Fahrenheit 9/11: Michael Moore’s Incendiary Docu

In his follow-up to his superb Bowling to Columbine, the incendiary Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore proves that, politics aside and above all, he’s indefatigably populist entertainer, blending strong footage and subjective commentary in his overall goal to reach the masses, not just educated viewers who tend to watch documentaries.

Like every good comedian, Moore knows that timing is everything. He fought hard to get his agit-prop about Bush into the prestigious Cannes Film Festival, and he fought harder when Disney refused to allow its subsidiary, Miramax, to release the film in the U.S.

Moore has not only won on both fronts, he’s emerged triumphant from Cannes, where his movie received the top award, the Palme d’Or (Tarantino was president of the jury).  It was only the second time in the festivals long history that a non-fictional work has won the top prize.

Taking a cue from Roger & Me, the 1989 documentary that put Moore on the map, the new work might have been titled “George & Me,” with Moore serving as straight man to Bush, portrayed here as an inept clown. When the film opened, critical consensus held that the documentary is scathingly entertaining but that its also diffuse and lacking in focus, and that its mode (which heavily relies on montage) makes it hard to substantiate its explosive charges.

What begins as a focused look on 9/11 and its aftermath turns into an overall critique of the Bush administration international and domestic policies. This is the broadest in scope and the nastiest in tone. The agenda of Fahrenheit 9/11 must have changed as a result of the Iraq War, an event that needed to be included if the documentary aspired to be up to date. With the immediate goal changed, Moore has opted for an all-encompassing review, sort of Moores state of the union address about all the ills inflicted by Bush on his beloved America.

The most inflammatory theme is in the first reel, which tries to establish a link between Bush and Saudi-Arabia. Moore claims that the Bin-Ladens were directly connected to the rise of former President Bush, channeling huge amounts of money into enterprises controlled by the Bushes (pere et fils) and their inner circle. He also accuses Bush of airlifting members of the Bin-Laden family out of the country within days after the terrorists attack.

A scary sequence depicts the morning of Sept. 11, when Bush was visiting a Florida elementary school, reading a children book to his captive audience. According to Moore, once informed of the attack, Bush didn’t move for seven minutes. He suggests and implies that Bush didnt know what to do because no one had told him what to do. Taking a nasty shot, Moores jokey voice-over then speculates about the inner working of Bush’s mind during those fateful moments.

Moore presents Bush as golfer, a bird hunter, a horse-rider, a witty entertainer–everything and anything but a responsible, authoritative president–occupying the position of the world’s most important leader. The strategy is to catch Bush off-guard in his weakest moments, to discredit him completely. At a gathering of the rich and famous, Bush says with a smile, Some people call you the elite. I call you my base. In another scene, Bush assumes a serious faade when he tells reporters that terrorism must be destroyed, then running off, he says, Now watch this drive.
Moore claims that the Bush administration was failing until 9/11, and that it exploited the event to create an atmosphere of fear, a theme that was also explored in his previous, Oscar-winning documentary, Bowling for Columbine. In discussing the culture of paranoia, he suggests that the president and his men have spent more time frightening the countrys innocent citizens than pursuing terrorists.

Moore describes himself as a documentarian but at heart he is a sensationalist satirist. Indeed, as a documentarian, he doesnt make many discoveries that informed and politically savvy Americans dont already know, though he should be getting credit for presenting them in a seductively entertaining package.

Seeking to amuse at all costs, any method will do for Moore. Some cheap techniques that leave a bad taste even for Bushs detractors are used along the way. For example, the Afghanistan War is turned into a TV Western a la “Bonanza,” in which politicians like Tony Blair appear in cowboy hat.

It’s impossible to deny or underestimate the role of Moore’s witty personality and shrewd humor in the overall impact of his films.  Over the years, he has constructed a public persona–the discontented American Everyman- that’s reaffirmed by his ordinary (disheveled?) appearance–sporting a heavy belly and a signature baseball cap. Watching Moore attend the glitzy premiers in Cannes (one of the few formal occasions left), while wearing tuxedo and sneakers is a spectacle in its own right.

