I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11...

[firecat]

...so I can finally answer therealjae's rant/blather suggestion. Note: Spoilers follow. Tell me what you think of Michael Moore. :-)

Before I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 I figured I was going to say that Michael Moore reminds me of Oprah, only without the emphasis on weight loss. They seem similar to me because they both tend to bring up important subjects in emotionally manipulative and superficial ways, and then drop them leaving you wondering what that was about and what to do next. Another reason they remind me of each other is that the only Oprah show I've watched in recent memory had Barry Glassner, author of Culture of Fear, as a guest. Barry Glassner and Culture of Fear also figured heavily in Moore's Bowling for Columbine. (In fact, the Glassner-inspired portions of Bowling for Columbine were the only parts of the movie I thought were worth the celluloid they were printed on.)

I really, really don't like some of Moore's dissembling/lying. I was disgusted by the thing he pulled regarding the distribution of this film, implying that Disney's Miramax had promised to distribute the film and then reneged, and then admitting they had never really promised to distribute it in the first place.

I was fairly impressed with Fahrenheit 9/11. But I'll start with the negative stuff. The movie is 2 hours and 9 minutes long, but it felt like it was about 2 weeks long. Moore is still up to a bunch of his old tricks that I find tedious or embarrassing, like chasing Representatives around trying to get them to sign up their children for tours in Iraq, and using the grief of mothers who've lost their children to manipulate the audience (that part of this movie disturbed me quite a bit...I kept imagining her waking up five years from now and being furious that she was used...probably just a projection of course).

But the movie didn't feel as much like a dancing bear as Bowling for Columbine did - most of the political performance art sequences were brief and used in service to larger points, rather than being ends in themselves; and Moore himself mostly stayed out from in front of the camera. He narrated the movie and occasionally was shown interviewing someone, but he wasn't in almost every shot the way he has been in some of his previous films. Although I still had the uncomfortable feeling that Moore was patronizing most of the people he interviewed, even the ones on his side, I didn't so often have the feeling that he was making fun of them. Overall I felt that Moore had matured somewhat stylistically, perhaps related to the fact that he is taking on a larger, more serious subject. And he's using some of his trademark stylistic elements in nimbler ways. I liked some of his use of brief song riffs in this film, especially the use of a certain J.J. Cale tune.

I've shielded myself from much of the mainstream news since 9/11, so most of the TV footage that made up much of the film, was new to me. Made me glad I don't usually watch TV news programs. There's something about watching TV news or listening to politicians' rhetoric that feels like being attacked by bees.

I also hadn't followed the money to the evidence of longstanding financial ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, although I know that information is available in a number of places, including Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Moore set up the evidence here pretty carefully. This part of Moore's movie reminded me of a Dickens novel - all these people kept popping up in multiple places and turning out to be distant cousins of multiple other people.

I knew already about pretty much everything else Moore covered, thanks to my access to alternative news sources and lots of intelligent fellow left-leaning sorts. I liked that Moore spend a lot of time showing how the "war on terror" and the terror alerts are being used to manipulate people to be afraid so they'll give up their liberties and be willing to support pre-emptive wars. I'm glad he is continuing to deal with the theme of fear (which BfC also dealt with) because I think it's a really important one.

I liked that Moore continued his efforts to put lots of different kinds of people into his films - old, young, various cultures and classes.

One bit from the "horrors of war" part of the movie was a surprise to me: Some of the soldiers he interviewed had some of the most articulate and emotionally moving statements in the movie. (I don't mean I'm surprised that soldiers are articulate; I mean I'm surprised that Moore chose to portray that.) A couple of them also said some of the most frightening things - he really brought home the extremes that war brings out in people.

So I guess I could summarize that although I still don't trust Moore, I've added a certain amount of grudging respect to my opinion of him, and I'll be watching with a bit more interest to see what he gets up to next.

Comments

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

So it isn't true that Canadians don't lock their doors? I've been wondering about that since Bowling for Columbine.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

My problem with that segment of the film was that Moore didn't distinguish between locking your doors when you're home, and locking your doors when you leave. He just said "Canadians don't lock their doors." Canadians mostly don't lock their doors when they're at home, but *always* do when they leave. (Some do lock them when they're at home, too, but inconsistently.) But Moore made it sound as if the locks on Canadian doors never get any use, and that's just plain wrong. It would have been so easy to do that segment in a way that was completely true, but he had to have it just one skew off from the truth, presumably for the shock value of the incorrect impression. I have so little respect for that.

As for me, I leave the front door locked most of the time not because I'm afraid someone's going to shoot me, but because my house is large, and someone might presumably walk in and steal something when I'm upstairs and can't hear them. I unlock it when I'm waiting for someone to arrive, so that they can let themselves in. And you know what? I did things the exact same way when I lived in the good ol' US of A.

-J

[stitchinthyme.livejournal.com]

I wondered about that, too. I often don't lock my door when I'm home, but always lock it when I go out.

The thing I had a problem with in Bowling for Columbine was his use of numbers -- for example, if you want to compare the numbers of people who've been murdered with guns in two countries, you can't just say X number were killed in this country and Y in that country and isn't it a shame how there are so many more in one than the other? It doesn't tell you anything if the population of country 1 is 300 million and the population of country 2 is 31 million. It's still true that Canada has a lower per capita murder rate than the USA, but it sounds a lot more impressive to compare 40 murders to 40,000 (and I'm just making these numbers up, as I'm too lazy to go look them up).

But then, Michael Moore has never claimed to be balanced. He was on the Daily Show last week and when Jon Stewart asked him if he was trying to be fair, he said, in so many words, that no, he wasn't.

I haven't seen F9/11 yet (probably will this weekend), but I'm glad Michael Moore is out there. I do wish he'd stick to the facts and not try to spin them -- heaven knows there's plenty out there to fry the Republicans without having to distort anything -- and let people form their own opinions. But then, the hard-line right-wingers are doing the exact same thing on their side, and trying to play nice won't stop them from playing dirty and distorting facts to suit them.

[firecat]

Yeah, the "X killed in Y country" stats annoyed me too.

And I have no problem with people who aren't balanced in their political views. I just wish, like you, that they would present accurate, meaningful facts supporting their position, rather than nothing but vague, unsubstantiated, twisted implications. I mainly wish that because it seems to me that presenting facts would strengthen their arguments. Implications can be easily dismissed as such. (Although perhaps I'm entirely wrong about this when it comes to the population at large. Perhaps they are more swayed by implications than facts. It's not something I like to think about.)

[stitchinthyme.livejournal.com]

Perhaps they are more swayed by implications than facts.

Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of truth to this.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I don't expect -- or want -- fair and balanced from him. But I do wish he were more accurate. Accuracy and balance aren't the same thing.

-J

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Actually, I thought that that was an accurate picture of Sarnia (which is where a lot of those interviews took place). We didn't lock our door until I was 17. I don't know for sure that my experience is typical of all Sarnians, but I didn't have any problem buying that part of the movie because it was in line with my experience.

I lock my door in Toronto (essentially all the time), so I didn't believe that his point was true of *all* Canadians, but I thought the segment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Huh. Interesting datapoint. Thanks.

-J