|
Last Updated: Jun 17th, 2008 - 15:46:17
POV Review - Fahrenheit 911
By Cynthia Kirkeby
Aug 16, 2006, 16:00 PST
|
|
Point of View Review of Fahrenheit 911
Michael Moore’s documentary raises some questions that every citizen should be investigating, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Although there is a definite agenda present in this production, there is also and enormous amount of information presented that is intensely disturbing.
I consider myself a moderate when it comes to politics without a party that accurately represents me. If there were a socially conscious Republican party or a fiscally conservative Democratic party, then I would be much happier than I am with the current political landscape. President George Bush was a competent US leader, but his son President George W. Bush seems to be less adept than his father. At the same time, he was elected as our President and is entitled to our support.
Fahrenheit 911 starts out by bashing the President’s election, using footage from individuals that felt Gore should have won. Anytime that a political race is that close, there are bound to be people who are upset regardless of which side is declared the winner. I felt that this opening was off-topic and substantially weakened his film. Fahrenheit 911 is supposed to be about the events surrounding September 11th. There are plenty of "facts" brought to light in this film that beg us to investigate further, the detour into the presidential race only served as a distraction.
On point, however, and intensely disturbing was footage of President Bush’s reaction to the attack on the World Trade Center. When he was informed of the first plane’s impact, he decided to continue into a Kindergarten class for a public relations appearance. A bizarre decision to say the least, but what followed was even stranger. When he was informed of the second impact, and he was told that the US was under attack, he continued to sit at the front of the Kindergarten class reading along in a children's story book. He shows no emotion, no surprise, and virtually no concern. He continued to sit there for at least another seven minutes. What Fahrenheit 911 failed to show was when, and under what circumstances he finally left. Did the Secret Service finally come into the classroom and escort him out, or did he excuse himself and leave to respond to the emergency? We aren’t shown this part of the event, and it left me dissatisfied. Did he react to the situation in some of the footage that Moore fails to show us? He leads us to believe that Bush does nothing, but he only shows us a small piece of the seven minutes.
 |
| "After being told "America is under attack" when the second plane hit the tower on 9/11, George W. Bush continued to read "My Pet Goat" in a Florida classroom for the next seven minutes." -from Fahrenheit 911 by Michael Moore |
Some of the facts that elicited the strongest reaction from me were about a third of the way through the film. I actually would have like to see this section expanded. The information included:
Before becoming President, George W. Bush ran a number of companies that were financed, at least in part, by the Bin Laden family. This was during the time that his father was President, and as he was quoted in 1992 as saying, "When you're the president's son, in Washington people tend to respect that. I can reach my father at any time. Access is power." How much access did the Saudis have to the President, because they were financing his son’s ventures? And how much access do they currently have to the White House based on George W’s past relationship with them?
Immediately after the September 11th attacks approximately 150 Saudi citizens were supposedly evacuated from the US with the assistance of the FBI. According to the film they were not questioned in any way, even though many of them were relatives of Osama Bin Laden. However, after the release of the film in an interview in Entertainment Weekly, Moore admits to have slanted this section of the film with half truths. I don't necessarily think that the FBI handled this correctly, but Moore's presentation of it is now very suspect. Apparently some individuals were interviewed. So what is the truth of the matter? Even if they were properly interviewed, what could possibly justify the release of these individuals from the United States?
This section of the film was enormously disturbing and really demands further scrutiny from the public and our elected officials. However, one of the other disturbing facts presented in the film was the absence of any independent investigation of the events of September 11th. Congressional investigation was supposedly discouraged, and independent investigation was supposedly denied. The question is whether that was true, or whether the gears of legislative investigation simply turns obsurdly slow?
Another spot that Michael Moore’s film breaks down for me is in his depiction of US soldiers. There is footage of misconduct of US soldiers in the movie, which begs the question of why this footage was not turned over to the proper authorities for disciplinary action. It also brings up the question of how he acquired much of this footage. Although some soldiers have behaved atrociously, there are also thousands of soldiers who have acted bravely and conscientiously, and this film is slap in the face to those soldiers, because it makes it appear that this is something they are all doing.
The footage that was much more compelling showed the money being made off the war, and how much of it is going directly into Saudi pockets. It’s horrifying that the very individuals that attacked the United States are not only being protected by the White House, but are also being awarded some of the most lucrative defense contracts. You have to wonder what the heck is going on when Secret Service Agents were called out to question Michael Moore when he was filming in front of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C. Why were they sent? Did he do something else that isn't shown on the film? Even so why would the Secret Service be the one to investigate it? Since when do White House forces extend themselves on behalf of a foreign power to question US citizens that are doing absolutely nothing illegal or threatening? Some of these questions really need to be asked and answered. This segment of the film made it appear that the White House is merely a pawn of the Saudi government.
One of the final sections of Fahrenheit 911 was a outright manipulation, after watching a great deal of material that was well prepared and compelling this was a very lengthy and very poor final note. Michael Moore spends a long time interviewing a woman, Lila Lipscomb, who is described as coming from a military family. It begins with her explaining how many individuals in her family have been proud to serve in the military and how important it was that her daughter served her tour of duty in Iraq. Then it shows her again after receiving the news of her son’s death. Unfortunately, Michael Moore was not content to have her read her son’s last letter, where he says that he doesn’t understand why they are in Iraq. This was compelling in itself. Instead, he exploits her grief at length as she rails against an unjust God and a now questionable president. Since the film's release this section appears to be even more exploitive of the public's feelings, since Moore admitted in his interview with Entertainment Weekly that he filmed all of this footage after the death of her son, and that he simply manipulated its presentation to appear to be before and after the fact.
While I watched this segment, I was all too aware of the fact that she may very well have still been supporting the President and extolling her son’s bravery in a just endeavor, if he had come back a hero instead of being one of the many sad casualties of the war. This was Michael Moore at his worst in this film. It was obvious that she was squarely in the anger phase of mourning. Mrs. Lipscomb should have been allowed to grieve for her son without Moore compounding her pain.
When he focused on the facts, Moore’s film making was much more compelling. When he turned his attention to the cutbacks the military has been forced to endure, it was enough to make anyone furious. While the Saudi’s are growing rich from fat defense contracts, our soldiers are enduring pay cut backs, benefit cut backs, reduced, if not substandard, medical care, and more.
I think this is a film that every citizen of the United States should see. Republicans will have to clench their teeth to get past the opening section on the Presidential elections. As a matter of fact, if I had it to do over again, I would arrive late so that I could skip this part. The rest of the film, however, raises enough questions that I don’t think it is possible to participate in a meaningful political debate without seeing it.
Please don’t rely on either pro Michael Moore fans or Michael Moore detractors to tell you what you should think. Go to the film and participate in the debate. There are questions here that both Republicans and Democrats should be asking and answering. There are also questions that Moore should be answering as well, about the truthfulness of his presentation.
The film is questionable at best as a documentary. Some parts seem to be well done, some parts have questionable relevance, and other parts cross the line into exploitation. Overall Michael Moore has asked some questions that I think do need to be answered. Even if only a small portion of his movie is accuarately portrayed, there are some serious issues that need to be investigated and addressed. That’s what the freedoms of our constitution are all about, voicing our opinions and our concerns. I would, however, love to see another filmmaker take a stab at this same subject matter with similar materials to give another view of the issue.
© Copyright 2006 by Classbrain.com
Top of Page
 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point of View Reviews
Latest Headlines
|
|
Email this article
Printer friendly page
