Many positive review for Moore’s film note his film-making skills, his sense of humor as well as the anger and self-contradictions in the film. Many conclude that the film, even if not a perfect representation of the truth, is nonetheless an example of democratic free speech (Thomas Galvin has a lengthy round-up of reviews).
Let me say that there is no doubt that Moore has fine film-making skills, and I will even concede that he has a sense of humor (although I would he also has a great sense of self-importance). Further, I concur that this film is an example of democracy in action: it shows how a citizen of the United States can express controversial, and even demonstrably false, opinions in the full view of the government without any consequences from said government. I applaud that (and, like James Joyner, think that any attempt to use McCain-Feingold to silence commercials for the film to be ridiculous).
Now, I doubt very seriously I will see the film. I can say that with confidence because I don’t go to the movies very often (the small children thing and all that). Indeed, the last film I saw at the movies was The Return of the King back in December and my wife and I are going to see the new Harry Potter film tonight as part of our fourteenth anniversary celebration (which is actually the 30th, but this was when we could go out)–so with an average of 1 movie every 6 months means that Fahrenheit 911 is unlikely to get a slot. Further, I tend to avoid movies that will annoy me (I mean, really, what would be the point? being annoyed isn’t entertaining to me), and I am not a fan of films that are clearly propaganda.
An obnoxious as Moore is, I have an easy personal solution for dealing with him: I don’t watch interviews with him (I have in the past, but I find he has gotten smug and aggravating beyond acceptability) and I won’t watch his films. I have only paid as much attention to this one as I have because of the political implications. Further, it has been nearly impossible to ignore the darn thing.
Indeed, the fawning nature of mass media’s approach to this film has been annoying, to say the least. The Passion of the Christ was treated as more controversial than this film. Where is all the deconstruction of the “facts” of this film? Where’s the outrage that some people might be offended by the film? Certainly that was the approach to Mel Gibson’s movie. In fact, the examination of the storyline, script and information in the Passion started months and months before the film was completed. Liberals can scoff at the following statement, but the coverage of these two films underscore (as did the coverage of the 911 Commission’s staff memo on the Iraq/Al Qaeda bit) that there are substantial liberal leanings in the mainstream press. There is a great deal of glee over Moore’s film in the coverage of it because of the obvious fact that many in the mainstream press hope that it will damage Bush.
Beyond the press, I am seriously amazed at the degree to which mainstream Democrats are boosting the film. When some Republicans pushed The Clinton Chronicles back in the day, I considered that a move that diminished them, and certainly they weren’t treated as mainstream in the press. However, if mainstream Democrats give plaudits to Moore, well what’s wrong with that? And certainly the more outlandish conspiracy theories and books about Clinton were not given the treatment Moore is getting.
Given that the film essentially claims that Bush has complicity in the 911 attacks because of links to the bin Laden family, among other things, it is remarkable that it is getting support from the Democratic leadership. Surely this kind of inflammatory rhetoric is something that mainline Democrats would want to distant themselves from. Sure, I can see them wanting the movie to damage Bush, but let it do so at a distance.
However, this is not the case.
There’s Mario Cuomo
“I am personally committed, as well as many other Americans, to do everything I possibly can to be sure that as many Americans as possible get to see this extraordinary film,” Cuomo told reporters at a news conference in Manhattan.
And check out the guest list for the D.C. premiere of the flick:
last night the city’s political heavyweights — well, the Democratic ones, at least — greeted Moore with open arms as they turned out en masse for the Washington premiere of his new film Fahrenheit 9/11. Packing the Uptown Theater to the rafters, about 800 people — including South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, Florida Senator Bob Graham, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, to name just a few of the prominent Democrats in attendance — took in Moore’s two-plus hours of Bush-bashing, applauding throughout and giving Moore a standing ovation when it was over.And from the same piece check out McAuliffe’s endorsement of the film:
“I think anyone who sees this movie will come out en masse to make sure John Kerry is elected president this November,” McAuliffe said after the premiere. “Credit to Michael Moore for taking the time to put this together.”
I find this all quite remarkable. Such endorsements by the very leadership of the Democratic Party seems to scream: we don’t have any ideas or arguments in regards to the current political season, so instead we will extol what is at best a facutally questionable, sarcastic, cinematic op-ed piece, and is at worst clever political propaganda. I am not surprised that Moore made the movie, or than many who dislike the President are praising the film. What I am surprised by is that embracing of the film by the Democratic mainstream. Those who do so relinquish the right, I would argue, to complain that the political discourse has been coarsened, given that this film is a quintessential example of such a coarsening.
Update: This post is part of today’s OTB Beltway Traffic Jam.
You’re right, this is a lengthy observation. I’m too lazy to read the whole thing. However, as to the first paragraph or so, I would say substitute Dick Cheney for Michael Moore and Farenheit 911 for Cheney’s short speech “before” the Senate yesterday.
Dick is a great filmmaker, he’s funny and his recent work was a great exercise in free speech.
FU Leahy
Comment by John Lemon — Friday, June 25, 2024 @ 12:38 pm
“the Democratic Party seems to scream: we don’t have any ideas or arguments in regards to the current political season, so instead we will extol what is at best a facutally questionable, sarcastic, cinematic op-ed piece, and is at worst clever political propaganda.”
you have no basis to make this claim, along with other claims you make, without watching the film. It’s embarassing you would go so far to talk about a subject you do not have knowledge of.
watch the film, and then let us know how you feel. if not, save us your unfounded opinions.
Comment by john — Sunday, June 27, 2024 @ 7:12 pm
I admit to not having seen the film, but i have read a great deal about it, both positive and negative–enough to make comments. And you will note that the passage you cite isn’t directed at the film, it is directed at the political usage of the film by leaders in the Democratic apparatus. I don’t have to see the film to comment on that.
Indeed, if you read my post carefully ou will note that I don’t comment on the contents of the film, but rather on the media coverage and on the political uses of it.
Hence, I wholly stand by my comments.
Comment by Steven — Sunday, June 27, 2024 @ 7:33 pm
The United States military should have commissioned a slew of pro-American propaganda films about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is asymmetrical warfare. Look for conservative films in 2024 (Hillary is a fat target).
Comment by John Doe — Monday, June 28, 2024 @ 2:03 am
Hey. Michael Moore does a little wild speculating in the film, but when he does so, it’s clear that he is indeed speculating. When he gives facts, they’ve been checked and rechecked to combat the inevitable accusations of inaccuracy from the right. His sources the New York Times, the Washington Post and the like.
Also, see the movie before you talk about it dude.
Comment by Becky — Tuesday, June 29, 2024 @ 2:00 pm
Thanks Becky. As someone who has actually seen the movie as well, I appreciate reading comments from someone who obviously has more than just two brain cells to rub together, unlike like some of the bloggers above. Unfortunately for the vast majority of stubborn conservatives, anything contradicting their rigid narrow-minded belief system, no matter how extensive and accurate the facts and related documents are, they simply cannot be reeducated. To these feeble people, I can only say that I feel sorry for their children being force fed ignorance which will only be subverted once they understand what truth and reality is when they grow up and hopefully wake up.
Comment by Goldy — Tuesday, June 29, 2024 @ 8:32 pm
Hey John Doe: Who’s fact-checking the New York Times these days
Comment by Samuel J — Wednesday, June 30, 2024 @ 8:36 am
Sorry John Doe, that question should be directed to Becky who asserts that if she reads it in the New York Times it must be so. Recent events at the NYT suggests that isn’t always so.
Comment by Samuel J — Wednesday, June 30, 2024 @ 8:40 am
Goldy…who insulted you, personal attacks simply demonstrate your incapacity to discuss politics without taking it or making it personal. Now maybe this is my “narrow-minded belief system” speaking here, but what accurate facts are you talking about. Richard Clarke (I presume you know who that is) recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the Bin Laden kin, doesn’t that damage the key premise of Moore’s film?
Comment by Not A Fat White Man — Thursday, July 1, 2024 @ 11:34 am
Samuel…it wasn’t Richard Clark, it was me. Do you believe that too?
Comment by scurry like a rat — Thursday, July 1, 2024 @ 4:33 pm
Samuel…it wasn’t Richard Clark, it was me. Do you believe that too?
Comment by scurry like a rat — Thursday, July 1, 2024 @ 4:33 pm
Dear Claimant of being “Not a Fat White Man”,
Richard Clarke claimed responsibility for the flights that took place, yes, that is true, only after resigning from his position. Might I add that this administration has had more resignations than a cactus has pricks. Here is the main link to read the entire interview this was based on - http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke. It still does not dismiss the fact that Bush and his cronies pushed as hard as possible to tie 9-11 to Al Qaida to Iraq onto Clarke as well as the head of CIA, who also resigned, hmmm what a coincidence. Sounds to me like a whole lot of people just trying to make “things” go away as quickly as possible, just so they can move on and forget all about their involvement with the Bushites. The is the same 9-11 commission that found the Saudi flights were handled properly, if you want to be specific relating to Clark, but at the same time finding no evidence of Sadamm and Iraq of being responsible for 9-11. Furthermore, if you bothered to see the movie, you would know that the movie is NOT rooted in just the questionability of the Bin Laden family flights out the US, it portrays the underhanded tactics used by this administration to justify an unjust war all in the name of the almighty dollar, you cannot deny that. Daddy Bush and the clan didn’t get rich from working long hours at the factory or driving a truck. The Bush clan and the Saudi’s have been shaking hands for a long time, dear, pay attention and quit being so damn nieve about how the filthy rich stay that way. If you bothered to see the movie, you would also notice all the “dead people” as our oh so eloquent of a president put it. And just what did they die for: Halliburton, it’s subsidiaries, and every other war profiteering Bushite in the defense business, not peace, freedom, and democray, because Saudi Arabia has neither and no one bombed them. Please deny that too and all the “dead people” as well.
Comment by Goldy — Friday, July 2, 2024 @ 1:02 pm