Fahrenheit 9/11 - More Reviews and Commentary
Published May 18, 2004
:: Further to Scott Pepper's post about Michael Moore's new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, a few more reviews and commentary are available:
At its 4 p.m. screening In Competition at the Palais, the movie occasioned an enthusiastic standing ovation — onlookers placed it at 15-20 minutes — punctuated by cries of "bravo!" The crowd included a phalanx of Endeavor agents, led by Ari Emmanuel, along with Mick Jagger, Daryl Hannah and a smattering of French stars and industry insiders."It was the longest standing ovation I've seen in over 25 years," said Harvey Weinstein, whose Miramax Films funded the project over the objections of parent company Walt Disney Co. and who has an exec producer credit on the film, along with Miramax's Agnes Mentre.
What Moore seems to be pioneering here is a reality film as an election-year device. The facts and arguments are no different than those one can glean from political commentary or recently published books on these subjects. Only the impact of film may prove greater than the printed word. So the real question is not how good a film is "Fahrenheit 9/11" — it is undoubtedly Moore's weakest — but will a film help to get a president fired?
Speaking at a public round table here, convened by Variety, Moore took issue with recent Disney statements that the studio had dropped the film a year ago. Disney money was flowing to the film until recently, he said. The decision to stop the film's July release, he continued, was made in late April when a "low-level executive" saw it and reported misgivings to Disney chief executive Michael Eisner. Miramax owners Bob and Harvey Weinstein are currently negotiating with Disney to buy the rights and release the picture independently or through a third party.
Yet Moore — the provocateur behind the Academy Award-winning Bowling for Columbine, which dissected American gun culture — applies his trademark satiric outrage to the Sept. 11 debate, packaging his anti-Bush message in a way that provokes both laughs and gasps.
Film critics were warm in praise of the controversial director who later called in a news conference for America to pull out of Iraq. "It is a such total mess. Their way of doing things has offended so many people," Moore said.
It was strident, passionate, sometimes outrageously manipulative and often bafflingly selective in its material, but Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a barnstorming anti-war/anti-Bush polemic tossed like an incendiary device into the crowded Cannes festival.
Does FAHRENHEIT 911 have a point of view? Yeah, of course. It would be one dull-ass movie if it bent over backwards to accommodate all sides, or debate the Bush spin tit for tat. Does that make it suspect? In the minds of some people determined to pin the label of liar, spinner or expedient exaggerator on Moore, it will.
Michael Moore is back, once again striking fear into the hearts of Republicans everywhere. After the almost shocking worldwide success of "Bowling for Columbine," which won an Academy Award and grossed millions of dollars more than anyone expected, Moore now lines up George W. Bush and Co. firmly in his crosshairs and fires pointblank. The result, "Fahrenheit 9/11," is a powerful, timely, and convincing assault on the family and friends who brought us the current mess in Iraq. This time around, Moore drops the zaniness and high entertainment value evident in "Bowling for Columbine," in favor of an elegiac approach that is less funny but ultimately, maybe, more politically effective. Only time will tell.
- Fahrenheit 9/11 - More Reviews and Commentary
- Published: May 18, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Documentary
- Writer: Randy Reichardt
- Randy Reichardt's BC Writer page
- Randy Reichardt's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Michael Moore= Leftist Rush Limbaugh
I don't like him and I am against George Bush. Go figure.
Many people dislike Moore, and Al Franken, and Joe Conason, and the other lefties. What I like about Moore and Franken and those of their ilk is that they have no problem getting into the faces of those on the right, in the same way Rush and Bill O'R and Anne C would do.
That said, for those who don't like Moore's movie(s), they are free to make rebuttal films themselves, or films which show what a great job Bush and Cheney are doing.
Yeah, getting in someone's face and histrionics and crocodile tears are a great way to get moderates to your cause.
All of them are about entertainment. If that means they have to stretch the truth or cause a dog and pony show to get attention, then so be it.
I wish I did have the money to go make a movie. The truth is far more scary than what any of these Entertainer/Politicos could possibly come up with. By the same token, if it isn't done big and in shiny plastic, no one will pay attention. Go figure.
The question we're all wondering about up here is: "Why can't America win the big one anymore?"...The whole country is turning into the Red Sox!
America can't win the big one anymore because her people seem to have forgotten what it means to think for oneself and that sometimes if what is presented to you isn;'t what you want that maybe you should come up with something new, daring, and different and that sometimes good advice comes from both outside and within.
I rarely read any legitimate criticisms of Moore's work. This blog is no different.
By "legitimate criticisms", do you mean reviews that do not agree with Moore, and rip him to shreds, i.e., from the right? Or do you mean well-written and free from political bias? Kirk Honeycutt's review, above, is not positive about the film in any way: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000512305
So I'm only asking for clarification, and not assuming what you mean. Thanks.
People say he fabricates his facts, and that his points are unfounded. I often read reviews that criticize without pointing out exactly what makes his facts false. Usually its just people who disagree with his overall goals and thus dismiss the facts he presents without actually showing why.
That's a very good point. The best criticisms of a non-fiction work, be it book or film, must have facts as the foundation of the criticism(s). Al Franken's new book was written with a gaggle of fact checkers, all of whom are identified in the back of the book. With a film, one never sees where the facts may be originating, unless the filmmaker presents this information clearly, in the movie.
There is a nice trailer and some fine comments at this website
http://www.VideosOnWeb.com/Demos/911.html
Thanks Randy, very fine roundup as Shark said. This was posted when I was on vacation so I missed it, but great job. My position is similar to Ms Tek's on this.
As far as a specific, detailed, line item by line item critique of Moore's work, you couldn't ask for much more than this, although anyone who cares has probably already seen it.










Randy, thanks for doing the round-up.