Alliedassault - The Michael Moore Thread

Got another from that guy I quoted earlier:

[quote:394cc]Fairly often we hear of people who do things – things that may be relatively harmless or things that may involve a certain amount of horror – for the seemingly innocuous reason of causing a reaction. They never reveal any legitimate line of reasoning to whatever was carried out; they simply wanted to generate a response one way or the other. With the release of Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore can now be thrown into this category of person. Nonetheless, his argument is both obvious and powerful.

The movie begins with imagery from a celebration (it must have been a grand old time, Ben Affleck himself was there) being held upon the announcement that Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election, accompanied by Moore’s narration wherein he speaks about how this scene felt like a dream; albeit one that was later shattered thanks to a candidate whose brother just so happens to be the governor of the state that would prove to be the deciding factor in one of the closest election tallies in the history of the United States. This initial feeling of deception and of having been cheated out of something much grander than what was forced upon we the people carries throughout the rest of the piece, and serves as an excellent starting point from which the movie drives deeper and deeper into what seems to be a storyline that no Hollywood writer could imagine in their most inspired state.

A large portion of the movie is dedicated to exposing a complex and odd history of the presidents Bush, with a majority of that relating how their pre-presidential business endeavors (i.e., oil, and not many of them were successful apparently) placed them in the company of various Middle Eastern associates – namely Saudi Arabia’s royal family as well as the family of Osama bin Laden. It’s a very intricate web that Moore weaves with this segment; I wish I had some sort of flow chart or tree diagram that would allow me to remember each of the connections that have been detailed. The overall point to this portion of the film seems to be that of creating a structure, or possibly a hierarchical view, of how Bush has placed a significant number of individuals from these businesses into positions of power both in this country and throughout the rest of the world.

Mixed into this is a rant about how Bush has used the war in Iraq to better his own business interests, that he has abused the power of the office he holds for personal gains, and that in waging this war where a country is literally being rebuilt from the ground up has allowed him to pave the way for only certain companies (and I think you know which ones) to profit from the reconstruction process. As I said before, this is an interesting yet intricate moment in the film; in fact, I wish I had been taking notes so that I’d have more details to bring up. Regardless, it seems strange to me in retrospect that Bush is being blamed for having been the mastermind behind this process of greed and deception even though he’s elsewhere thought of as a blithering idiot who’s stupidity is single-handedly piloting this country of ours into a downward spiral surely to conclude with a crash landing into Hell’s lake of fire.

One wouldn’t think that this could be possible, that is unless Bush the savvy business tycoon is the real deal and Bush the buffoon is actually a red herring. On the other hand, perhaps Bush is merely a figurehead, with other players behind the scenes serving as puppet masters. You could craft conspiracy theories until you’re blue in the face with the data supplied by this montage, and I’d imagine that’s part of the desired effect; that, along with the wholesale opinion that the individuals currently in charge of the United States are woefully inadequate.

The notion of Bush using the Presidency to further his own bottom line isn’t a new one in terms of politics, and it isn’t a very convincing anti-Bush rallying point for anyone who knows square one about kick backs, campaign financing, etc., etc. I would be willing to argue that damn near every elected official on capital hill (Republicans and Democrats alike) has accepted money from groups and organizations in exchange for favoritism in some way, shape, or form. (And I won’t bother to mention things like book, TV, and movie deals – much less the other variety of “special favors” men in power often gain from those willing to contribute their “services”.) It’s a way of life for these people, and as sad as it is to say it’s a rather significant portion of how our system of government works.

An inconsistency I noticed in Moore’s craftsmanship lies in the perception of the media that he creates. As I stated in my comments about Bowling for Columbine, during that film Moore presents the media as being the leading cause of the sense of fear many Americans live with thanks to the modern era of murderers, rapists, and terror alerts. Doing so allows him to effectively push an opinion that it’s this feeling of fear that drives individuals to consume, and that this is a cyclical process destined to repeat itself until the end of time or the end of the media as we know it. However, in the context of 9/11, Moore takes the blame away from the media and places it squarely upon the shoulders of the Bush administration – thus declaring it’s actually not the fault of the media that they operate the way they do; rather that they’re merely being forced into reacting to the world created for them by George W. This is, needless to say, splitting hairs about a movie and a film maker who don’t hesitate in telling you that what they present is absolutely biased and unfair.

Much like Moore did previously with Bowling for Columbine, he revisits Flint, Michigan – his hometown, and an area apparently so poor in terms of employment opportunities (as made evident by the rather startling unemployment figures made mention of) that military service is one of the better chances someone hailing from this region has at bettering themselves. (Something that caught my eye here was the pair of recruiters working for the Marine Corps, trying to reel in potential grunts by confronting individuals fitting their mold with a high-pressure sales pitch rivaling those of even the best used car salesmen.) Moore goes on to examine the nature of our society and how it seems that it’s usually the rich and powerful making the loudest calls for war, yet it’s the poor and less fortunate who’re expected to fight their battles. (Here, there’s another connection to the two recruiters I made mention of, as the narrator claims the pair avoided a more high class shopping center in favor of one known to cater to the less wealthy.)

The scenes progress to what could very well be something pulled directly from a current, live broadcast emanating from CNN, MSNBC, FOX News (well, maybe) – those being images of members of the United States armed forces conducting various operations. There are interviews with soldiers who disagree with how the war is being played out, as well as several mentions of how several so-called experts are under the impression that this conflict has been grossly inefficient in terms of planning, preparation, and execution. It’s in this sequence when Moore takes a bit of a swing at the military and its leadership by making use of what appears to be fresh footage of soldiers goofing around with hooded and restrained Iraqi captives. (No, the soldiers aren’t torturing them – just a few photo opportunities and one rather odd choice by a certain serviceman who’s probably happy to know that his face wasn’t shown on camera.) The capstone of this montage is of a raid carried out by a small squad of troops on an Iraqi home populated by what looked to be an unassuming family that was apparently harboring a wanted man. Wanted for what, however, is information we’re never made privy to.

