MORE MOORE
by
Chris Dashiell

Michael Moore's new film, as if you didn't know, is called Fahrenheit 9/11. It's an ambitious piece of work -- an attempt at a comprehensive critique of the Bush administration, focusing particularly on the so-called "war on terror." Critique is too polite a word, really. This is an impassioned polemic, arguing that Bush and his friends have exploited the 9/11 atrocities for their own geopolitical aims; that these aims are in line with the Bush family's ties to Saudi oil money, rather than with any real concern for our security; and that the war in Iraq followed from those same motives, the public rationale for which was based on a series of deceptions.

This argument covers a lot of ground, and manages to gather together the outlines of a lot of information about the last four years. Starting with a quick summary of the Florida fiasco in 2000, the picture goes into: Bush's peculiar behavior on 9/11, the lack of concern about terrorism prior to 9/11, the Bush family's close ties to the Bin Laden family, the evacuation of the Bin Laden family from the county after 9/11, the inadequate effort to find Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the focusing on Iraq instead, the attempt to curtail the Bill of Rights through the so-called Patriot Act, the promotion of fear as a political tactic rather than confidence or courage, the sales job on WMDs and a supposed Saddam-Al Qaeda link in order to get us into Iraq, and the Iraq debacle itself with its terrible human cost.

Part of Moore's style in the past has been to confront people, usually public figures, with awkward questions or stunts that demonstrate their hypocrisy or the hypocrisy of the company or institution they represent. He only does this very briefly here -- a bit where he asks Congressmen if they'd be interested in getting their kids to sign up for duty in Iraq, and a very short stunt where he reads the Patriot Act through a loudspeaker while driving around the Capitol building in Washington. Comedy relief and vicarious aggression for the audience is really the point of these stunts. He's already made the verbal points that only one Congressman has a child in Iraq, and that they voted in the Patriot Act without reading it, so the stunts only serve to blow off steam while driving the points home with a kind of satirical illustration.

In any case, Moore has wisely kept this kind of thing to a minimum here, letting the footage of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and the rest of the gang do most of the talking. They don't need much help to look bad. When interviewing people, Moore mostly hangs back without intruding, most effectively with Lila Lipscombe, the mother of a young man killed in Iraq, who is extremely eloquent and moving.

Some of the reviews I had read prior to seeing the film said that this was Moore's best work, and I'd have to agree. The editing is much tighter than any of his previous films, and his narration is not overbearing like it often was in Bowling for Columbine, but mainly sticks to the subject in a relatively low-key manner. That's not to say that he doesn't indulge in anger, mockery, sarcasm, and the selective use of images that support his points. But I'm not one of those that thinks these are necessarily bad things. I am, I think, rather well-informed in public matters, so there wasn't much in Fahrenheit 9/11 that I hadn't read in some context before. But having so much of it presented together, in a two-hour package, was a powerful experience, and I would guess that there's a lot of information here that the average viewer hasn't read before. Moore does wander a bit far afield at times, losing focus especially in a sequence involving "homeland security" where he interviews a couple of Oregon state troopers. But overall this is excellent political filmmaking, and a welcome addition to the too-often timid national debate.

As Moore's films have had an increasing impact, any discussion of them involves not only assessing the movies, but the phenomenon of Moore himself. There are special reasons why this is so. There are quite a few folks who can't stand him for one reason or other. I won't pretend to completely understand this, because I have never disliked him or his work, although I have known moments of annoyance.

He has created a public persona for himself, a kind of working class, plain-talking everyman/slob. I imagine that, like most public personae, a good deal of it reflects who he really is, and some of it is an act that serves him in presenting his work and views. Quite a few people I've talked to think he's an asshole (without having met him), and although they might be right, they often make the mistake of concluding that this automatically invalidates what he's saying. But it's worthwhile to examine why his persona is effective at reaching so many people. I notice a relief in myself sometimes when listening to him, because I'm so tired of the slickness and finely calculated effect of just about every person I see on TV or film, that a man who is informal, talks plainly, and speaks his mind bluntly and humorously, seems refreshing. I rarely hear those who complain about Moore's schtick, or his accuracy, say anything about the cant that surrounds us on a daily basis, the triumphalism of the news shows and the stentorian bullshit of the news anchors, the empty rhetoric that passes for public debate, the constant preoccupation with trivialities and celebrity/consumer rubbish accompanied by an equal taboo against critical thinking -- not to mention the ravings of the unscrupulous right-wing demagogues who seem to have taken over most of the talk shows. I'm not surprised at all that people would enjoy hearing someone like Moore in such an atmosphere, or even that they would exaggerate his virtues, because of their sheer relief in hearing someone trying to speak truth to power.

