« Five Things | Main | F#@& Yourself »
We Sure Do Need Some Water*
We saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" last night and it was ... a great film! (I know you're all shocked that I liked it. You can pick your jaws up off the floor now.) In many ways, typical Moore. In at least one way, not quite so typical—he wasn't in it that much (except as narrator and commentator throughout, of course). After seeing it, one thing seems certain: The barrage of pundits speaking out against the film (and Moore personally) in the last 1-2 weeks were designed to do one thing: Make people decide in advance they don't want to see the film. I say that because I think almost anyone who sees this movie—all but the most Republican partisans—will have to think very very seriously about voting for Bush this November. You may find much to quibble with in the film, but its most damning underlying argument is pretty unassailable. Therefore, the Republicans' best hope to reduce the damage the film might do to Bush's chances is just to go all out to try to keep people from seeing it at all. And I'm not talking censorship. The strategy is to make those who haven't seen the film think Moore is a crazed lunatic and perhaps a traitor, and to make the film seem like one big fat lie.
There's just one problem with that, Moore's not crazy, and, while the film's analysis of recent history might be hyperbolic or facile at times, in its biggest theme, it does not lie. Despite that, the "don't see it!" strategy may be working. One of my co-workers yesterday declared she has no desire to see the film because Moore's a crazy liar, and at least one other person I know (who is a dedicated Fox "news" watcher) has decided he won't be seeing it either, for the same reason.
<snark> It's a good thing people make up their own minds in this country, don't you think? </snark>
I don't want to spoil the film for those who haven't seen it yet, although I'm not sure I could even if I wanted to; if you've been following any coverage of it, you know what it's about already. It seemed to have a prologue and two parts. The prologue how Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court after thousands of voters were disenfranchised in Florida. Part one is about September 11, 2001 and the immediate response to it—the fact that leading up to it the Bush administration seemed not very interested in Bin Laden or Al Quaeda or terrorism, the fact that Bush just sat in a schoolroom in in Florida for seven minutes after he was told that America was "under attack" (Moore's critics seem to really dislike what he does with this), the fact that the Bush administration helped 142 Saudi Arabian nationals—including many members of the Bin Laden family—leave the country on charter flights w/out being asked any questions, etc. (Moore's also been challenged on this, since the 9/11 Commission said that, in hindsight, it looks like none of the Saudis who were allowed to leave were likely terrorists or anything. This misses the point, which is simply: Why were these people, of all people, given special treatment? No one is saying they were terrorists, only that it was improper to give them any advantages over anyone else at that time.)
There's a lot packed into the first half of the movie, including interesting little details about the deep connections between the Bush family and Saudi Arabian oil bigshots and royalty. I'm sure Moore's critics are busily explaining away all those little details in their arguments that they all add up to nothing. The big point here was not incredibly clear to me. It's definitely not that Saudi Arabians are secretly running U.S. foreign and domestic policy or anything like that. Part one simply points out that there's deep ties between the Bush family (and others in the Bush administration), and Saudi interests, and that there's big money involved, and that that Saudi interests have received very good treatment from the U.S. for some time.
Part two was, for me, more effective. Part two is more about the buildup to Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, all the lies that went into getting Americans and the world to buy that debacle, who is getting rich off the war (e.g., the Carlyle Group and Halliburton) and who is paying the price for Bush's lies. I'm sure many people are trying, but just can't imagine how anyone could argue that Moore is wrong here. The companies and people profiting from the war can't deny that they're doing so. They can argue that "somebody's gotta do it," but that's no excuse; no one would have had to do it if Bush hadn't invaded in the first place. Also, how can Bush and Co. defend the fact that ten times more taxpayer dollars go to a private Halliburton-employed truck driver than to a member of the U.S. armed forces who's basically doing the same job? I don't see the defense, the logic, the argument. The war was unnecessary, and now it's created countless opportunities for corporations to steal from American taxpayers with the blessing and active assistance of the U.S. government. Hooray.
And that's Moore's biggest and strongest argument, as I see it: The big losers in the America created by the Bush administration are those with the least to begin with—the poor and marginalized Americans who are losing social services because so much of the federal budget has to go to Iraq, and who are losing their lives because they are the people who make up the vast majority of the U.S. armed forces. It's not a fun message. In fact, it's very very sad. But it's true.
