Fahrenheit 9/11: A Movie Review

OR: Great Theater Regardless

Published on July 2, 2004 By CrispE In Movie Reviews

(Note: Minor Spoilers included)

Considering the uproar over Fahrenheit 9/11 I went to the film expecting to see something between a very flawed film with no redemptive social value and the second coming of Cecil B. DeMille (the film did win the jury prize at Cannes). However, the film is neither what the neocons want you to avoid or what the Democrats want you to see. It is a great film for what it is, though, unless you do see it, you will miss the whole point of what Mr. Moore is trying to say.

This movie is not, purely, a documentary. Documentaries explore issues or events from all points of view giving "equal time" to those points of view to show why something happened or how. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not attempting to be "fair" the same way Super Size Me is not attempting to be fair to fast food restaurants or McDonalds. But, if you think the movie is about Bush, get Bush, destroy Bush, then you also have missed the point and that is sad because the cloud that prevented you from seeing the point of the movie you brought with you.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is an indictment of the idea of war. George Bush is not the thematic center, although he does a nice job providing humor about the inadequacies of the system we live in. Also providing more than adequate support are Al Gore, both political parties and much of the media which seems more interested in making money than providing a safeguard against the abuses of government. The movie is very much a parody of war, the same method used in Blazing Saddles being a parody of westerns and A Mighty Wind being a parody of PBS Reunion Concerts.

As a movie then, given the intention of the director to indict the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism as something half-baked (which is what parody is) how does it stand up? Well, in some ways, the movie is very successful. As someone using only non-directed film clips (which is to say, he had no actors saying lines written by him) this movie has ingenious moments of both humor and sadness, delivered in the context of here's what I think we were and are doing, does that jive with what you believe we should be doing?

The second half of the movie is very pointed at the very human cost of war, within the parody of the same, which is a very unusual and dangerous technique because the human cost, people dying and lives destroyed is not easy to deal with visually or psychologically. Much of it is statements and interviews with soldiers and their families will leave you with great unease, even outrage. But whether or not you believe the war is justified is not as important as examining the toll of human life that it continues to exact. It is not enough to simply listen to casualty statistics on the news (3 dead, 4 wounded) and not realize how dangerous the implication for you it is if you act as if nothing has happened. Those 3 dead and 4 wounded were real and they and their families will be forever changed by the war.

Moore asks of you, the viewer, a dangerous question. Can we justify what we are doing in Iraq and in the U.S. in the name of 9/11? Can we look into the faces of the dead, the wounded, the soldiers faces who put their lives on the line for us everyday and say "We are justified."

The movie may not succeed in some ways, but it sure made me think about that question most of the night...

3.5 stars out of 4.

Comments (Page 1)

WiseFawn

on Jul 02, 2004

I have a date to see it this weekend and I can't wait.

Draginol

on Jul 02, 2004

Good review.

However, Moore's premise is a bit inconsistent. He talksa bout the Bush family and Saudi family connections which are totally bogus.

And the fact is, pacifism doesn't work too well. Did you know in the 1920s the US, and most other major countries, signed a treaty that outlawed war? Pacifism reached its high point in the early 1930s and the result was World War II.

I supported US action in Iraq because after 9/11,there was just no way we could allow someone like Saddam to stay in power in that region of the world.

It's tragic that several hundred US soldiers have died in the fighting. But it is important to remember that over 3000 Americans died on 9/11 and a nuclear armed Saddam (or his sons) 10 years from now was a nightmare scenario we could do without. I didn't want my sons fighting on some nuclear battle field where the casualties are in the hundreds of thousands simply because we didn't want to do what needed to be done today.

CS Guy

on Jul 02, 2004

I didn't want my sons fighting on some nuclear battle field where the casualties are in the hundreds of thousands simply because we didn't want to do what needed to be done today.

Exactly. The casualties of this war have been minor compared to just about every other conflict considering the scope of the event.

If you believe in the greater good, then you might consider what the world would be like ten or twenty years down the road with weapons of world destruction in the hands of people that want you dead and do not care who else dies in effecting that.

I write missile defense software. I have a Top Secret security clearance. I know things that scare me. Taking out the madmen of the world, who have the resources to become history makers, is about the best thing the US can do to give me peace of mind.

CrispE

on Jul 02, 2004

Draginol:
Well, I plan on writing about the politics of the film on Monday. In the meantime, I will pose this question: Do you believe that nuclear weapons will not be in the hands of terrorists or terrorist governments (those that oppose us and are not of Western culture) because we took out Saddam? I mean, if you look at "Eastern Civilization" (which would include most of Africa and Asia, except for Japan) it seems to me that sooner or later we are going to have to deal with this issue UNLESS those countries believe that we are not a military threat to their independence and culture. If our struggles with the Soviets are any guideline to the future, then we know the real key to winning over societies to our way of thinking is time and patience.
"The best war never fought" was the one against communism in Russia.

