Fahrenheit 9/11

[Flatrater]

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment...view-headlines


Fahrenheit 9/11
In assailing the president's war, Michael Moore stokes the facts to make his point


The unmaking of the president: Scathing examination of George W. Bush's ties to the bin Laden family, the agenda behind the Iraq war, the dubious handling of 9/11 and, subtextually, November's election. Somewhat unfocused and inclined to cheap laughs, but important, no matter which side you're on. Written and directed by Michael Moore. 1:52 (vulgarity, war). Opening at Loew's Village VII, Third Avenue at 11th Street and Lincoln Plaza, Broadway and 63rd Street, Manhattan. Opening wide on Friday.

The first step to becoming a successful American populist, as the word is commonly understood, is purging your repertoire of subtlety and ambivalence and stooping enthusiastically to the masses. The second, history has told us, is hiding that instinct for demagoguery that lurks within the populist soul.

What do George W. Bush and Michael Moore have in common? More than one might think, given the furor that has erupted over Moore's new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11" - which is, in many ways, a passionate, clearly articulated, if sloppily structured indictment of the president, his ties to the bin Laden family, his relentless push for war in Iraq and, as portrayed by Moore, an ineptitude bordering on the criminal.

Few would deny that Moore is a populist entertainer, not only because of the ill-fitting clothes tenting the unfit body, but because of the chummy, aw- shucks way he reduces complex questions to what seem like common-sensical conclusions.

What seems abundantly clear in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that these qualities also make him, at best, a flawed filmmaker, at worst a despotic one: One senses that Moore's seemingly fearless need to expose injustice might - were he an elected leader - just as easily become a remorseless march toward personal power. Which is relevant only because it illustrates the weakness of "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Ruthlessness - that's what one gets from Moore, who amid the humor and folksy sentiment and exposure of the suffering caused by the Iraq war, can't stop himself from making Bush and company look as foolish as possible. This is, as often as not, abetted by Bush himself, but Moore exposes a mean spirit in the manipulated editing and directing choices: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wetting his comb in his mouth while prepping for a TV interview is memorably disgusting, but ultimately the kind of thing included for derision, not substance.

And there's plenty of substance here, if not much news. Anyone who has followed the Bush exploits knows about his busted oil companies; that 42 percent of his first six months in office was spent on vacation; that his National Guard duty may have gone unfulfilled; that Halliburton has behaved scandalously in Iraq and that there was a seemingly compulsive need to invade that country despite multiple arguments against it (former terrorism adviser Richard Clarke appears prominently).

But there is the occasional revelation, too. The name of James R. Bath, a Texas Guard pal turned money man for the bin Laden family, was deleted from Bush's service record when it was released by the White House. (Moore displays an earlier copy with the name uncensored.) Moore makes a good case that the Saudis provided the bailout money for the younger Bush's failed business ventures in order to gain access to his father. And Moore lets us know, as the networks have not, that there are plenty of U.S. servicemen in Iraq (some shown sans limbs) who think the war they're fighting is a colossal hoax.

Much of what Moore includes in his unabashedly polemical film - for instance, footage of the four burnt bodies of the U.S. contractors strung up on that Iraqi bridge - is material that's hard to find for cable-viewing Americans. But while Moore is propagandizing, regarding Iraq he's hardly alone.

Although "Fahrenheit 9/11" carries the unmistakable fingerprints of Michael Moore, he doesn't appear here as much as he has in his other films (notably the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine"). This is an improvement, but sometimes an odd one: A sequence in which two Marines are followed around a mall checking out potential recruits (invariably minorities) virtually screams out for Moore's on- camera commentary.

Elsewhere, he shifts into classic Moore mode: Asking various congressmen in Washington for help with a bill that would send their kids to Iraq, Moore shows the totally uninhibited style that has made him the left's last best hope. He has a killer instinct, yes. But in "Fahrenheit 9/11," it's used to its best advantage.

[Flatrater]

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment...homepage-promo


At the start of "Fahrenheit 9/11," filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, "under every scenario Gore won the election."