And in this respect, I 'd argue that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a great film. I disagree with Moore's critics, those who try to dismiss him as a lunatic who "rewrites history" or reduces it to simple a black/white binaries. In "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Bowling for Columbine," Moore attempts to connect current American problems of poverty, racism, and other social inequalities with American history in an attempt to understand -- and to help viewers understand -- how we might have come to where we find ourselves today. No, he can't resist the facile jab here and there that tends to reduce his larger analysis to a simple theory of cause and effect. For example, in "BFC" he says that the NRA was founded the same day the KKK was officially disbanded. This implies that the NRA is just a front for the KKK -- he never says that in "BFC," but he juxtaposes those two facts in a way that makes suggests the connection and encourages viewers to make it for themselves. Is something like this mere coincidence? Perhaps. And if so, if there's nothing to it, then Moore comes off looking like he's reducing a complex history to a bunch of simple comparisons, connecting things that just aren't connected. But his larger points don't depend on such coincidences; instead, they're based on a reading of the factual record that is not usually flattering to the wealthy and powerful in the U.S., but which is, nevertheless, true.
That's my take, anyway. As always, I look forward to hearing what others think.
See also:
- Buzz Around Moore's Movie May Shake Election
- By Way of Deception
- Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?
- FAQ about the Facts in "Fahrenheit 9/11"
- A Fahrenheit 9/11 Library from Michael Moore
- Unfondly Fahrenheit at Crooked Timber
- Kevin Drum's reaction (with over 500 comments)
- Reaction from Monica
- Michael Moore's showing in Show Me State
- Fifty-Nine Deciets in Fahrenheit 911: The Right did the same thing w/BFC, so it was only a matter of time. Check Moore's site for responses.
* The title of this post responds to one of the song's on the soundtrack to "Fahrenheit 9/11." The soundtrack is great, by the way—a brilliant use of popular music as social satire.
Posted June 26, 2004 07:46 PM | ai movies election 2004
Why were these people, of all people, given special treatment? No one is saying they were terrorists, only that it was improper to give them any advantages over anyone else at that time.
Hmm... I don't know. Let's give this half a second's thought. You're President. You've just had a major terrorist attack made on your country, and you may need to be active in the Middle East soon. You suspect either Iraq or the Taliban--neither a particularly bad suspect on the morning of September 12th.
Now, you know, first, it's highly unlikely that the House of Saud is directly responsible for these attacks, or the folks on the plane are likely to be terrorists or even connected, since bin Laden is not in particularly good graces with much of his family. Second, you know from past experience that the Saudis are concerned about their families and hanger's on. Finally, you know that since the Saudi's are one of the few folks with diplomatic contacts in Afghanistan and will be militarily necessary for an invasion of Iraq, it's good to keep them sweet.
So, you've got a chance at making some quick brownie points, you've got a chance to help out a head of state, and you may need to cash in such a chit soon. And, despite the best Michael Moore might put together, there's no downside: these folks simply weren't worth detaining.
Hmm. How horrible to make that decision. I agree, it makes no sense whatsoever...
Posted by: A. Rickey at June 26, 2004 10:55 PM
Wow...you really are a callous and shallow asshole. You don't know jack shit about Mid-East politics either.
I bet you drive a Lexus...
Posted by: Famous P. at June 26, 2004 11:37 PM
And you're a man who has a particularly incisive and insightful style of argument. And no, I've not owned a car in... coming on ten years now, for what it's worth.
You know who this guy is, Ambimb?
Posted by: A. Rickey at June 27, 2004 12:13 AM
You know, if I thought there was something in what you said that was worthy of "incisive and insightful" argument, I would make one. But to talk in this manner about scoring "brownie points" after the deaths of three thousand plus people does seem a bit callous and shallow. Forgive me if I put people's suffering above brownie points with a corrupt and unpopular regime holding onto power by its fingernails, but that's just the human side of me.
But let me give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a shallow and callous asshole to address the merits of your so-called argument. Your first point merely restates one already made in the quote that opens your post, namely that no one claimed the people on the plane were terrorists. So you agree with the point that Ambimb is making though you are trying to make that point work against him. Logically contradictory but what the hell. Your second point is so broadly construed as to be worthless: Were you concerned about your family on Sept 11 or 12 or ever? And in any event, in the context of the argument you are trying to make, this does indeed highlight a downside to letting these folks leave, namely that if they really are concerned about their families wouldn't it be better to have them around? Call it an early application of the preventative detention that so many people are undergoing in Gitmo down Cuba way. Since you've already got Bush thinking ahead to blame the Taliban and Iraq, assumptions that have both proven unfounded (ever hear of this guy called Osama?) if you haven't been following the press, why not thinking strategically to the use of hostages for leverage? I'm not advocating that. But I fail to see how such a position isn't a part of your "pragmatic" approach to politics. And finally your claim about the value of Saudi Arabia both diplomatically and militarily. As to the diplomacy, I fail to see, in light of the fact that we INVADED the country and now OCCUPY it, that really had much of a part to play. As to the military role, the Saudi government forbid the US to launch aircraft from the bases it had in country. The US was allowed to direct air operations from the Prince Sultan airbase. But for the most part the troops and planes came from other places and were centrally commanded from a base in Qatar. US presence in Saudi Arabia, site of Islam's two holiest shrines, has in fact been a continual sticking point for muslims since the '90 war with Iraq; it's one of the reasons that Osama lists as justification for his attacks. The US actually began winding down the American presence there just last year. Even at the height of the most recent Iraq war there were only two hundred planes there. Check out this article from FOXNews, who I'm sure you trust implicitly, for more (www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85446,00.html) or try this one from the Chicago Tribune reprinted on the Global Security.org website (www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030430-psab01.htm)
So yeah, you're a callous and shallow asshole to talk like this. And doubly so cause you don't know shit about what you're talking about.
