Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Written and directed by Michael Moore.
Produced by Michael Moore, Jim Czarnecki, and Kathleen Glynn.
Distributed by Lions Gate Films.
116 minutes.

LVJeff's Rating: 8/10

Stoking, But Not Fanning, the Flames

When Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine won the Academy Award for Best Documentary of 2002, it touched off a resulting controversy, and not just because Moore used his acceptance speech as a chance to slam President George W. Bush. Many people, particularly the movie's detractors, claimed it wasn't a documentary and shouldn't have qualified in the first place. They pointed out its factual inaccuracies and staged moments, and argued it was mostly an opinion piece.

But if Bowling for Columbine isn't a documentary, what is it? Moore's editorial film is based on non-fiction, and his opinions and arguments apply to the world we live in. That sounds like a documentary to me -- but, then, my definition for "documentary" is pretty broad. Many people think documentaries should be about the truth; personally, I think any created work automatically contains enough bias to color the truth it contains. Even history books are biased. So a documentary, to me, is a film based primarily on non-fiction elements; I never immediately believe the "truths" I see presented anyway. The spirit of the work and its applicability to real world scenarios or events are more important, so in that sense Bowling for Columbine qualifies, biased presentation or not.

Equally qualified is Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, which makes no mistake about being an op-ed piece. Anyone who wants to complain it doesn't offer both sides of the story should just forget about it now. Moore has a singular goal in mind -- to collect enough argument to convince his viewers of the incompetence and wrong-mindedness of the George W. Bush presidency. His movie is an all-out attack on Bush and his foreign policies, including the occupation of Iraq.

Effectively, though, what Moore has created is a sort of "greatest hits" package of the major available accusations of corruption in the Bush administration. What we get is nothing too new -- the Bush family has ties to the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia; Bush and his business associates have been washing each other's hands for years and are now making liberal use of the presidential privileges; and the president sent America to invade Iraq using the unrelated Sept. 11 Al Qaeda terrorist attacks as pretext. But the movie's strength isn't in the impact of what it reveals; it's in putting the starting points for all this polemic in one accessible place, now presented to a wide audience in the hopes that more people will understand where these arguments come from.

I wonder, however, just how persuasive this work can be. Moore is at his best when he's being bold and provocative -- his major weapon is humor, and when he can get the audience to laugh, the medicine he's peddling goes down a lot easier. But Fahrenheit 9/11 is quite subdued for a Moore flick. The humor is there, but it doesn't come in as rapid a succession as it did in Bowling for Columbine; it relies a lot on ironic observations, which get overshadowed by more matter-of-fact moments later in the film. Those already on his side of the debate will have no problem and cheer his words; those against him will roll their eyes (or, more likely, just not watch the movie). Where Fahrenheit 9/11 needs to be most effective is with fence-sitters and the uninformed. Here, a more cautious and straight-faced Michael Moore may not have been the strongest approach. He does maintain much strength, however, in the editing and juxtaposition of the ample images at his disposal.

The natural power of the movie's dramatic portions will also make up for its weaknesses to a significant degree. They consist primarily of two arcs. First is the observation footage of U.S. soldiers, either in Iraq or after they've returned -- dead, alive, and/or maimed. The soldiers seem sadly dehumanized when they first arrive on the scenes, and are subsequently shocked jarringly back into reality once carnage has been experienced. Second is the story of Lila Lipscomb, a military wife with numerous family members who have served or are serving in the military. Her ordeal puts a face on America's messy and ambiguous struggle between patriotism and dissension, both admirable American qualities that are too often unjustly at odds with each other.

If Moore's goal is to keep the dialogue about Bush and his actions alive in the eyes of high priority, then Fahrenheit 9/11 will serve his purpose. If his goal is to make the dialogue rage with passion, it may still serve his purpose, but not as much as I think he normally would've liked. The movie, surprisingly, doesn't seem capable of fomenting red-faced outrage -- at least not in the way I know Moore himself is capable of. But if the movie sways the minds of those who otherwise might not have given the matter serious thought, then it's worth its weight in film.

©Jeffrey Chen, Jun. 26, 2004

Home | Feedback welcome