Perhaps the most angering moment of the entire film comes near its end when the mother of a serviceman we’re introduced to earlier in the movie (and who’s son was later killed in action when the Blackhawk helicopter he was inside crashed) visits the exterior of the Whitehouse, where she has a supportive conversation with an encamped protestor only to then be accosted by a woman who insists that the scene being filmed was a hoax. I forget what the woman’s exact words were, but they were enough to make your jaw drop and then give serious consideration to bludgeoning her with the heel of your shoe. As a viewer and knowing what this mother has been through in going from being 100% behind the Bush administration to having nothing but doubt in regard to the policies of her elected leaders, it’s damn near maddening to behold. After this, Moore concludes the picture by retracing his steps, doing what any talented orator would in restating the points made previously in an attempt to drive them in one final time.

Having said all that, believe it or not, the primary strength of this movie isn’t in what it presents but the order and manner in which it is presented. 9/11 is definitely an op-ed piece, and it is one that’s told with a chronology that syncs up perfectly to events carried out by the Bush administration thus far (although there’s a bit of history lesson detailing the paths that Moore’s targets have traveled in order to reach the present). By doing so, there’s not only been the illusion of a plot created within the context of the movie; there’s an obvious (and more than likely desired) effect generated by visually taking in these episodes as one after the other is lined up before our very eyes, each of them falling perfectly into place. That effect being to steadily increase the feeling of failure, dishonesty, illegality, and a host of other adjectives with negative connotations, all of which are aimed squarely at the head of our Commander in Chief.

In addition to the way in which the film is structured, the editing works very well in setting a pace for the picture and also heightening the existing overtones. Moore is heralded by many as being one of the most talented editors in the history of cinema, and he shows off his genius to the nth degree with 9/11. The movie clocks in at just less than 2 hours in length. However, the experience seems much shorter than that as the fluidity of the thing maintains a constant, speedy flow right up until the final frame. Needless to say, Moore is supremely skilled when it comes to maintaining the attention of a viewer via both style and substance, so much so that even individuals who stand with staunch disagreement for the information presented might find themselves questioning their own beliefs.

One facet that I always enjoy paying attention to when watching a movie is that of the score as this is something that can either truly enhance the visuals, plot, and characters, or completely destroy what may have otherwise been an incredible piece of work. There is some minor contribution in the form of original music here, but for the most part our ears are treated to existing songs meant to put an already over-the-top message just a wee bit farther from that. Moore creates quite a few memorable moments through the use of music and sound effects, but none really stuck with me as much as hearing Michael Stipe and Kate Pierson singing the chorus of R.E.M.’s song “Shiny Happy People” as George W.’s father is shown greeting various members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. The two obviously weren’t made for one another, but in this instance they certainly appear to have been.

I think it’s been established that Bill O’Reily referenced the film as being of the “cut and paste” variety, and I have to say that he’s not far off base with that comment – I’d estimate that a little less than 70% of the movie is made up of stock footage that wasn’t shot expressly for usage herein. Regardless, there’s not much point in faulting Moore for doing so seeing as how most research papers (or at least the ones I’ve written) are based on gathering previous evidence and then aligning those elements so that they can be used to further the argument at hand. I wouldn’t even think of pinning a tag of lazy film making onto this one either, because there’s been a good bit of work done in collecting this material, some of it dating back to the 1960’s and 70’s.

I’m one of these people who shows up to a movie usually 30 to 45 minutes before it’s scheduled to start. I do this because my viewing experience will be damn near ruined if I can’t have my favorite seat; this being the seat in the very middle of the very back row. If you’ve never sat there, trust me when I say that it gives you an excellent perspective, not only of the screen but also of the people who’ll inhabit the space for the next couple of hours. This is particularly interesting with an experience such as 9/11 because I was able to pick up on the audience’s various reactions to what was being shown. Even though the context is fairly serious in nature, the responses I saw ranged everywhere from riotous laughter to the sobs of tearful eyes. I’m surprised the old line of “I laughed, I cried, I had an orgy of emotions with this one!” hasn’t yet been quoted in promotional ads for the movie as that was exactly the case during the screening that I took part in.

And now, we’ve reached the end, and I can say that this is a film that each person who sees it will react to with either support or disinterest. There will be no gray areas in terms of viewer feedback because there are none in what has been presented. Yes, it is biased and it is unfair in presenting only one perspective of the situation to the audience, but this is the point of the thing. Moore has developed what will likely be seen as one of the foremost (and more than likely one of the only) propaganda films of the modern era. Whether or not his efforts prove to be fruitful won’t be known until November.

I can’t say that I recommend this movie. That’s not because of my conservative views; rather, I don’t know that I would give credence to someone investing $20 in a trip to the movies for something that’s going to make you feel as furiously frustrated (yet still informed) as I did upon walking out of the theater. Given the choice of seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 or something else, I’d pick something else for the fact that I go to the movies to be entertained and not beaten over the head with the political agenda of a man with which I have very little in common. (And yes, since I know you’re wondering, I do have tickets to a midnight screening of Spider-Man 2 tomorrow night and I do recommend checking it out as this one looks to be the one true blockbuster of the season.) This being the case, I recommend anyone reading my words (if there’s anyone left that is) do exactly what Moore has done – research the candidates, their agendas, policies, and personal histories for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Becoming reliant on the voices and minds of others is a weakness too many people are adopting these days, and I believe that we enter ever more dangerous territory with each day that passes in this condition.[/quote:394cc]