CrispE

on Jul 02, 2004

CS Guy:
I think it is important to remember what "we" stand for. People who choose to live in peace as individuals and as a society should always be welcome, even if they have a culture far different from our own. Man has not yet exhausted the possibilities of life so that we can say "democracy or die" have we?

CS Guy

on Jul 02, 2004

People who choose to live in peace as individuals and as a society should always be welcome, even if they have a culture far different from our own.

Absolutely. I love cultures other than our own as long as they are indeed peaceful.

"The best war never fought" was the one against communism in Russia

There is a significant difference between the Russian threat and the threats we are facing today. With Russia we could generally imagine that these "enemies" loved their families, loved life, and truely wanted what was best for their people. With this in mind it was difficult to imagine that they would want to experience what many General's call a "bad day."

With today's threats we have ample evidence that they do not respect the lives of their people. Look at what Saddam has done to his people. Look at what the Islamic Fundamentalists have done to their people.

There are many mountains in North Korea, and there is a growing concern that the leadership there may believe they can survive a "bad day" and that such a day may be worthwhile if they can accomplish their goals (like bowing up a few US cities). It is a trade-off that military analysts here fear is becoming more appealing to North Korea.

russellmz2

on Jul 02, 2004

wow, someone actually saw moore's movie and, only then, commented on it! (i made comments on a couple fahrenheit 9/11 threads and haven't seen it yet so i'm one to talk

)

the problem with hitting iraq is that the lesson taken might not be "don't get nukes or we'll get ya", it might be "get nukes right freaking NOW or we'll get ya".

kirstiecat

on Jul 02, 2004

I'm going to come out with this statement from the get go so there will be no misconceptions; I'm a true pacifist. I really think that the US has a very poor policy regarding the policing of other countries. For example, we decide that Saddam is dangerous to his people but where were we during the genocide in Rwanda? In this war, we decided Saddam was a real terrorist risk, and yet where are the weapons? And the latest terrorist report (after corrected by Colin Powell has indicated an increase in terrorism)

IMO, there are always going to be very evil dictators running around and there are always going to be countries we don't trust that have mass destruction capacities. What we can really do to prevent getting attacked is to not make more enemies in the world. I do not feel this war was warranted and I feel that in addition to the loss of some of our troops (as well as innocent Iraqis,) we've actually endangered Joe American even more. Micheal Moore in his film addresses the fact that only one person in Congress has a child in Iraq. It seems unfair that the very people profiting from this war don't have to deal with any personal consequences. To them, our soldiers are no more than plastic green figures played with by a child.

Consider this posted statement:
>Absolutely. I love cultures other than our own as long as they are indeed peaceful.

If this is true, hold a mirror to our country. Look at our president's investment in the Carlyle Group. Look at the way Americans invest in Lockheed Martin. Is it so necessary that we have so many weapons that we could destroy the world more than 6 times over (I mean, really, after once, what would the other five times do?) Or is it more necessary that the President invests locally as in that he invests in America and people who struggle for jobs and to feed themselves. We're running an arms race based on a minority of rich investors being on top and poorer minorities having to suffer. Is this peaceful?

CS Guy

on Jul 02, 2004

the problem with hitting iraq is that the lesson taken might not be "don't get nukes or we'll get ya", it might be "get nukes right freaking NOW or we'll get ya".

There is no perfect solution. In any conflict there is going to be risk for all sides. Getting nukes is not as easy as Hollywood has made it out to be. Iraq represented a serious threat because, among other reasons, pose a serious potential nuclear threat. Your typical terrorist cell almost certainly can not muster the resources to develop a nuclear program. But those resources are available to a nation of Iraq's means. The nuclear arms program initated by Lybia, Pakistan, and North Korea proved that.

CS Guy

on Jul 02, 2004

What we can really do to prevent getting attacked is to not make more enemies in the world.

Clinton tried that and it got us 9/11.

Look at the way Americans invest in Lockheed Martin.

What is wrong with Lockheed Martin? I work in a Lockheed Martin building. They put food on my table, and I am certainly not rich. They build weapons, but so do many other companies. And you know what? They build a hell of a lot of other things that make the lives of Americans and people around the world better. And the VAST majority of those weapons being built are not weapons of mass destruction (in fact, I don't know of any, and I am well informed), they are precision weapons designed to DECREASE casualties. So don't play the destroying the world 6 times over card.

kirstiecat

on Jul 02, 2004

I don't believe 911 is a primary result of the Clinton era. I do believe that it was pre-planned but even if you don't believe that our current president as well as his dad have serious connections with the Bin Ladens, you have to at least admit that we actually at one time supported Osama as a "freedom fighter." And if you ignore the connections between Bush and the rest of the world, what do you think of the fact that he cut funding on terrorism and did not seem very concerned at all before 911 with homeland security?

