Fahrenheit 9/11

Year: 2004

Grade: A-

Country: USA

Director: Moore

Review

there are a lot of different ways in which you can evaluate a film. a film like this often is judged primarily on the arguments it makes, rather than the way its constructed. as a michael moore film this is a fine achievement, as i said before, because it’s such a synthesis of his previous work. as a social phenomenon it’s an amazing piece of work. it’s faced more scrutiny than any action by the administration it blasts, it’s the number one film in america (including all the “red” states) despite it being rated R, being a documentary and being on less than a third of the number of screens that spider-man 2 is on. christopher hitchens, who absolutely blasts the film, points out that the slow action in afghanistan by bush is a point the moore uses against him. but, hitchens says, if bush had acted more decisively then moore would have found bush too eager to go to war. in other words, hitchens thinks that bush is damned either way, at least in the eyes of moore. to me, everything is about context, if your good friend says that he hates them damn immigrants you will take it as a joke, but if george bush says it then you fear he means it. yes, when bush goes from his “we must stop the evil-doers” speech to “now watch this (golf) drive” i feel sick. that’s because i have a well-founded opinion about bush as a person. and i believe that moore does too. he (moore) acknowledges that he’s the man behind the film and that much of this film is speculation and that much of the film is more about creating a pastiche of evidence to indict an already floundering president. only the most literal, or retarded, of moviegoers are going to take the film completely at face value. when moore shows innocent iraqi bodies he’s not saying that all iraqis are innocent, he’s merely presenting the alternate viewpoint. my suggestion to people going to watch this film is to take it as a filmed opinion piece.

Watched in theater