Michael Moore's film has been a major box office success in the United States and abroad, taking in over 100 million dollars in the United States alone, an unprecedented achievement for a documentary. Critics have been sharply divided, with the film receiving significant praise and criticism in near-equal measures, a reaction probably reflected in wider US audiences, reflecting the polarisation of the American electorate. Evaluating a film like this can be quite difficult given the fiercely polemic and unashamedly one-sided style of Moore, which is employed relentlessly throughout the film. However I am going to evaluate on a much wider criteria that a straight film review, on the basis that 9/11 is very much an "event" film created in a particular historical context, with a particular agenda and outcome in mind that reaches well beyond a desire to create art or entertainment.
My first impression of Fahrenheit 9/11 was that it was less a documentary in the vein of Bowling for Colombine or Roger and Me (Moore’s previous outings), and more a piece of old style propaganda such as the World War 2 era films “Triumph of the Will” and the anti-nazi Disney films, though stylistically, Moore has evolved the propaganda film a step further into what I would call a very personalised piece of ‘attack cinema’. Attack cinema in the sense that the stated aim of the movie is not so much as to inform, educate, enlighten or warn (though it does that in places), but to try to convince the viewing audience to perform one particular action after seeing the movie – to collectively vote one man – George Bush – out of office.
So far it may seem that I am stating the obvious in regards to the film, but it is important to clarify what the film is when evaluating it, because the criteria for evaluating 9/11 as a documentary is different to that of evaluating it as a straight propaganda film. If evaluated as a documentary, 9/11 is only so/so and probably only gets a barely passing grade, with some serious reservations underlying it, because in addition to informing, educating or entertaining its audience, documentaries have the additional requirement of maintaining a certain level of objectivity and non-bias, and is expected to play by the rules of witness/subject and interviewer/interviewee standards (though few documentaries are truly non-subjective in that documentary filmmakers usually begin with certain views and assumptions in mind, though these assumptions should be allowed to be challenged during filming). It is because of this standard that I think that 9/11 barely passes as a documentary, since its selection of facts and how these facts are presented to the audience, are highly selective, inconsistent, and highly prejudicial to Bush. Propaganda on the other hand does not have to measure up to this standard, but can be far more editorial in its selection of facts. On at least two occasions in 9/11, Moore goes beneath the line that any good documentary would set itself. The first (and worst) example is his voiceover of Bush’s ‘thoughts’ as he continued to read “The pet goat” to schoolchildren after being informed that the second plane had hit the Twin Towers. The voiceover, while hilarious, is completely mendacious towards Bush and at that point, the film loses any claim it may have had to being a fair assessment of the President. The second example is Moore’s use of Lila Lipscomb. If assessed from the point of view of a documentary, then parts of this section is emotional manipulation of the worst kind, and a complete travesty of the norms of the observer/subject relationship that is meant to exist in news, current affairs and documentaries. In particular, I am thinking of when Lipscomb goes to Washington to protest her anger and grief at Bush over the death of her son in Iraq. Undoubtedly, this particular segment is a set-up and Moore has probably provided financial assistance for Lipscomb in the form of flights and accommodation, she also appears to be ‘directed’ by Moore, by the manner of her speaking and how she acts into the camera. This was my personal “squirm in the seat” moment as I felt that filmmaker was taking advantage of his subject, causing that segment to come across more like a staged theatre production than a documentary. Other criticisms I have is that the segment examining the Bush/Saudi/Bin Laden/Carlyle/Taliban/ Saddam connections is highly questionable. Not questionable perhaps, in the facts themselves, Moore maintains in interviews that each fact has been carefully vetted for their validity and has offered a reward for anyone that can prove otherwise, but questionable in the selection, presentation and interpretation of these facts. That section of the movie fails to prove its case and probably wouldn’t stand up to serious scrutiny in regards to the conclusions that it invites the audience to draw. However I do think that he succeeds (from a propaganda point of view) in creating a general impression that no matter how valid any particular claim is, the conclusion that many in the audience will draw, is that Bush family’s relationship with the Bin Laden and Saudi royal family is generally dodgy, working from the premise that if you create enough smoke about someone, people are going to think that there is a fire. I also agree with criticisms that Moore was playing it far too cute with his introduction of the Iraqi segment, which seemed to downplay the harshness of life for Iraqi’s under Saddam’s regime with its images of happy, contented Iraqi’s, images that flies in the face of what we know about the brutal restrictions imposed of the regime, and by the economic hardships imposed on the Iraqi people by years of economic sanctions from the west.
So, if 9/11 is only a second rate documentary, especially compared to Moore’s earlier efforts, how does it rate as propaganda? And why do I think that 9/11, in its own inimitable style, is cleverer than we might think. First of all, it is clear that 9/11 has been brought to life because Moore is pissed off, seriously pissed off, and that anger throbs through 9/11 in a way that it didn’t in Bowling for Colombine or even Roger and Me. The cause of that anger is George W Bush and the assorted motley crew that make up his administration, and its clear that (a) Moore knows his subject well, in fact he has created his own, very profitable, cottage industry in books and now film, around skewering this sitting President, and (b) he is on a search and destroy mission this year, and 9/11 is designed to prejudice as many as voters as possible away from Bush and his administration. So when considering the ultimate strategy of 9/11, I think you need to begin by asking yourself who is this documentary intended for, which audience in particular, is Moore trying to reach, since 9/11 could not be all things to all people, and nor does it try to be. For a start, it is definitely not intended for international audiences, though I am sure that Moore appreciates the support the movie has got from international audiences. The movie instead, is intended entirely for a domestic audience, and in particular, a certain segment of the audience - 18 – 25 years old, who are the most politically apathetic of voting groups, and therefore has the greatest potential in bringing new votes to the Democrats if they can be mobilised, and working class, rustbelt families who have both Republican and Democrat sympathies and who supported Bush in large numbers after Afghanistan, when he was polling almost unprecedented levels of personal support. It is on behalf of these people where I believe Moore goes in for the kill in the Iraq section, in the process revealing that all that went before in the movie was not incidental. It seems to me that Moore has paid attention to the analysis of the breakdown of the 2000 election results and has identified that this election could be won and lost on the votes of these two constituencies because of the tightness of the race.
This tightness is based on the common consensus that George Bush has been one of the most polarising Presidents in US history and most of the electorate has strong views on Bush, one way or the other, due to his neo-conservative views and policies and his particular personal style. The US has also been living in "interesting times" with the war on terror, the war on Iraq, and the squeeze of a sluggish economy, all factors to have shaken the American public out of its apathy. We saw a stronger than usual interest in the Democratic primaries with voter turnout sharply exceeding that of the last election, and polls have also shown that most voters have already made up their minds with undecided and swing voters being halved compared to the same time four years ago. At the same time, polls continue to show that the gap between the two candidates is very close and is likely to remain so right up to election day. So with most of the electorate indicating that they have a strong preference one way or another, the contest tight, and the pool of potential voters left to effectively decide the outcome being much smaller than in past years, we are very unlikely to witness a comfortable victory for either candidate, regardless of what events may overrun the campaign, and it all points to an election where every vote truly counts, just like it did in the last election. Therefore the Democrats know that to win, they need to either bring in a pool of votes that didn’t vote last time, or overturn some of the softer Republican vote over to the Democrats. 9/11, by targeting the rustbelt families and their sons and daughters is hoping to do both. In Lila Lipscomb, Moore has stumbled upon the perfect metaphor to draw his entire strategy together and underline it in a way that cannot fail to impact on those in the audience most likely to be effected by it. First of all Moore shows that Lila is a typical example of a working class mother in the rustbelt, who has spent most of her working life supporting others worse off than herself, and who obviously believes in much that underpins classical Democratic values and policies in regards to government assistance and support for the less well off and disenfranchised. Clearly this is where her Democratic leanings spring from, on the other hand, Moore then goes on to contrast this with her fervent patriotism and her support and high regard for the US military and the war efforts overseas, and clearly this is where her Republican leanings spring from. Lila is the perfect example of the synthesis of a formerly Bush supporting Democrat who now questions the motivations and the rhetoric behind the war and brings into sharp relief the sense of disillusionment that many Americans must now be feeling with a President whose stated reasons for taking America into Iraq no longer seem justified. Especially when the reason for her disillusionment and so much of her anger is the death of her soldier son in Iraq, and when you see her read out his last letter home expressing his frustration, disillusionment and anger over the war, you see that Moore is allowing her to draw the bow together between the rustbelt parents, and their 18-25 year old sons and daughters who we previously see being aggressively recruited into the war with a mixture of bribes, appeals to patriotism, visions of a better future, and other promises and blandishments, and who make up the vast majority of the men and women serving in Iraq, where (as Moore reveals) they encounter a daily reality on the frontlines that is far removed from the rosy pictures painted by the military recruiters. This package of hoary appeals to patriotism, promises of travel and adventure, and the chance of a better future by escaping from depressed neighbourhoods is not a new phenomenon, nor is the hard reality encountered by those young men and women when they finally hit the frontlines, but by reminding everyone of the reality that is not shown on the mainstream American media, Moore is trying to give what he will consider a timely message to those most effected that it is they that are likely to be the cannon fodder in an unjust war, and while they and their families pay extraordinarily high costs, Bush and his cronies will continue to roll themselves in the flag while they stand to gain even greater personal benefit from the increased business opportunities that their adventures in the Middle East will bring.
So, far from being the scattergun, sporadic, context free bile-fest that it may first appear to be, it is clear that Moore is in deadly earnest and has crafted a movie where every point, every argument, every ‘joke’ is setting the scene for the Iraq segment where Moore really tries to bring it all home to that crucial segment of the audience. And what, in effect, is the message that he trying to sell to that audience? That Bush is a rich, pampered, incompetent, self-satisfied oil-brat who was gifted the election like just like so much else, who was making a poor fist of the presidency, treating it like an extended perk while he and his VP grew even richer on the increased opportunities the Presidency gave, until 9/11 hit, and, after being momentarily flummoxed, he paid his dues to those with terrorist links that he owed, and then wrapped himself in the flag, using the climate of fear and the war on terror to roll back civil liberties and advance his religious based social policies, before diverting from the war on terror to simultaneously fulfil a long-term ambition that he brought to office and to gift himself further business opportunities, by going to war with Iraq. A war where he mislead the American people into believing was justifiable as a continuation of the war on terror, when it most patently was not, and then the people he has got to do the fighting and the dying for him, in his dirty, unjust war, have been the people from the simplest, poorest backgrounds who have never had the chances or the opportunities that Bush has had, but is paying for his opportunism in blood, tears and lives. This is why Moore makes such a point of Bush’s military record and why he also makes a point of demonstrating that only one senator has their child serving on the frontline, he is underlying the distance between the elites like Bush on one hand, who holds the levers of power in their hands but refuse to put their own children in harms way, and those who are effectively powerless, and do end up in harms way. Moore has zeroed in on the age-old discrepancy that it is the rich boys that start the wars, while it is the poor boys (and girls) that have to do the fighting and the dying. Of course it was ever thus, and it is inevitable that after drawing all of this out for the audience, Moore goes on to make the ultimate point that while the gap between Bush and the soldiers and their families are so immense, they are not completely powerless, they do, this November, have the power to vote him and his administration out. This focus on class and economic differences between those that started the war, and those that have fought in it, is a socialist critique, and it is a new argument that the Administration has not had to counter before from their democratic opponents. Socialism is a dirty word in America and such is the intellectual consensus across the broad spectrum of American society, that capitalism and individualism is inherently good in all of its manifestations, that socialist critiques of aspects of capitalist societies are very infrequently made, or are very much muted and usually come dressed up as something else. Moore however has made a very pointed, and very explicit socialist critique of this administration, and if nothing else it has opened a new line of attack on an administration that has succeeded in turning Liberalism into a dirty word, effectively muting the classic response, in America, to conservative and neo-conservative policies. Liberals oppose this administration as much as Socialists but they come from a very different philosophical premise and therefore use a completely different set of arguments, focussing on the curtailing of civil liberties and freedoms, the increase in censorship, the confiscation of constitutional rights under the Patriot Act, and a creeping theological agenda via pressure on Abortion rights, funding of faith based initiatives and a presidential threat of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. These liberal criticisms, in more usual times, would have had more sting, but in the climate of fear produced by 9/11 and the threat of continued global terrorism, these criticisms have become blunted because (a) in a time of fear and uncertainty, the American people, not unreasonably, are more prepared to trade off a restriction in their freedoms for the promise of greater security, and (b) the Administration has been very effective as portraying Liberals as weak-kneed appeasers whose arguments, if followed through, would weaken the war on terror, and jeopardise those currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have even suggested, on numerous occasions, that to be a liberal, when America is at war with a foe that has slaughtered thousands of America citizens, is to be fundamentally un-, or even anti-, American. Such an argument, of course, is completely disingenuous, but it has still been very effective, and it is a real danger to John Kerry, who the administration is keen to paint as a New England Liberal, out of touch with the priorities of Mid-Westerners and Southerners, and who would be a suspect commander-in-chief, squandering the gains made in the war on terror with both a loosening of ‘inland security’ with possible amendments to the Patriot Act, and a loosening of foreign policy gains with his fanciful notions of “internationalism”. And this is where I think that the Democrats election campaign strategy and Michael Moore’s movie collides, because I think that 9/11 identifies a whole new line of attack on this administration and its war policies, that is potentially more robust than liberal arguments in this current climate of fear, and which coincidentally, will have the most personal resonance amongst two of the most key constituencies to decide the election.
So, how much of the arguments contained within Fahrenheit 9/11 should the Democrats use. Well there are both dangers and opportunities for Kerry and Edwards in the wake of 9/11 in regard to amending their campaign strategy to reflect this new argument. Moore, as a polemical filmmaker, was in a much freer position to make this argument as forcefully and as freely as possible, in a way that a politician running for President simply cannot. As I said before, there is much in the way that Moore draws out his argument that is open to question and attack, and if Kerry was to run with the same arguments wholesale than he would definitely expose himself to serious criticism of his credentials and risk alienating other voters put off by such an aggressive attack on the President. However, there are definitely opportunities for the Democrats to finally construct a credible critique of the war effort that will resonate with the same audience that Moore was trying to reach. I think that Edwards for instance, should go down to the southern and mid western states and talk about the war in terms of the social and human costs and who has had to bear them. State simply that their families contributions to the war effort is greatly appreciated by the Democratic Party, who considers them true patriots, but on the other side what they - the politicians - owe them is to make sure that the wars that so many of their sons and daughters fight in, be just ones, and that the reasons that their sons and daughters are put into fight, be true ones, and that this is where George W Bush has let them down, and let America down with the war in Iraq, in the process jeopardising the war on terror and prolonging the unnecessary exposure to harms way that these young men and women are facing. Added to that Kerry should point out that if Bush wants to make an issue of his opposition to the Vietnam War then he is happy to put up his military record against that of Bush. He should then add that like many of the young men and women in Iraq, he too was once a young patriot prepared to do his duty for love of country, which is was he duly did, but that he eventually came to oppose what was happening in Vietnam after he witnessed the escalating number of lost lives in a hopeless and increasingly unjustified conflict. That he then felt that it was his duty, like it was earlier to go and fight, to come back and tell the American people the truth about what he was witnessing, to tell the families back home the truth about their young people being put unnecessarily in harms way. Kerry should say that he believed then, that he did his duty all along the way, and he believes now, that he is doing his duty when he says that George W Bush has failed the soldiers, and therefore failed their families, in Iraq. In conclusion I would say that I believe 9/11 to be a clever and sustained piece of propaganda that puts forward an important argument for why a crucial section of the American electorate should not vote for George Bush, in a style that is direct, highly emotive and most likely to connect with that audience beyond any other source or medium. 9/11 is a recruitment and election tool for the Democrats that they should not seek to emulate in style, but which they should tailor in substance. At the very least I would like to think that in these heartland towns, come election time, that local democratic volunteers will be going door to door, or leaving messages on phones to make this argument directly with young people and their families. If so, then the legacy of 9/11 could be as greater than that of some of its 1940’s counterparts that now seen merely as historical curio's remembered mainly for an engenderment of a particular time and place in history and society, than for any enduring statement of art or entertainment .