What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.

The inclusion of Toobin's minority view and exclusion of mainstream documentation typifies the shaky case Moore builds against President George W. Bush in his two-hour film.

The movie unearths nothing new. It is a cinematic lawsuit, not a verdict, that skews and omits events for its central charge: that Bush was soft on terrorism because his family is financially tied to wealthy Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden.

Moore cites well-documented links centering around The Carlyle Group, a high-powered international investment firm. Bush himself had been an adviser to a Carlyle subsidiary before becoming Texas governor in 1995. His father became a Carlyle adviser after leaving office in 1993. The bin Ladens, a family of wealthy industrialists, were major Carlyle investors, though they and the elder Bush cut ties with Carlyle after Sept. 11.

Does that link the Bushes to terrorists? Not exactly. Osama bin Laden has been estranged from his family for a decade. Moore barely suggests otherwise, though he does try to link the incumbent president directly to the bin Ladens.

Relying on a book by former New York Observer editor Craig Unger, Moore cites the case of James R. Bath, a friend of Bush's from the Texas Air National Guard. Bath had managed the Texas investments for the Saudi BinLaden Group, run by Osama's older brother Salem, and invested money in Bush's oil company, Arbusto Energy.

Moore implies the bin Ladens wanted to curry favor with Bush while his father was CIA director. But Unger's reporting - omitted by Moore - says that Bath denies putting bin Laden money in Arbusto. A link remains unproven.

Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House "approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis" who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.

But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: "Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks."

Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after Sept. 11. Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration "welcomed" the official, Sayed Hashemi, "to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban."

Yet Hashemi's reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming. The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the Taliban.

"We don't recognize any government in Afghanistan," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.

Moore finds much stronger footing when he focuses on Bush's presidency. He accurately quotes a front-page Washington Post story from August 2001 noting that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency on vacation.

Moore's statement that Bush never met with White House counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke to discuss terrorism before Sept. 11 is echoed by the commission finding that Clarke "never briefed or met with President Bush on counterterrorism."

And Moore repeats the commission's finding that the Justice Department cut FBI terrorism funding just before Sept. 11, though Moore blames Bush where the commission cites Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Yet Moore can hardly restrain himself with the commission. He juxtaposes a clip of Bush saying he has given it "extraordinary cooperation" with a clip of chairman Thomas Kean saying, "We haven't gotten the materials we needed."

It's unclear whether Kean is criticizing the White House or any of the federal agencies that were slow in providing documents. And his criticism is old: Kean has recently praised the commission's access to records as "unprecedented."

Perhaps Moore's most damning accusation concerns what Bush did the morning of Sept. 11.

Moore shows Bush sitting in a Florida elementary school classroom for seven minutes after his aide Andrew Card told him a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. "Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read 'My Pet Goat' to the children," Moore says in a voice-over, "nobody doing anything."

As a recent commission report noted, federal aviation and military authorities were overwhelmed during this time, unable to coordinate a response that might have stopped a plane from hitting the Pentagon.

When Bush left the classroom, "the focus was on the president's statement to the nation," the commission said. "No decisions were made."

[Flatrater]

This one is something to read
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx



http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

[MagicRat]

It is interesting, Flatrater, you quote Reagan in your sig. I have great respect for Reagan. I have none for GWB.
Regardless of how valid (or not ) the details of Moore's criticism of GWB is, the very fact that Moore's movie is number one at the box office, even with its limited distrubution shows how massively unpopular and hated he is by millions of Americans.
I cannot think that such a hugely public, expensive and prominent movie such as Fahrenheight/911 could work with any other president. Why? Because no other President has deserved this kind of criticism.
If there is anyone to blame for the tone of this movie, its GWB himself. If he had been more measured and reasonable in his actions, there would be no money in it for Mr. Moore.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

It is interesting, Flatrater, you quote Reagan in your sig. I have great respect for Reagan. I have none for GWB.
Regardless of how valid (or not ) the details of Moore's criticism of GWB is, the very fact that Moore's movie is number one at the box office, even with its limited distrubution shows how massively unpopular and hated he is by millions of Americans.
I cannot think that such a hugely public, expensive and prominent movie such as Fahrenheight/911 could work with any other president. Why? Because no other President has deserved this kind of criticism.
If there is anyone to blame for the tone of this movie, its GWB himself. If he had been more measured and reasonable in his actions, there would be no money in it for Mr. Moore.

