Review

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Written and directed by Michael Moore.

Michael Moore makes a case that George W. Bush and his cronies used the terrorist attacks on USAnia of September 11, 2001 to push unjust and illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that right-wing warmongers had long wanted.

Reviewed by JN
Posted July 3, 2004

Michael Moore’s latest movie Fahrenheit 9/11 debuted earlier this year at the Cannes Film Festival, where it won the Palme d’Or. It became, in its first weekend of release, the highest-grossing feature-length documentary of all time, despite efforts by parent company Disney to suppress the movie.

I recommend that everyone, regardless of political leanings, see this movie. It is by turns funny, touching, informative, sarcastic, infuriating, sickening, and crazy-making, and sometimes many of those at the same time. Even if you disagree with its politics, you’ve got to admire the artistry of its construction. Those who dismiss Mr. Moore as not much of a filmmaker are likely those who prefer the work of Leni Riefenstahl, both aesthetically and politically.

Roger Ebert said that the movie “is less an expose of George W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and dangerous presidency.” That’s pretty accurate.

Christopher Hitchens’s review in Slate has been widely cited, and thus deserves a lengthy reply. He and other apoplectic neo-con critics accuse the movie of being polemical, one-sided, misleading, and (most of all) unfair. Poor babies! Kevin Drum provides perhaps the most accurate refutation of this particular claim when he wrote, “It’s like complaining that editorial cartoons are unfair because they don’t portray the nuance of serious policy discussions.” He called Mr. Hitchens’s review “a lengthy and nearly unreadable screed”. That’s also pretty accurate.

Mr. Hitchens makes several boneheaded attempts to smear Mr. Moore. His agenda is clear from the outset: “Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness,” a film “that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation”. Mr. Moore has committed the gravest sin of all: he disagrees with Mr. Hitchens.

The weakest link

The movie is at its most didactic in its first half-hour when it dwells at length on the complicated and many-layered financial and personal ties between the USA and Saudi Arabia, between the Bush family, the bin Laden family, and the House of Saud, between The Carlyle Group and everything its slimy tentacles touch.

Mr. Hitchens correctly identifies that Mr. Moore neither makes nor proves any firm charges here; he merely arouses our suspicions. But we are right to be suspicious when the same people keep popping up again and again in different positions of power: George Bush (pere and fils), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, James Baker, Kenneth Lay, James Bath, to name only a few of those mentioned (or involved). Those people all have lengthy histories of conspiratorial evil-doing, running right up to the present day.

The mainstream media have been inexcusably negligent (as usual) in investigating the business dealings between the Bush family and Saudi businessmen. Mr. Moore is the only one drawing attention to this.

What a waste

Mr. Hitchens claims that the movie says that “The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted.”

He is trying to imply that Mr. Moore trivializes the deaths of Our Brave Boys (tm). But this is a lie, and Mr. Hitchens knows it is a lie. The entire tone of the film does anything but trivialize the deaths of these human beings. It laments the loss, and correctly blames Mr. Bush and his co-conspirators for wasting these lives. Even the Wall Street Journal’s review said the movie “culminates in a somber lament for lives lost in Iraq.”

Snapping into inaction

Mr. Hitchens says that it is unfair for Mr. Moore to make fun of Mr. Bush for remaining “frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes” after learning that his country is under attack.

But really, the least we could have expected is that the highest official in charge of his nation’s security would do something — something, at least — instead of just freezing like a deer in a car’s headlights.

Mr. Bush is commander-in-chief of the mightiest military forces the world has ever known. He swore an oath to defend his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is literally his job to deal with things like this. At the very least, he could have stepped out of the room and demanded that they tell him everything known about what’s going on. Do something! That is Mr. Bush’s job, and when it matters, he’s not up to it.

Shock and aww-w-w-w

Mr. Hitchens criticizes the movie’s portrayal of Iraq: in a “flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed.”

Mr. Moore’s point here is clearly that most people in Iraq were just going about their daily lives. Apparently to Mr. Hitchens, any shots that show Iraqi people doing anyting other than being tortured or constructing weapons of mass destruction is painting a too-rosy picture of life in Iraq. Mr. Moore is humanising the enemy! We can’t have that!

Warning! Warning!

Mr. Hitchens writes:

The same “let’s have it both ways” opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings — not exactly an original point — the administration is now lavishly being taunted for issuing too many.

Mr. Hitchens seems to be saying that Mr. Moore’s argument is flawed and he has to choose: is it too many warnings, or too few?

But Mr. Hitchens isn’t comparing the same things. Is he really too stupid to see the difference between received warnings that come in to the administration, and issued warnings that go out from the administration?

No, Mr. Hitchens is not that stupid. He thinks you are that stupid, and he’s trying to pull a fast one on you.

Marching as to war

Mr. Hitchens says:

In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favourite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.)

Mr. Hitchens wants there to be some contradiction here. But not so. Consider this: you say, “I’m going to bet my life’s savings on this horse-race,” and I say, “I don’t think that’s a very good idea,” and you say you’re going to do it anyway; I then suggest that you bet on the favourite. That doesn’t mean I’m suddenly in favour of your damned-fool decision; it means I’m trying to make you minimize the harm from that action you won’t be dissuaded from. There’s no hypocrisy there.

If we examine Mr. Moore’s argument more honestly than Mr. Hitchens does, the movie says that the Bush administration bungled its own policy. The administration decided to attack Afghanistan to eradicate al-Q’aeda. Then that same administration sent in too few troops with too little equipment to accomplish the goal they themselves had set. This same administration decided to attack Iraq for an ever-changing series of reasons (before settling upon lies about “weapons of mass destruction”), then sent in too few troops with too little equipment to accomplish the goals they themselves had set.

