Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11 Unless you have been living on an ashram lately, you already know that this isn't so much a movie as it is Michael Moore's unapologetic attempt to unseat George W. Bush. From my point of view, the issue isn't the politics; Moore has the right to make any kind of movie he wants, and he is certainly good at portraying members of the current administration as a bunch of greedy buffoons and monomaniacs, if not downright criminals. But the movie is all insinuation, implication, and innuendo. I am not a lawyer, but it certainly seems like most of the "evidence" presented is circumstantial, and while I am not about to defend Bush et al, I have no doubt that just as damning a movie could be made about practically any administration in history. More to the point is the fact that the movie isn't really any good as cinema. It is slack, scattered, and unfocused. It has no narrative drive at all, and spends inordinate amounts of time on digressions that are intended to push emotional buttons, but add nothing to the story. Is it really news that war is painful, that soldiers die, and that when they do their families are saddened?

Is it really news that politics can be a dirty business, and that sometimes politicians conduct themselves in ways that many may not find appealing? Some of Moore's stunts are amusing, but he has absolutely no compunction about taking advantage of people to support his point of view, and no matter how you slice it, exploitation is exploitation. The fact is that it is pretty easy to make people look bad onscreen if you are unencumbered by a need or desire to be objective. But Moore does not pretend that this is journalism; it is propaganda, plain and simple. If you like Bush, “Fahrenheit 9/11” won't change your mind; if you don't it will simply reassure you that your instincts are right. Whether it can actually change the course of history is hard to say. We'll find out in about four months.