It's been over a week since I've seen it and it feels like this review will take over a week to read. Propaganda this film is not. Those hesitant to watch it, please give it a shot and let me know what you think. I'll be back sometime with my reviews for Napoleon Dynamite and Before Sunset. Come on back.
Fahrenheit 9/11
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
This film documents some of the events of the past three and a half years that occurred under the United States’ current president, George W. Bush. It focuses on the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and more importantly, Bush’s responses to them including the following war in Iraq. The movie attempts to show how the Bush family is linked to the bin Laden family (Osama perpetrated the attacks on our nation) and how they all stand/stood to gain from the resulting war.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is the latest work of one of the most revered and despised documentary filmmakers in history, Michael Moore. This effort is quite a bit different from his previous fare. Moore, normally a prominent on-screen figure, takes a backseat to the presentation and emotions of the piece. His voice is heard throughout the interview process and carries the narration offering his compassion and contempt accordingly. The film became less about him promoting a specific agenda and more about letting the facts lead the way and the people involved tell their side of it all. This isn’t to say that Moore doesn’t voice his own personal opinion. Of course he does. You can’t make a film of any type without putting some bias in there of one kind or another. But he doesn’t pretend to hide it. Moore instead presents the facts of the matter showing undeniable proof of the actions that Bush and his administration and his business partners took during this time of crises and then infers to the audience what he believes is the real motivation behind said actions. He does so in a logical, and thus, convincing way.
I do have some problems with the way things were handled (as I usually do with filmmakers as in-your-face as Michael). Moore does show up in his trademark cap-wearing glory for a couple of segments that bring about the goofiness satirical stunts that brought him such notoriety in his early days. In one, he drives an ice cream truck using the intercom to read bills to the legislators. The other, he confronts senators to get them to sign their kids up for the war. This is what I have trouble with. The audience I saw this with was eating it all up, but honestly, (and this is Moore’s point) what grown man or woman would sign up their children for the war? These children are at least eighteen years old and up and so are legal adults who are fully capable of enlisting themselves. I don’t know if any parent has ever signed a child up for military service. Sure, they’ve encouraged it for various reasons, but to actually sign the paper for them seems too far-fetched. I wouldn’t think such a signature would even be legal.
So, there are times when his appearance is unwarranted and rather bogus and there are other times when it’s greatly needed and the lack of it seems harsh. When talking to a fellow Flint, Michigan native who lost her son in Iraq, he lets the emotions of it all overwhelm her while he quietly stays behind the camera. I remember in “Bowling for Columbine” when the Michigan principal began to cry, Moore consoled her in any way he could. There was no hug. There was just the unbearable sight of a broken mother. The scenes were quite effective and pulled at the heartstrings, but were still a bit overdone and time consuming. Also time consuming, yet fascinating was the credit sequence in which the key players are preparing for television as if they are actors readying for their performances. I would have liked to see subtitles showing who each individual was, but hey, it was still a nice opening.
The other major complaint is that the facts were good, but there should have been more of them. He did a very nice job of revealing information that isn’t/wasn’t widely known otherwise. He’s always been good at that. But if he’s truly targeting the non-voters or those teetering in the middle, he should inform theses masses the best he can. After all, he should know that a lot of people don’t watch the news or read the papers like they should. It wouldn’t hurt to repeat some “common knowledge” items to further his points. He shows the link between Bush and bin Laden families, but only tells us that the war in Iraq was pointless. There are plenty of sources out there that could work to his benefit (including the 9/11 Commission) to disprove the link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida and to disprove the key assumption (read “knowledge”) that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You can hear this from any news source as of late, but it honestly can’t hurt to add ten minutes to the film and incorporate these findings as well.
If Moore were to do this, his film would be a great historical film that nicely chronicles (in part) the time in which we are living now. As it stands, it’s a glorified investigative news report gussied up as a documentary. It’s this close to being a timeless work – and I may be proven wrong about that opinion – but instead becomes pertinent and viewable only prior to the November 2004 elections. It’ll go in the record books and it will be remembered, but I seriously doubt anyone watching it a few years or decades down the line will understand what all the fuss was about. The film is still very effective and proves its points and gets the crowd riled up in a good way, but to be truly great (instead of really good), it needed to explain more of the situation and rely less on assumption of key knowledge – especially if you’re trying to educate viewers.
If you see this in the theatre, and you probably should, expect to hear a lot of clapping. This film received more applause than “Seabiscuit” and several midnight screenings of any popular franchise movie combined. For the most part, it’s well deserved. Michael Moore’s arguments are nicely crafted and seemingly very logical. Once again, his research is top notch and eye opening. It’s a less typical Moore film, but still greatly resembles his formula. It all results in a worthwhile documentary that people of all political inclinations should watch. Then take that next step and inform yourselves further and make up your own mind. That’s what America’s all about.
