all, Moore gets a slightly passing grade for having a semi-solid-on-first-viewing first act, maybe even a moderately strong second act, but failing miserably in the third.

B-