Saw Fahrenheit 9/11 this afternoon with Andy G. Scribbled some notes on the bus home.
Impossible not to be affected by two hours of blatantly manipulative documentary yet despite expecting to be a key demographic for Michael Moore’s work I felt oddly empty at the end. I’d learned nothing new, had no revelations, just been exposed to middle aged Iraqi and American women crying. But then I’m not the target – this film wasn’t aimed at me and the most worrying conclusion is if Moore is preaching to the converted, how ignorant are the converted?
I remember when the film came out in the states reading a few blog posts by generally intelligent, liberal American bloggers who saw the film and felt their eyes had been opened to things that had never occurred to them. Isn’t this stuff just fucking obvious? Moore’s only crime is that his focus is so narrow. What Bush & co are doing is no different to the situation in Italy, Russia, any number of “civilised”, “free”, “democratic” countries. (Ironically I don’t think it’s happening here in the UK because Blair is more obsessed with ideology than money, but that’s another story).
I was left thinking that if this is what counts for radical, dangerous, left-field political film-making in the US then America is in more trouble than I thought. Strip away the personal Moore stuff, and there wasn’t that much of it to begin with compared with Bowling for Columbine, cut back the emotive tear-jerking interviews, and you’re left with the kind of report that would sit fine on UK broadcast TV.
Powerful people run countries, whether in business or government or both, and network with each other to make money at the expense of the people who elected them. It’s been going on for generations. Tell me something I didn’t know.
But then I’m not the audience this is intended for because I’ve been paying attention these last few years. The thing is, I don’t think I’ve been doing anything special. I don’t think I’m some kind of genius or in some kind of elite because I can come out of seeing this film and not learn anything new. The information Moore has filtered into his US-centric, anti-Bush tirade is out there and has been for years. What’s shocking is that people are being shocked by it.
I’d recommend people go see it, if only to judge how much is news to them. If a lot of it is news then y’all better start paying attention.
Pretty much the same reaction here. It’s rather a mess as a film: failing to make any coherent specific argument and too often lapsing into sentimentality, the manipulative use of others’ grief, cheap stunts and tricksy editing. The strongest material for me was all in about the first half hour, raking over the whole Florida debacle in a relatively straightforward manner. After that it’s a hotchpotch of rather directionless righteous anger and, as you say, doesn’t tell you much that you weren’t aware of already. It’s not that I disagree with much of what Moore has to say, it’s just that I’ve heard much of it before and I don’t always care for the way he says it.
There seems to be two camps. One relatively small bunch of people who have known all this for years and either don’t care or care a lot but are suffering from fatigue, and everyone else who just haven’t noticed. For the latter this film (and others like it – there was a trailer for the MacDonalds-kills-you film, another BearsShitWoods piece of exposition by the looks of it) is essential.
Strikes me Moore is aiming at the Oprah market which is no bad thing. It just strikes me as odd that he’s portrayed as some kind of radical.
Listened to a little Today programme report, this morning, about the Democratic convention at which John Kerry will formally become the Democrat candidate for the presidency. One of their commentators, Scott Keeter from a US polling organization, talked about how important the convention was for getting over “who Kerry is” to the US electorate. He stated that a large proportion of the electorate didn’t know, for instance, that Kerry had served in Vietnam. Justin Webb’s, and my, reaction was a kind of strangled cough of disbelief. How could they not, he reasoned, given that it’s mention in virtually every news report about Kerry? Keeter was definite – they don’t.
This is Moore’s audience. For a country as deeply conservative and disinterested the US seems to be, he’s a radical. Christ, he’s an extreme radical.
From our point of view, were he British, you imagine he’d be knocking around with Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy, injecting a bit of bite into the News Quiz, or doing the odd “extra chair” appearance on Question Time.
You can hear that report at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_democrats_20040726.ram
I think for those of us in the ‘converted’ camp, the case against the Bush regime is so obvious that it feels like Moore is shooting into an open goal. We are just willing him not to miss. And (to pursue the analogy perhaps a stage too far) he makes damn sure he doesn’t, belting his shot good and hard into the middle of the net. There is certainly no attempt at subtlety.
But when you read that- what is it?- 75% of Americans believe the 9/11 planes were flown by Iraqis, you think maybe it is not subtelty that is called for. It will be enough of a revelation for most of the target audience to see that the hijackers were Saudis. And if that is surprise news, then the multimillion dollar business ties revealed between the Bush and Bin Laden dynasties will come as an absolute bombshell- and I must admit, as someone who reads the papers, and the UK ones at that, I had not realised the extent of those ties….