Fahrenheit 9/11
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
This film documents some of the events of the past three and a half years that occurred under the United States’ current president, George W. Bush. It focuses on the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and more importantly, Bush’s responses to them including the following war in Iraq. The movie attempts to show how the Bush family is linked to the bin Laden family (Osama perpetrated the attacks on our nation) and how they all stand/stood to gain from the resulting war.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is the latest work of one of the most revered and despised documentary filmmakers in history, Michael Moore. This effort is quite a bit different from his previous fare. Moore, normally a prominent on-screen figure, takes a backseat to the presentation and emotions of the piece. His voice is heard throughout the interview process and carries the narration offering his compassion and contempt accordingly. The film became less about him promoting a specific agenda and more about letting the facts lead the way and the people involved tell their side of it all. This isn’t to say that Moore doesn’t voice his own personal opinion. Of course he does. You can’t make a film of any type without putting some bias in there of one kind or another. But he doesn’t pretend to hide it. Moore instead presents the facts of the matter showing undeniable proof of the actions that Bush and his administration and his business partners took during this time of crises and then infers to the audience what he believes is the real motivation behind said actions. He does so in a logical, and thus, convincing way.
I do have some problems with the way things were handled (as I usually do with filmmakers as in-your-face as Michael). Moore does show up in his trademark cap-wearing glory for a couple of segments that bring about the goofiness satirical stunts that brought him such notoriety in his early days. In one, he drives an ice cream truck using the intercom to read bills to the legislators. The other, he confronts senators to get them to sign their kids up for the war. This is what I have trouble with. The audience I saw this with was eating it all up, but honestly, (and this is Moore’s point) what grown man or woman would sign up their children for the war? These children are at least eighteen years old and up and so are legal adults who are fully capable of enlisting themselves. I don’t know if any parent has ever signed a child up for military service. Sure, they’ve encouraged it for various reasons, but to actually sign the paper for them seems too far-fetched. I wouldn’t think such a signature would even be legal.
So, there are times when his appearance is unwarranted and rather bogus and there are other times when it’s greatly needed and the lack of it seems harsh. When talking to a fellow Flint, Michigan native who lost her son in Iraq, he lets the emotions of it all overwhelm her while he quietly stays behind the camera. I remember in “Bowling for Columbine” when the Michigan principal began to cry, Moore consoled her in any way he could. There was no hug. There was just the unbearable sight of a broken mother. The scenes were quite effective and pulled at the heartstrings, but were still a bit overdone and time consuming. Also time consuming, yet fascinating was the credit sequence in which the key players are preparing for television as if they are actors readying for their performances. I would have liked to see subtitles showing who each individual was, but hey, it was still a nice opening.
The other major complaint is that the facts were good, but there should have been more of them. He did a very nice job of revealing information that isn’t/wasn’t widely known otherwise. He’s always been good at that. But if he’s truly targeting the non-voters or those teetering in the middle, he should inform theses masses the best he can. After all, he should know that a lot of people don’t watch the news or read the papers like they should. It wouldn’t hurt to repeat some “common knowledge” items to further his points. He shows the link between Bush and bin Laden families, but only tells us that the war in Iraq was pointless. There are plenty of sources out there that could work to his benefit (including the 9/11 Commission) to disprove the link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida and to disprove the key assumption (read “knowledge”) that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You can hear this from any news source as of late, but it honestly can’t hurt to add ten minutes to the film and incorporate these findings as well.
If Moore were to do this, his film would be a great historical film that nicely chronicles (in part) the time in which we are living now. As it stands, it’s a glorified investigative news report gussied up as a documentary. It’s this close to being a timeless work – and I may be proven wrong about that opinion – but instead becomes pertinent and viewable only prior to the November 2004 elections. It’ll go in the record books and it will be remembered, but I seriously doubt anyone watching it a few years or decades down the line will understand what all the fuss was about. The film is still very effective and proves its points and gets the crowd riled up in a good way, but to be truly great (instead of really good), it needed to explain more of the situation and rely less on assumption of key knowledge – especially if you’re trying to educate viewers.
If you see this in the theatre, and you probably should, expect to hear a lot of clapping. This film received more applause than “Seabiscuit” and several midnight screenings of any popular franchise movie combined. For the most part, it’s well deserved. Michael Moore’s arguments are nicely crafted and seemingly very logical. Once again, his research is top notch and eye opening. It’s a less typical Moore film, but still greatly resembles his formula. It all results in a worthwhile documentary that people of all political inclinations should watch. Then take that next step and inform yourselves further and make up your own mind. That’s what America’s all about.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home