I haven’t seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and I won’t till Netflix adds it, but isn’t the foofaraw about it overstated — at least, relative to the daily deceptions practiced by right-wing attack creatures, or the Bush Regime’s public disregard for the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions? (Not to mention the popular reception of novels that pass themselves off as revelations of historical facts.)
But Fahrenheit 9/11 is a propaganda piece, no less or more honorable than other modes of propaganda — and if I had to choose among Moore, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly, I suppose I’d choose Moore. I don’t have a strong predisposition for or against him. I agree with Moore that Bush is a miserable excuse for a President, and I’m pained by the transparent hypocrisy of the Republicans who hounded Clinton over his petty lying and his infidelity, but who turn a blind eye to Bush’s shameless sham leadership. The right-wing media mongrels revolt me, and I’ve winced at their unchallenged prominence on commercial media. When I watched Bowling For Columbine, though, my satisfaction that finally someone was contesting the ground of media visibility, was mixed with regret that Moore took the low road of meeting spin and lies with, well, distortion and deception. Christopher Hitchens can issue grandiose challenges, but those miss the point as much as do Moore’s partisan defenders. While Hitchens daringly brandishes his rhetorical dukes, Bush’s aimless, unjust war inflicts casualties on hundreds of Iraqis and dozens of Americans and the Coalition of the Coerced.
The bad news isn’t that Moore spins and misleads (“I’m shocked, shocked to discover that”). The bad news is that sensationalism has so eroded good judgment that Moore seems like a bulwark for otherwise sober lefties.
I don’t care much about either Republicans or Democrats; I’m more of an Old Labour type, when I’m not being truer to my theological anarchism. So I don’t have any dogs in the presidential election fight, and though I’m against Bush, I’m not at all enthusiastic about Kerry. I was hoping Howard Dean’s supporters would have a chance to convince me to believe in him, but that sorta fell through.
Posted by AKMA at June 25, 2004 04:13 PM | TrackBackIn one way I'm glad Michael Moore is out there saying what he's saying. In another, I remain troubled by his very conservative assumption that he as an individual is capable or justified in speaking for the 'us' of some presumed collective. That technique seems to mute rather than give voice to the multitude of perspectives that make up a real political spectrum. Which I fear exacerbates the same old problems of polarization and disenfranchisement.
That said, my own politics generally coincide with Moore's and I do take some pleasure in watching him skewer his targets.
Posted by: steve at June 25, 2004 04:41 PMI highly recommend "The Control Room" a documentary about Al Jazeera and the start of the Iraq war. Fascinating, not overtly polemical, simply made. Some of the folks they highlight are among the most memorable characters I've ever seen.
And the ironies of some of the quotations from Bush and Rumsfeld from the early days of the war are excruciating.
Posted by: Pascale Soleil at June 26, 2004 05:29 PM"I remain troubled by his very conservative assumption that he as an individual is capable or justified in speaking for the 'us' of some presumed collective."
I might share your thoughts if the attack machine on the right weren't so overwhelmingly pervasive that we sometimes forget that it's there. Moore is the one truly effective loudmouth on the left and the country needs him, however repugnant or overbearing his output may seem. That very dislike of crass media manipulation is what has kept the left from developing an attack machine of their own, but it has also allowed those with no such restraint to convince those most in need of progressive reform to vote against their best interests time and time again. If a boorish, unshaven lout like Moore is the kind of person required to swing the pendulum back the other way, then it's time we recruited, uh, more.
That said, "Fahrenheit" is much more restrained and civil than "Bowling." I left the earlier film feeling let down by the fact that Moore pandered so unashamedly to the camera (especially in those final scenes with the picture of the little girl left on Charlton Heston's doorstep). The later attacks on his fact-finding further reinforced the feeling that Moore had lost his way.
With "Fahrenheit," however, Moore has learned from the mistakes he made and the new film is much more adult, much better researched, and therefore much more effective. In particular, with the drastic reduction of camera time for the director himself, I got the sense that here was a man determined not to screw this one up.
Posted by: Chris @ Stomp Tokyo at June 27, 2004 04:05 PM