So much for the message- as for the way he puts it across, I do wonder whether the ultra-sarcastic, almost slapstick approach taken (which went down an absolute treat in the urban arthouse-type venue I watched in, there were cheers, hisses and boos like a Saturday matinee in the 1950s) may just risk further polarising views in the US- an increasingly divided nation. Could a more considered, gentle approach have more chance of winning over those all-important midwestern swing voters watching in the malls? Or (to return, with apologies, to the footballing analogy) when faced with an open goal, you don’t have to break the net- just sidefoot it in, Moore son!
Earlier this year I bought, read and threw away a Michael Moore book (I can’t remember its title but it was full of biased invective). I have never thrown a book away before in my life, but on this occasion (I was in Venezuela at the time) I could not allow the book to be read by anyone else, so it went into the trash. Venezulanos have enough to worry about with Chavez to have to read Moore as well. As to the movie, I won’t being going to see it. There are far more important things I can do with my life, such as deciding exactly who I should vote for on November 2 and making sure that I can vote from overseas – the overseas vote is now seen as an important factor in the Presidential vote outcome.
As to the ignorance of the US target audience. This should be as no surprise. Awareness of the rest of the world is not a strength when you live in Iowa.
Stumbled across the weblog when a friend linked me to your Spaced page, and felt the need to comment…
Michael Moore’s target audience for this film is not the well-read or globally aware sector of the population, both of whom will no doubt have been aware of most of the points he put forth. Nor is his target Canadians, Brits, Australians, the French or the rest of the world, though I’m sure he’s happy to take their ticket money. His target is middle-America, who don’t get this kind of information via the nightly news, because the networks have been mostly silent (some say complicit) about all this stuff since Sept 11. And needless to say, the majority of them don’t bother to read international newspapers. To unprepared and unassuming viewers, F911 will probably come across as a huge shock or possibly even fiction, despite the fact that Moore has citations listed on his website to back up every point. I would suggest that the aim of F911 is to get that huge percentage (wasn’t it nearly 60% last election?) of the population that don’t vote to get involved.
And yes, the silence from the mainstream American media is just that deafening. From what I see of the commentators on this blog, everyone is well-informed and some even overseas. This gives a huge advantage in knowledge that the American population doesn’t currently have, as evidenced in this cartoon from Keith Knight: http://buzzle.com/editorials/11-20-2003-47795.asp
I saw F 9/11 the other week and I agree that it really didn’t hit home that hard with me, most of the stuff in the film I already knew. So yes America IS in more trouble that we thought!
The whole ‘Michael Moore hates America’ thing just goes to show how dumb the folks can be on the other side of the pond, critisism has become ‘un-american’.
But there is a revision of history going on right here at home. The war has now become, and has apparently always been about, bring freedom to the Iraqi people. I have this errant memory of the war being about WMD and ONLY about WMD, NOT regime change. My memory is wrong, the government tells me so. Why is it that the press don’t just run repeats of Blairs speech? History is being changed right in front of our eyes and nobdody seems to care. There is no longer such a thing as cause-and-effect, the present has an infinate number of possible pasts and our government is telling us which one is ‘true’. Welcome to what I am going to name ‘Quantum Politics’, remember where you heard the name first….well TRY and remember.
While I agree with the other commentaries, I still won’t go to see this movie – it’s a function of priorities rather than anything else. I don’t think Michael Moore can help me in deciding whether or not Bush or Kerry is the more worthy incumbent of the White House. It is far more worrying to me that neither candidate is actually worthy to represent ordinary Americans as their leader.
It’s funny, these last couple of days I’ve been feeling a lot more politically motivated than I have in months. Rather then the usual apathy at the imposibility of changing the system I’m suddenly filled with a righteous anger than I want my country back. So the film did affect me after all.
Lots of comments from folk which I’ve been putting off replying to but here goes:
Jez – that was kind scary but also understandable. Remember when they guy I was street cleaning with, Andy, thought Sinn Fein was the president of Russia? I got the feeling the Today reporter forgot that most people in this country don’t read or listen to even slightly in-depth news reports let alone in the States.
Jonathan – Having seen a little of American op-ed television (and it’s very different to the op-ed you get in their papers which tends to be more level headed than ours at times) I get the feeling Moore is fighting fire with fire. Unless you shout and kick up a controversy no-ones going to notice you. Of course I also get the feeling he’s part of that environment and doesn’t know any other way.