I think Stone Cold Steve Austin said it best, when he said: "and...THAT's, the bottomline..."

[TexasF355F1]

Haven't seen it, don't know if I will or not yet. But I did talk to my far left wing buddy who saw it. He said it was good. Even he commented on how one sided the film was though. He said it may have made the movie even more enjoyable if Moore had at least attempted to level out the playing field, but nonetheless he really enjoyed it.

Also saw on MTV interviewing three bush supporters who saw the film(probably paid to see it, not sure) but two of them seemed to enjoy the movie but did wish it would have been more fair and not make the President look unintelligent.

[taranaki]

The timing of this film is a master stroke.Legislation prevents pressure groups from purchasing advertising time in the run up to the elections..but doesn't prevent filmmakers from releasing documentaries!

[tenguzero]

If you check out the reviews on RottenTomatoes.com, it's pretty obvious that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a favorite of many critics, one-sidedness considered. The guy knows how to make one hell of a thought provoking film, that's for sure. I plan to try and see it this Friday. I liked "Bowling for Columbine," so I figure I'll dig this too.

[werwolf-23]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Does that link the Bushes to terrorists? Not exactly. Osama bin Laden has been estranged from his family for a decade. Moore barely suggests otherwise, though he does try to link the incumbent president directly to the bin Ladens..

Well, I think Cheney's still trying to tie Saddam to Osama with a lot less... Well, not really with anything. couldn't resist...

[DGB454]

Why are they calling it a documentary? Shouldn't it be called an opinion column type film?

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by taranaki

The timing of this film is a master stroke.Legislation prevents pressure groups from purchasing advertising time in the run up to the elections..but doesn't prevent filmmakers from releasing documentaries!

I guess we will find out in a week or so on this issue.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

even with its limited distrubution shows how massively unpopular and hated he is by millions of Americans.

Going to see the movie doesn't mean the people agree with or believe with Michael Moore. I would bet a large percentage of people are going to see what the hype is all about.

With billions of people in the world I imagine I could find millions that dislike anyone.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

I guess we will find out in a week or so on this issue.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx

Not really,no. Moore may not be able to advertise his documentary after that ruling,but there's no way that the courts could stop it from airing in cinenas.From the looks of the article that you quoted,there may be a loney bigot who tries to prevent it,but clearly he doesn't have the faintest grasp of the constitution.

Even if advertisments for the film are banned,there's nothing to stop Moore from retooling his advertising to comply with the law and then re-advertising it.But he wouldn't need to.Any ban by the courts would be seen as the Establishment cracking down on the little guy's right to free speech,and people would go see the movie just to see what all the fuss was about.Moore has it sewn up.And the Republican party will lose swing voters as a result.


Perhaps Mr Bush would do the courtesy of letting Mrs Kerry's interior designers come in to take measurements right now?It would save a lot of time later.

[YogsVR4]

In reality though, only a few million people will see that movie. Of those that are going, how many are going to be Bush supporters that will be changing their minds? Even the most popular movies of all time have only a few tens of millions go see the picture. If the ratio of eligible voters stays the same (about 80%) and of those half actually vote (which has been the average) and we don't take into account the repeat movie goers, even Titanic was seen by less then 10 million actual voters. Given that Titanic made just north of 600 million and 9/11 F might make it to 50 million, its pretty clear its not going to be of much impact.

[Pick]

What's ironic about this film is the day it is number one in the box office is the day a free Iraq is being handed over to its people with Saddam nowhere in sight. If we had gone Micheal Moore's way, there's no doubt in my mind the people of Iraq wouldn't be free today.