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.

Bowling for Columbine

Michael Moore is famed for his controversial documentaries about political issues in America. He has released a number of immensely successful films which raise public awareness about a number of topics, such as the health industry, gun laws and the Iraqi War. Bowling for Columbine was released in 2002 and is one on Michael Moore’s most famous films. It explores the gun laws in America and how these may have contributed, alongside other factors, to the shootings in a number of American schools. This film continues to be relevant as the issue of American gun laws seems to pop up every now and then in tragic circumstances.

A number of high profile individuals feature in this film, such as Matt Stone (South Park), Charlton Heston, and Marilyn Manson. Moore’s interviews with these individuals shed a genuinely interesting light on what may be the cause of particularly high gun crime rates in America.

For those of the audience (such as myself) who have very little knowledge about the American issues around gun crime, Bowling for Columbine is a fascinating eye-opener. There are some very surprising scenes in the film, such as when he opens a new bank account with a bank in Michigan and subsequently receives a free gun for doing so. To me, a Brit who is aware of the extreme restrictions on firearm possession in this country, this is astounding.

It is quite difficult to review a documentary film like this, but Michael Moore is fiercely critical throughout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) who have been known to hold rallies in cities shortly after they have a gun incident. However, despite some incredibly clever filming, editing and interviewing, Michael Moore’s main problem for me is that he presents the ‘freak shows’ to the audience. He often presents some very extreme opinions of gun law, and at one point interviews the brother of one of the shooters at Columbine. Now without a doubt this man comes across as a bit of a lunatic, but the majority of the film comes across as very one sided. He presents the individuals who argue in favour of firearm possession as lunatics and presents many people who argue against firearm possession as straightforward ‘average’ Americans. Anyone who does argue for firearm possession is discredited in the way they are presented by Moore, and I don’t think this is particularly fair on them.

There are a number of criticisms about the features Michael Moore presents in this documentary. For example the employees at the bank which give over a gun because of a bank account opening claim that Michael Moore misled them during the filming of this feature. It is argued that he convinced the employees to hand over a gun on film the on the morning after he opened the account. In reality, it is claimed that it would take much longer for a gun to be delivered. When he interviews Charlton Heston at the end of the film, he appears to lead Heston into making a number of controversial statements and then presents him with a picture of a little girl who was killed in a gun-related incident. He makes Heston look incredibly bad, but has been accused of ambushing Charlton Heston is a very crude way. His interview with Matt Stone, the creator of South Park, led to him being presented as an animated idiot in Team America: World Police, because of an animated segment which bears a resemblance to South Park.

Gun law is obviously a very emotive issue for so many people in America, and the film is spot on in presenting all the bad things about the situations around American gun law. There are undoubtedly some shocking statistics about the rates of gun-based crime in America, and Michael Moore is incredibly convincing in the way he presents his arguments. Bowling for Columbine is a well-designed film which presents information in a very clever order. For example, early on there is a clip of Chris Rock on control of ammunition which is very funny. It is the sort of film that is sadly relevant once every so often, and if you get the opportunity to watch it then you shouldn't miss it. Personally, I find Michael Moore’s delivery very annoying, but the content of the film is very compelling.