Dad (1) – You’re right, but please remember you used to watch Rush Limbaugh all the time. I remember you bought me one of his books once. I don’t think I got more than a few chapters into it. I didn’t throw it away but it soon got misplaced. ;)
Eireann – Thanks for the Keith Knight link – I’ve liked his work for years but check it out less often than I should. I think it’s becoming more and more obvious that Moore is not talking to us non-Americans. If he was he’d be a little more critical of us maybe. I was surprised to learn from F911 that Britain wasn’t in the coalition of the willing, but then he likes us, thinks we’re level headed and intelligent. How little he knows…
Dave C – Criticism over here can be considered wrong too. I seem to remember you saying when the war started it was best to no stand against it in support of the troops. I’m not saying you were wrong but that kind of thinking always seems a little strange to me.
Dad (2) – You don’t need to see the film to decide – it’s not aimed at you either. From my perspective neither are representative but one is much more dangerous than the other. Patriot Act anyone? I have the same problem with Blair. I really don’t want him leading the country but the alternative is just not doing it for me. Where to turn?
I could take any of those threads and run with them. Maybe I will in an actual blog post, since I’m feeling all political for a change…
Walking out of the film I noticed how I was let with the feelings of vindication and closure when, actually, I should have been turning cars over and setting fire to telephone boxes.
“Dave C – Criticism over here can be considered wrong too. I seem to remember you saying when the war started it was best to no stand against it in support of the troops. I’m not saying you were wrong but that kind of thinking always seems a little strange to me.”
I suppose my point was (and I can understand people who don’t agree), that the mass protests on the street pre-war were a way of trying to prevent the war happening. Once the government has decided to send troops then as a country we should think carefully about taking action that will undermine the troops. I realise this is a very fuzzy-logic area, I am against the war and yet support the troops.
They are sent to Iraq, I am sat safe at home. I will have my opportunity to pass judgement on Blair come the next election. I fully understand that many people will want to continue to protest on the streets, but for me the mass ‘million plus people’ protests through London *during* a war and not something I would join in with.
Ah, yes, Rush Limbaugh!!! That was then, this is now! Limbaugh never really convinced me of his philosophy and when he started telling me that DDT was OK and should be re-introduced I felt that was the last straw! It is interesting to me that right wing talk radio is a lot more entertaining than left wing talk radio. Perhaps this is because there is more honesty (often misplaced) from the right wing – they tend to tell it like it is or like they see it is. Left wing talk radio, where it even exists, always seems to have a devious sound to it.
BTW, as a one time leadership member of Pacifica Radio (KPFT.org) I think it fair to say that I have run the full gamut of the political spectrum. Military strategists say you have to think like the enemy – the extreme right and extreme left are both the enemy, IMO, and they tend to have a disproportionate share of media time to get across what are minority messages. So it helps to listen to what they have to say and make an opinion. But I still won’t go see F911!!! I paid my dues by ready one of his books.
The book I read was “Downsize This”. I have to admit that the title and cover were compelling as I work in an industry that has been consistently downsized, thus increasing profits and losing experienced workers in the process. But the book simply left a bad taste in my mouth, not about downsizing, but about the author.
P J O’Rourke (from the right side of the spectrum) has written many amusing books that seem to have the right effect regardless of the poltical leanings of the reader. Too bad Moore could not do the same from a left wing perspective.
PJ O’Rourke I have enjoyed a lot in the past, but then his take on Republicanism is that you can drink to excess, take many many drugs, shag a lot and generally have a good time and still be a right winger. Somehow I don’t think he’s on the same wavelength as John Ashcroft and the Christian fundies.
Left wing comedy has always been something of a contradition, perhaps because the left wingers are generally saying “this is wrong, people are being hurt, something should be done about it” while the right wingers are saying “it’ll be fine, this is how things are, lets have a laugh.” Okay, that’s horribly simplistic…
Generally I go for Bill Hicks. Definitely on the left but with a huge dose of misanthropic individualism. Morals of Moore with the hedonism of O’Rourke. Works for me every time…
The current song on my mp3 blog (Lou Reed should you be reading this in the future) is another good example.
Overtly left wing and funny, off the top of my head: Jeremy Hardy, Mark Steel, Steve Bell, Mark Thomas.
All Brits, so they don’t count (we have the opposite problem – name a British right wing commedian that’s funny).
Should have been clearer on that. Yanks only.
Susan Sarandon??
BTW I like your take on PJ and no, I don’t think Ashcroft even knows who he is!
One of my problems with November 2 is that I know who I don’t like in the Bush cabinet (plenty of them, mostly cronies of the Veep) but I have no idea who Kerry would chose for many of the positions. For one thing, I would really like to see a return to a Democrat Sec. of Treasury for purely personal reasons – they tend to make for a strong dollar! But across the entire political spectrum I am very much undecided about Kerry. A bit like your comment about voting for Blair in today’s entry above, vote for the devil you know.
Nice little O’Rourke piece on conservative talk radio which says it all really, both about the subject and the author. I like this man.