I think if you do choose to overlook ALL of these things, you have to at the very least ask yourself why the government is essentially a system in which you are rewarded for not speaking out. Several key people knew something was wrong when these terrorists didn't want to learn how to land planes and yet what was done about it? You can say it's conspircacy theory all you want but the sheer number of people who didn't go to work at the WTC that day in comparison to the numbers on a normal tues, hints to me that quite a few people were very much so in the know that something was going down.

My difficulty with Lockheed Martin might stem from the fact that I don't see the point in stockpiling weapons, especially to the degree that we have. Besides you and the others who are employed at LM, who else does this benefit? Do you think your average citizen just trying to put food on his table is who benefits primarily? I'm curious. IMO, you are struggling to make ends meet (atleast, that's the picture you've created) while a couple of people up top enjoy their caviar.

The idea of weapons designed to decrease casulaties seems a little bit counterintuitive to me but I guess if you're the only one left standing, at least your still alive, right?

CS Guy

on Jul 03, 2004

I don't see the point in stockpiling weapons, especially to the degree that we have. Besides you and the others who are employed at LM, who else does this benefit?

What weapons are we stockpiling? What exactly do you know about Lockheed? Where is your information coming from? I hope not from Moore, cause the facility in Littleton that he claims makes WMDs actually makes rockets that carry communication satellites.

I'm curious. IMO, you are struggling to make ends meet (atleast, that's the picture you've created) while a couple of people up top enjoy their caviar.

No, I am not struggling to make ends meet. and if you interpret "I'm certainly not rich" as meaning that I am, then you made a mistake. There a lots of people who fall inbetween. I did my struggling. I've moved past that stage.

The idea of weapons designed to decrease casulaties seems a little bit counterintuitive to me

I'm sure it does, but in war people die. The question becomes which people and how many of them. I would rather a few of our enemies die than a lot of us.

I doubt anything I have to say will sway you, though. People who deal in absolutes have little room for compromise.

I'm a true pacifist.

kirstiecat

on Jul 03, 2004

>No, I am not struggling to make ends meet. and if you interpret "I'm certainly not rich" as meaning that I am, then you made a mistake. There a lots of >people who fall inbetween. I did my struggling. I've moved past that stage.

I don't believe I misinterpreted this comment.

>I'm sure it does, but in war people die. The question becomes which people and how many of them. I would rather a few of our enemies die than a lot of us.

that's fine for you to think that way. I'm sure it puts you in the majority of people and it's a very human response. Just as you don't think I would be swayed by your comments, I really don't think you'll be swayed by mine.

But allow me to entertain a notion...you're in a bar and there's someone at the bar you know has a gun. Are you any less likely to be confrotational with this person if he has a machine gun? Me personally, I like to stay away from guns and people that are in bars drinking that happen to have them (that's a joke btw sort of) Anyhow, in the case of Iraq, to continue with this metaphor, there was no gun. If Iraq had a gun, I doubt we'd be antagonizing. In the case of the idea of stockpiling weapons, after a certain amount, it seems a bit odd that we would need any more.

You object to the notion that I say why would we need any more weapons of mass destruction when we could destroy the world more than 6 times over. Why is this a faulty statement? What purpose and who is it serving to create more weapons of mass destruction? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to be concerned that how our avergae American citizen is slowly losing out on jobs and health care? Because, going back to the gun example, I'm not going to approach someone if they have EITHER a gun or a machine gun. We're sitting in a world bar with quite a few machine guns. If someone is going to be confrontational with us, do you really think it would matter if we had one less or one more?

David St Hubbins

on Jul 03, 2004

I write missile defense software. I have a Top Secret security clearance

CSGuy I don't doubt your sincerity on the issue, but see how long your Top Secret clearance lasts if you start posting anti-war stuff on the internet or protesting in Washington. In my country I need to apply for a permit to protest on Parliament Hill. The same government depatrment that gives that permit also does security checks for government contractors like me. I've done 3 programming contracts with the Canadian military and I'm pretty sure I won't get a fourth if I become a 'known' protestor of anything. Freedom of expression is not an airy fairy thing but something that can directly affect my pocketbook.

CrispE

on Jul 03, 2004

David St. Hubbins:
We were in Ottawa for Canada Day! Nice party up on Parliament Hill. Couldn't get to see the Parliament Kitties because security was so tight, but I guess the security people's hearts were in the right place, after all, those kitties are mighty important!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!