A cool look at Fahrenheit 9/11
Published June 30, 2004
Ms. Lauren at Feministe has seen Michael Moore's controversial movie. Her review is one of the most unbiased I've read in the blogosphere. Though she is on the Left, she has brought an objectivity to the topic not in keeping with the usual biases of Bloggersville. She resists the temptation to dehumanize people whose politics she disagrees with. Nor does she ignore the flaws in Moore's outlook. The result is a review I suspect any reader will find thoughtful.
Spoilers ahead.
I saw the movie tonight, and as much as I would like to give a raving review, I cannot. While I agree with the basic premise of the movie, much of Michael Moore's argument is based on an emotional appeal that I inherently resist.
Unlike others who have criticized the movie, I didn't think Moore's scope was too wide. Overall, Moore's threefold thesis was clear:
1) The Bush administration is a parade of assholes.
2) Like in Bowling for Columbine, a fear-based spin on the news will make us agree to just about anything - even war.
3) War is bad.
Oddly, much of the footage of the administrative rockstars readying themselves for the camera on September 11th made Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice appear more human than appear as members of the Evil Empire. The infamous seven minutes of Bush in his photo op at the Florida elementary school recorded a reaction much like my own — his presidency doesn't make him less human for his stunned reaction.
Unlike Moore's analysis of Bush's paralysis due to lack of informed action by his cronies, I perceived his reaction of that day as much like mine.
- A cool look at Fahrenheit 9/11
- Published: June 30, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Video
- Writer: Mac Diva
- Mac Diva's BC Writer page
- Mac Diva's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Well, maybe a new terminology describing what Michael Moore and other blenders of fact and elements of fiction in film do needs to be developed, Mike. Perhaps the 'semiotics' people are already on it-:).
'I agree with you that Moore's combination of fiction and fact does not make the film 'just lies'. It does, however, make it not a documentary.
Thanks for bringing Ms. Lauren's review to our attention. It is excellent.'
- Whats the go with this? A documentary by it's very nature- will be biased. The very act of making a documentary- means incorperating inherent biases.(What you choose to make a documentary about- etc.)
You say because there are 'lies'- it is not a documentary. Firstly - what are the lies? , because Micheal Moore has a $10 000 reward for anyone who can identify a factual error, so, I 'd like to know.
If you meant the way facts are interpreted, then ..yes, his documentary is not partial- and he makes no pretences that it is. But what specimen of absolute 'truth' to do you have to wiegh it up against,.. Fox News?
P.S - people seem to miss the point of his documentary- he is voicing an opinion, based on fact. An legitamate opinion which has not been aired via mainstream media.
Based on 'factual' merit- his documentary would seem far less 'fiction' then the spin eminating from our populist press.





I agree with you that Moore's combination of fiction and fact does not make the film 'just lies'. It does, however, make it not a documentary.
Thanks for bringing Ms. Lauren's review to our attention. It is excellent.