Posted by: Famous P. at June 27, 2004 03:11 AM
Anthony: Yes, I know who Famous P is. He's really a great guy, and I think you'd liike him if you got to know him, but I understand it can be tough to be on the receiving end of his arguments sometimes.
Famous P: Please play nice!
As to the issues here I'll say that, while there may have been lots of strategic arguments in favor of giving special treatment to those Saudis, that only illustrates the flaws in American foreign policy w/regard to the Middle East. I mean, Bush talks about preemption and attacking anyone who harbors or supports terrorists, but for all the reasons Anthony states, it's clear that Bush means "except if you're Saudi Arabia." If Bush is as tough as he talks, and if his "doctrine" has any meaning, he should be willing to jettison all those "chits" with Saudia Arabia, shouldn't he? I mean, is this about oil, or is it about protecting the U.S. from terrorists? Oh crap, there's a binary again.
I have no desire for Bush to go attack Saudi Arabia, or to piss off the House of Saud intentionally, but really, would it have been so hard to have the CIA question those Saudis for even a little while -- a day, perhaps? Would that have damaged U.S.-Saudi relations so much? I really don't think so. And would it have been so horrible to require them to wait to leave the country, just like everyone else? Again, I really don't think so. Anthony's own arguments admit that Saudi Arabia gets special treatment from the Bush administration (as it has from past administrations, as well, certainly). He thinks the reasons for that special treatment may justify it. Perhaps we'll just disagree on that.
Posted by: ambimb at June 27, 2004 06:41 AM
Oh, and one more leetle thing: The fact that the Bush administration helped 142 Saudis out of the country on Sept. 12 or 13th or whatever it was -- that's a very minor point. "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- and nearly any other account of recent history -- contains many more meaty and important arguments against current U.S. policy and leadership.
Posted by: ambimb at June 27, 2004 06:45 AM
the question of detention isn't as important to me as the question of why they got to leave the country or fly at all when the rest of us were grounded, even other famous and important people. like, why are they so important that they get to leave when the rest of us wanted to?
Posted by: monica at June 27, 2004 08:42 AM
Well, to answer your question about whether the "don't see it" strategy is working, I'd say 'no' since Farenheit 9/11 was the number one movie this weekend, on a mere 868 screens.
Posted by: DG at June 28, 2004 09:33 AM
And shockingly, it's showing in three or four different places here in Indianapolis. E. and I went to see it yesterday, and the ticket line was out the door and around the corner of the building.
There were a few things I thought were over the top, such as the focus on Bush's continuing to sit in the classroom on 9/11 (even if they had known exactly what was going on, was he immediately supposed to leap up and dash out of the room?); E. also thought that lingering on the mother from Flint was rather exploitational.
But some friends of mine have two children, ages 2 1/2 and four months. He is in the National Guard. What's the line? Most serve one weekend a month, two weeks a year? He spent most of 2002 in Bosnia. He will spend the rest of this year and at least half of the next in Afghanistan. He will have missed almost half of his daughter's life and the majority of his son's. While he's deployed, his family will struggle to get by because his NG pay is nowhere near what he made in his civilian job (firefighter).
Let's just say I didn't quite realize the rage and the sorrow that this film would tap in me, despite my experience in creating critical distance and my feeling that Moore is a little on edge.
Posted by: raquel at June 28, 2004 10:58 AM
DG: You're so right. I can't wait to hear what you think about it.
Raquel: Edge can sometimes be good for cutting out the dead wood, so to speak. And as for exploitation, I wonder if it only seems that way b/c the media has so scrupulously avoided showing this kind of war-caused trauma. I mean, hundreds of U.S. soldiers have died, which means the Michigan woman featured in the film is far from alone. I'd say Bush and Co. have been exploiting our desires to be shielded from this kind of awfulness, so a little exploitation right back at 'em is only fair play, no?
Posted by: ambimb at June 28, 2004 09:44 PM
Oh, I tend to agree with you. I'm just sayin'. As far as the shielding goes, witness that news broadcast some time ago that was entirely a list of those killed, and the attempts made to censor or refuse to air said broadcast.
Posted by: raquel at June 29, 2004 12:22 AM