Moores work cashes in on his celebrity status as an influential figure in pop culture: Author of best-selling books, maker of Oscar-winning doucmentaries, producer of TV shows. Though playing the ordinary man, Moore is full of paradoxes. He is at once a product and a beneficiary of a capitalistic economy driven by marketing and profits. Would Fahrenheit 9/11 have become such a blockbuster without Miramax’s aggressive marketing machine? Would Moore’s books become best-sellers without his smoothly organized book-signing tours? Would his movies create uproar without the media blitz (and Red Carpet interviews) that accord major international film festivals, such as Cannes or Venice or Toronto?

His tactics of harassing officials by asking them literal-minded but intimidating questions works well in a sequence in front of the Capitol. Holding out recruitment posters, Moore asks congressmen if they would send their own sons into the war. It turns out very few officials have sons in combat, which may be the reason why, when confronted, most dismiss his question or brush him away.

In the most factual sequence, Moore documents how the Iraq War is fought by the underclass: ethnic minorities and poor whites. Unskilled and unemployed, they have no choice but to fight. But, again, the thesis that the Army is dominated by the working class might apply to any country in which military service is not compulsory. Was the Armys demographic profile any different during Vietnam

Some of the arguments are debatable. Hence, Afghanistan was invaded in part to facilitate American oil interests. Similarly, Iraq was attacked to bolster the military contracts of Bushs friends. And the teasing comes off as easy shot, as when a goofy Bush is making faces at the camera while makeup is applied before a TV interview.

Other charges against Bush, as if he’s solely responsible for them, are unfair. As the recently published 9/11 Report shows, major warnings of terrorist attacks were ignored by the Clinton administration as well. As shrewd politician, Bush is doing what other presidents have done before him: Boosting the American morale in times of crisis, diverting attention from serious to more trivial matters. He tacitly encourages the public to remain indifferent and uninformed, and indeed, the percentage of Americans eligible to vote has been low for years.

About half of the film’s footage recycles material drawn directly from television, though not necessarily American. Moore got hold of footage from British and Canadian TV, which shows a messier and bloodier view of the Iraq War, the kind of which is seldom broadcast in America due to self-censorship, according to Moore.

Calculating and manipulative, Moores approach is anything but balanced or subtle. To his credit, it’s a conscious decision. Moore continues to claim that his main goal is to remove Bush from the White House. That’s the only thing he will concede to his detractors, that his film is an overtly political pamphlet designed to change votes in a fateful election.

Fahrenheit 9/11 achieves its strongest emotional note in the last reel, in which the center is not Moore or Bush, but an ordinary American citizen, Lila Lipscomb, who lives in Flint, Michigan, Moores hometown. Lilas testimony gives the Iraq War a universal, humanistic face that’s likely to touch anyone who has lost a loved one in war. Working at a non-profit agency that helps the unemployed, Lila is a mother of several children, two of whom serve in the Army.

In the first interview, Lila describes herself as a conservative Democrat (“I hated anti-war protesters”) and her family as the country’s backbone.

Then a second interview reveals that Lila’s son, Sergeant Michael Pedersen, died in Iraq. In deep grief, she reads a letter from Michael that expresses serious doubts about the motivation to invade Iraq. With Moores blessing (since he follows her with his cameras), Lila goes to Washington seeking solace around the White House. Her visit is interrupted by a passer-by, a skeptical woman who’s obviously pro-War since she says, Its all staged. Losing control, the devastated Lila breaks down crying, “Why My son? A parent is not supposed to bury his child!”

Finally, the fact that Moore doesn’t permit Bush to present his arguments or defend his policies turns the film into a one-sided platform.

As for the potential impact of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore seems to be in a win-win situation. If Bush is defeated in November, Moore will take credit for that. If Bush is reelected, Moore will claim that the American public continues to be indifferent to issues that really matter, that the average citizen is more interested in economics than in politics per se. A war-driven economy benefits the entire military-industrial complex, not just the ruling elite.