I FEEL THE TEMPERATURE RISING: As referenced below, I did go to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" this evening. After shooting down the couple sitting next to me's argument that the movie would be "the biggest movie worldwide ever. They asked me for my view, and I said that I doubted it would surpass the record held by "Titanic." It's a provocative film, and a good one, but I think it's not as good as "Bowling for Columbine" was. My problems with the film:
1. Moore (as he often does) makes mountains out of molehills. He points to the blacking-out of a name in Bush's military records and uses this to build a chain "proving" that Bush and Bin Laden have certain ties. Now, there's a strong case to be made on that front without that leap of logic. Moore's case would be stronger if he states his best evidence and stops, rather than stretching his case to the next step.
2. While the "before the cameras really roll" footage of Bush and other administration officials is effective (and funny), I'd bet dollars to donuts that there's similarly embarassing footage out there of Clinton-era officials. While I understand that the film's one-sided and argumentive, this struck me as a little bit disingenuous.
3. Ultimately, while the anti-Bush message of the film comes across clearly, I'm not sure if the film ultimately will motivate people to vote for Kerry and other Democrats, or whether it will just rile up folks and make them angry at politics all together. The film's opening scene is effectively "Democratic Senators lack courage!," which is perhaps not the best message when the Presidential nominee is a Democratic Senator. Later on, there's a "where were the Democrats?" segment. I hope and believe that Moore is firmly behind Kerry, but I'm worried that the movie isn't sending that message clearly enough.
4. Ultimately, "Bowling for Columbine" asks tough questions about "us." Are "we" at fault for violence in America? What can "we" do to change things? On the other hand, "Fahrenheit 9/11" simply pounds one answer into the viewer's head--"Bush bad!" That's far less provocative filmmaking.
5. The film is preaching to the choir, and while the choir needs to be preached to, I'm not sure that's good politics at that point, and it's certainly not challenging art.
That said, it's worth seeing, and raises provocative questions and issues, but I just wish it were even better.
To add one more thing--despite Moore's whining, the film deserves its "R" rating. In addition to a sequence where the "Roof is On Fire!" chant is delivered (uncensored), there are multiple fairly gory moments, including surgery film and battered and bloodied people. Then again, I can't imagine your average 15 year-old wanting to see, much less sneak into, the movie, so who knows?
Addendum (6/26): Being at work today reminded me that during one of the early interviews, with a retired FBI counterterrorism specialist, I couldn't help but be drawn to the bookshelf in Moore's offices, where I noticed "Nimmer on Copyright" sitting there. God, I'm pathetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment