Armond White’s critique – from the left – of Fahrenheit 9/11 is an excellent read:
Propaganda like Fahrenheit 9/11 won’t help today’s moviegoers gain political insight. Moore’s condescension settles on young GIs wounded in Iraq, now in a veterans’ hospital (where they face lost funding and benefits). One vet gives Moore what he wants: “I’m going to be very active this year and make sure that the Democrats take power.” We’re not supposed to remember the opening sequence that showed Democrats complicit with Bush’s ascension and the invasion of Iraq. Moore, as desultory as Jerry Bruckheimer, simply wants to get a rise out of us. Like Tarantino, he’s uninterested in making movies that show how the world really works.
Godard’s criticism of the film included at no extra charge. Via Winds of Change.
“Moore, as desultory as Jerry Bruckheimer, simply wants to get a rise out of us.”
which I predict he will, and he should, just like O’Reilly does, to millions of viewers, everyday.
At least Moore documents his sources, and takes to task people looking to debunk his claims of fact:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/isikoff.php
Moore generally lies by dangling some charges out in front of the viewer from which a single obvious and misleading conclusion will be drawn, and then leaving the viewer to connect the dots along the only obvious path. In this way, he slanders without being liable for the slander.
In the case of the bin Ladens, he implies that a flight from Tampa, FL on Sept. 13th whisked some terror perpetrators out of the country, and then on Sept. 20th, some additional terrorists were released without proper investigation by the FBI.
In fact, there was nothing improper about the White House treatment of the bin Laden family members, and the whole exercise was approved by Richard Clarke. The FBI followed procedure, the air space was open, and they were not subjects of interest in any investigation.
Moore suggests that they should have been detained simply because of their names, which is a kind of racial profiling that goes against everything this country stands for.
Moore goes on to pile irrelevancies about the Carlyle group’s business dealings on top of this perfectly proper event, in order to further mislead. The implication of the Carlyle Group/bin Laden family/Bush family/improper flights scenario is that Bush and bin Laden were partners in planning and carrying out 9/11. This is too absurd a charge to make in any straightforward way, so Moore simply suggests it without saying it.
No one with integrity would try to defend Moore in this.
Until you see the movie, I’d not base your facts on what the film says on reviewers.
For one, it’s not even partially correct that Moore even remotely suggests that the bin Ladens be held because of their names.
I’m not defending Moore, I’m defending this particular movie made by Moore, which I can, since I’ve been to the screening in LA, thanks to a friend in the biz. I was just as unimpressed about Bowling for Columbine as anyone, and as much a skeptic when seeing this movie.
Make no mistake, this is not just another Moore movie, with formula you’ve seen in Bowling. He’s obviously quite aware of his critic’s complaints, (just like yours above, Richard) and has learned from those past mistakes of fact checking or innuendo. He is not grey at all in his presentation of facts versus opinion, and dangles no opaqueness to the audience. Of course this makes for a more rigid movie, but considering the content, anything less than rigid is going to bring criticism.
Here’s the advice: watch a movie first, before you try to review it.