One of the things I've read over and over from critics lately (and it's a law of the culture that when a "truth" like this gets trotted out repeatedly, there's something phony about it) is that the film won't change any minds. Well, maybe not. If you believe the polls, it looks like there's a solid group that would vote for Bush no matter what, and another solid group that will not vote for Bush no matter what, and the percentage of "undecideds" is very small. I would even entertain the notion that with the stakes this high, to be undecided at this point in the game is to be a nitwit. But that's begging the question, because there are very basic assumptions underlying the political controversies of the day. Most individuals, of course, don't fall so neatly into opposite camps, but here's an outline of the ideological divide as it is playing out in the public mind. Either you think this is a Christian nation, consecrated to the gospel of tax cuts and military might, with absolute faith in our commander-in-chief, and those who dissent or are otherwise tainted with liberalism are somehow not true Americans....Or, you think that this is a country founded on liberty, which is in turn founded on our Constitution, not on religion or corporations, and that ordinary (not rich) people need more control of their lives and government, and...but the definition of progressives is so much vaguer, because this group is far more diverse and disunited. (There's also a third group that doesn't think anything, just sits and feeds themselves while watching TV, and doesn't vote, but they won't go to this film anyway, will they?)

So, I suppose the thinking is that if you're in the first group, your mind won't be changed by Michael Moore, or by anything short of a miracle (if that), and if you're in the second group, you probably already agree with Michael Moore.

But these critics don't really know anything when they say no one's mind will be changed by the film. If someone scowls and furrows his brown while speaking, it may sound like he knows something. But they don't know. In fact, by limiting the experience of watching a political film to "changing one's mind or not" they simply block out any other possible effects. It's possible, for instance, that presenting such information in a hugely popular film could energize the opposition to Bush in ways that we can't calculate. Before progressives started fighting back recently by writing books exposing the right wing's lies, it looked like there was no opposition at all. So free speech effects change in ways that can't be easily predicted.

Obviously, I'm not impartial. Why should I be? I think Bush and his gang are a bunch of lying thugs that have made our country ten times less secure than before with their greed and imperial delusions. I know people that think that when I'm reviewing a film I should not say such things, but should be "objective." This idea of being objective is one of the most pernicious influences on our public life today.

Which brings me to the idea of the "documentary." The term "documentary" no longer means what it seems to mean. It's now an all-purpose term for any non-fiction film, or if you prefer, non-narrative film dealing with real events. But folks still have it stuck in their heads that a non-fiction film has to be balanced and objective, fair and even-tempered, or some such nonsense, otherwise it's somehow invalid as a film. We're stuck with the PBS idea of documentary, with the ponderous narrator telling us the facts, without letting opinions intrude, letting each side have its say, and ending with a "Who knows? You decide, ladies and gentleman."

There has to be a place for impassioned argument,and for satire, and for polemic, in literature as well as in film. Moore does polemic. To complain that he doesn't do polite NPR pieces is foolishness. How much of impact do you think a timid little film would have on anybody? Do you think Thomas Paine would have made a difference if he'd wrote a pamphlet carefully weighing the British and the American positions, and being noncommittal? If instead of saying, "These are the times that try men's souls," he had said, "This heated political atmosphere has certainly encouraged extremists on both sides, at the expense of civility"?

That's what it comes down to in the end, though. I get the impression that the moderate folks whose sensibilities are offended by Michael Moore, ultimately think everything's pretty okay the way it is, and that we're not in a crisis. If you believe that, then Moore will seem like an impolite extremist. But there are many of us, among whom I count myself, who believe that the Bush administration represents a deadly serious threat, to our security, our liberty, and our heritage as Americans. That's why there's an urgency. And when there's this kind of urgency, you don't just sit around sipping tea and being civil. Liberals have been polite and civil and timid for over twenty years now, and what happened? They got clobbered. The right wing wasn't polite. They've consistently maintained that if you're liberal you're un-American, a traitor, you hate this country, and you should just shut up. They took over both houses of Congress, the White House, and most of the media. (Still, they keep complaining about "the left" as if there were a really viable left here like they have in Europe. God knows when they'll stop whining -- maybe when they've shot the last feminist or gay person? But they'd be lost without an enemy.)

The point is, if you're going to fight back, you can't just lie down and be sweet and compliant. You have to attack, with polemic and impassioned argument and organizing, and whatever other non-violent means you can.

If you don't agree with me, fine. That's the beauty of free speech. Similarly, if you don't agree with Michael Moore, that's fine too. But it's not an argument to say that he's not balanced or objective. Of course he's not. Neither are the people who claim to be. Look at the narrow range of views presented on the Lehrer show, for instance, which is supposed to be better than the commercial network news. The pretence of objectivity is really the presentation of a single, establishment point of view with minor gradations. And as time as gone on, this point of view has become increasingly rightist. There's no "peace" point of view presented on these shows. (If you're a journalist and express support for war, nothing will happen to you. But if you're for peace, you'll probably lose your job.)

I would like to see more films that took a provocative and frankly polemical approach to public issues. There are many artists with more intelligence and subtlety than Michael Moore, god knows, and I'd like to see them get more attention. However, I think Moore appeals to a wide audience partly because he's imperfect and human and his shirt tails are hanging out. Popular art, and popular appeal, often has to miss the subtle niceties in order to carry its broader message. In addition, Fahrenheit 9/11 is having an impact because it does present facts concerning the Bush administration that are very ugly. I don't know which facts might be wrong or inaccurate, or even if there are any (the complainers are usually so vague and general that I can't tell), but my own reading confirms that most of them are true, and that's a very serious concern. People do care about this country, and they are very disturbed and frightened by the way our government has been acting, and this film speaks to them in a way that's powerful and understandable.

©2004 Chris Dashiell
CineScene