Touché

Mr. Hitchens does score a couple of hits on the movie. But they’re only minor hits, around the fringes, and don’t affect the substance of the movie’s arguments.

For example, the movie says that Mr. Bush spent too much time on vacation — 42 per cent of his first eight months in office. But Mr. Hitchens correctly identifies that the movie’s shot of Mr. Bush illustrating this claim is not such an example:

“relaxing at Camp David” shows him side by side with Tony Blair. [ . . . ] A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

This may be merely a poor choice of shots on Mr. Moore’s part, though, perhaps dictacted by the footage available to him. Nevertheless, Mr. Hitchens’s criticism is pointed, specific, and accurate — unlike most of his review.

But that criticism is a minor one, and Mr. Hitchens intends it to be a distraction from the movie’s point — which is accurate: Mr. Bush did spent almost half his time on vacation. Mr. Hitchens doesn’t even address that point, let alone refute it. (And notice his sly dig at the country of his birth for sometimes electing leaders who disagree with the leaders of his adopted country.)

If Mr. Moore has made errors of fact, we must expose them. If he has distorted the truth, we must call him on it. If his arguments don’t support his conclusions, we must point it out. If we disagree with his conclusions, we must refute them with evidence and arguments of our own. Mr. Hitchens doesn’t even try; he lies, he distorts, he implies, he nitpicks, he smears. But he never even attempts to refute. He just doesn’t like what Mr. Moore says, so Mr. Moore must be wrong.

White hats vs. black hats

Mr. Hitchens is outraged that the movie concludes by seeming to suggest “that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party”.

Well, let’s see . . . Which government disappears people, holding them secretly without charges or legal recourse? Which government tortures people, both by policy to extract information and by soldiers just for fun? Which government declares that its leader is above the law?

That’s right — all three of them, all three times. The USAnians aren’t the good guys; they’re just the other guys.

Real agenda

Finally, Mr. Hitchens reveals his real thesis. He graciously allows us:

By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favour of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

“Surrender or defeat”? Where did that come from? Who was calling for either of those things? But apparently, in Mr. Hitchens’s world, those are the only two possible reasons. He says the movie is a work of “stupidity and cowardice”. Cowardice? What the fuck? If you have to lie to refute your opponent’s argument, then it’s not much of a refutation, now is it?

Mr. Hitchens says Mr. Moore made this movie because he doesn’t have the balls for this war. Mr. Hitchens can conceive of only two possible reasons anyone would not support the war: you’re chickenshit, a crybaby, scared; either that, or you’re a USAnian-hating traitor. In either case, you’re wrong; the president has decided the nation’s course, and you will not disagree. There can be no other possible reasons — like, say, thinking that this war is a bad idea. Nope; that’s out of bounds. Coward or traitor, which is it?

Again I say: Mr. Moore’s real crime is disagreeing with Mr. Hitchens.

Hysterical boys

And Mr. Hitchens seems calm and rational compared to most other critics on the right. Mark Edward Manning’s review consists mostly of a lengthy quote from Mr. Hitchens, but Mr. Manning guesses at Mr. Moore’s motivation for making the movie:

Moore is a bitter man, extremely bitter at his country, his government, and his people, and won’t rest until every person on the face of the planet hates America and Americans with an almost dangerous passion. Then he’ll liquidate all his impressive assets and join Johnny Depp on the French Mediterranean, looking forward to the next explosive terrorist attack on American soil in the hopes of stringing a prominent Republican up by the cojones and fattening his bank account even further.

Mr. Manning’s paranoid hysteria has driven him to leave reality altogether. He is simply unhinged. “[E]very person on the face of the planet . . . ” — ha ha hah! Because Mr. Moore criticises his government’s policy, he must hate his country; the logic is inescapable. And even worse than that, Mr. Moore just might be a — a France-lover! Oh noes! Mr. Manning seems to have conveniently forgotten that, without France’s support, his country would have lost its revolutionary war.

Or look at Jacob Laskin’s ludicrous opening to his review:

Fahrenheit 9/11 has sealed Michael Moore’s status as one of the richest figures of the crackpot Left. Projected to take in $100 million, the Bush-bashing film grossed $21.8 million in its first three days, topping the $21.6 million reaped by his 2002 box-office blast, Bowling for Columbine. But success has come at a price. Former leftie faithful are now less inclined to believe multi-millionaire Moore, with his ritzy spread on New York’s Upper West Side, is the champion of the great unwashed (despite his personal appearance). Thankfully, Moore has found a new audience receptive to his message: terrorists.

So we can’t believe Mr. Moore because he’s doing well financially? This unsupported argument is a bit odd coming from free-enterprise-loving neo-cons who constantly tell us that amassing great wealth is the highest sign of moral virtue. And what “leftie faithful” is Mr. Laskin speaking of? The ones he makes up out of his head?

Please note that Mr. Moore didn’t make his money by “coincidentally” selling all his stock the day before his company crashed; he doesn’t even own any stock. He made his money the old-fashioned way: he earned it, by making movies people want to see and by writing books people want to read. In the olden days, we used to call that “capitalism”.

(The rest of Mr. Laskin’s review is not quite as funny, but still good for a larf or two.)

The vitriolic hatred with which Mr. Moore’s work is greeted by the neo-cons is interesting in itself. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it. These big, brave manly-men (just ask ’em) will engage in any smear, no matter how low or false, but when someone disagrees with them, they whine like small children, “That’s not fa-a-air!” Aw, poor babies; do you need a safe space?

Any movie that can provoke this much outrage and debate is worth seeing.

---

Comments