Fahrenheit 9/11

As I sit down to write this next review I realise just how many documentaries I watched. To you, the reader, these will be coming half a week apart, but for me the last four posts were all the films I watched in two days! It may shock you to learn that I don’t write these off the cuff on Saturday and Wednesday mornings, but I store them up. On occasion I will write a special review and promote that to the front of the queue as it were.

Anyway, this post is about Fahrenheit 9/11, which is another Michael Moore documentary. This deals with Bush administration, the terrorist attacks of September 11^th 2001 and the war in Iraq. In true Michael Moore style this one is as controversial as his other stuff. He pulls together an awful lot of evidence and highlights a number of links between the Bush family, Saudi Arabia, the bin Laden family and other prominent members of the government at the time which raises a fair few eyebrows in the light of the September 11^th attacks. However, this is not just another example of the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. The case that he makes is very convincing, and this film has the privilege of being the highest grossing documentary of all time.

Michael Moore starts with the very controversial way that George Bush entered office. Now I was too young (just a mere 8 years old) to really remember the firestorm that seemed to erupt, but I do remember wanting Al Gore to win the election. Moore suggests that Bush’s family connections (having a relative as the Governor of Florida and as a high ranking member of Fox News) helped him win the election. This is controversial in itself, but what follows after is on another level. He then talks above the 9/11 attacks and indicates that the US government, the Bush family, the Saudi Arabian government, the bin Laden family, and the Taliban are intricately inter-related, and have been for nearly 30 years. He questions why none of the bin Laden family were interrogated after 9/11, and basically argues that Bush’s actions post-9/11 were for the good of him and his family’s investments, rather than for the good of the country. He then talks about the Iraq war and investigates the effects it has had on the families of those who have fought in it. In an emotional scene he interviews the mother of a boy killed who then goes to the White House, and what follows is very moving.

There is no doubt that what he is saying makes sense, but in true Michael Moore style, the way he says it carries more sway than what he is actually saying. Yes, he draws together a fair few lines of very questionable evidence about Bush and his administration, and makes a few controversial, yet rational claims. The one that sticks in my mind is something along the lines of ‘America is paying you millions to be President, but your business dealings with Saudi Arabia is paying your family billions, what are you more concerned about?’ Obviously it is not exactly like that, but the point is there.

It is a triumph of the power of freedom of speech and production that this film was released. Obviously it would have reflected worse on the government if the film was censored, but some of the things Moore implies (and that is why it is so good) are very shocking. The main criticism I have of him in general, but particularly with regard to this film, is that he presents a load of evidence, implies something outrageous but doesn't actually point the finger, and then goes off on a segment about his implication. He is also immensely one sided. He says nothing of any reasons why anyone would want to terrorise America and attack their economy, and completely avoids the plane that (allegedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#The_Pentagon], but that’s a whole different issue) hit the Pentagon. However, there is no denying the success of the film, and it is a masterful documentary which can appeal to everyone.

However, the film was very controversial when it was released, as its release came less than 5 months before the 2004 US election in which Bush was running for re-election. In his own unique style, Moore didn't directly support the Democratic candidate, but has never hidden his negative opinions about Bush, and is quoted as saying that he hoped his film would influence the election:“this may be the first time a film has had this kind of impact” (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-24-fahrenheit-cover_x.htm). This is quite underhand, but the only thing that the film really achieved in this respect was to make those who were not going to vote for Bush even less likely to do so.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a fantastic documentary and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. However, I think while Michael Moore is obviously very successful as a one-sided propagandist, his arguments need to be a bit more objective and his delivery needs to be a bit more firm in the claims that he makes. Other than that, I suggest you try and find Fahrenheit 9/11 very soon, because it is an important film in the current climate, and the claims Moore makes have strong implications for where the world is today.

Zero Dark Thirty - or 'The Bin Laden Film'

Zero Dark Thirty, or ‘the Bin Laden film’ as I seem to be describing it to people lately, tells of the American pursuit of Osama Bin Laden, specifically focusing on the actions of one woman, Maya. It is one of the most widely anticipated and more controversial films of 2012 (released 19^th December) and it is obvious why. Naturally, the theme of hunting down Bin Laden will stir controversy amongst many, but Zero Dark Thirty does an excellent job of keeping this to a minimum.

The first thing to mention about this film is that it is not necessarily a two-and-a-half hour adrenaline filled chase for the most dangerous man in the world. People expecting this (such as my younger brother) will be both disappointed and bored. It is probably better to expect more of a fictional documentary, and that is the best way I can describe it. The climax of the film – storming the house where Bin Laden was shot – is quite thrilling, but the rest of the film reflects the long and arduous struggle for information about Al-Qaeda perfectly. The cinematography of Zero Dark Thirty is very impressive (credit to Greig Fraser), and the director (Kathryn Bigelow, also known for The Hurt Locker) does an excellent job of reflecting a number of aspects of the hunt to the audience. As I mentioned, the struggle for information is one of them, but the best piece of direction for me comes right at the end. After the killing of Bin Laden you’d expect some massive celebration scene, such as at the end of Star Wars, but this isn't the case. Instead, Maya is sitting in a plane and starts to cry, realising perhaps that without this case she has nothing to do and nowhere to go.

This leads me on to the next thing that I immediately considered after watching the film – the lack of more general celebration. There is always a danger with these types of films that they will become less of an informative piece about the hunt for Bin Laden and more of a pro-American propaganda. Zero Dark Thirty does immensely well to avoid this. I can’t recall a single moment when there was any nationalistic undertones to the movie, which is quite a considerable achievement as it would be so easy to turn Zero Dark Thirty into a celebration of the death of Bin Laden. Obviously the creators aren't stupid enough to impose a Salman Rushdie-type backlash against them, and their treatment of this subject is very respectful. There are no vitriolic scenes of joy at the end, and the film remains polite and considered throughout.

The character (because I think she is a character) of Maya is very interesting. On some level it is a surprise that the central figure in this movie is a woman, and I think the decision to write the character as a woman was brilliant. There is a danger with a male lead that there would be vitriolic pro-American propaganda, and by casting a woman the film immediately makes you consider the whole thing a bit more. Jessica Chastain does a very good job as Maya, perfectly showing the range of emotions required. She instantly comes across as a very driven, goal-directed and dedicated woman, but she also expresses discontent at scenes of waterboarding and signs of great burden at the loss of several friends. Paralleling her character perhaps, this marks Chastain’s first major film, and I would advise you to remember the name. I have very little doubt that she will win Best Actress at the Academy Awards in a couple of days.

Zero Dark Thirty has been nominated for five Academy Awards, with Best Actress obviously being one of them. I’m fairly sure no-one reading this will be doing so to see what I think about its chances for Best Film Editing and Bets Sound Editing so I’ll skip over them. It is not surprise that it has been nominated for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay. The Academy was always going to nominate Zero Dark Thirty for the first two, just because it’s ‘the Bin Laden film’. To my mind it will win Best Original Screenplay, simply because it was the best original screenplay, but it will face stiff competition from Django Unchained. Best Picture is always a bit of a mystery though. In previous years there have been surprises (The Artist in 2012) and there have been obvious winners (The Return of the King, 2003), and this year has the potential to be both. I’m not going to attempt to call it, nor to tell you what I think about it, but there is no doubt that Zero Dark Thirty is one of the favourites to win.

Zero Dark Thirty is not for everyone though, and I’d only watch it if you are interested in the hunt for Bin Laden. I don’t think it’s the kind of film that you can watch on the basis of general curiosity. You need to engage with it, and there is quite a lot to follow. However, once you get into it, it is very enjoyable and it deserves all the plaudits going its way.