Fahrenheit 9/11

[Ravi]

Moore is on The Daily Show tonight and Conan tomorrow.

[Ghostboy]

Any day that Bill O'Reilly is humiliated is a good day.

I heard that one or more theaters in NY ran the movie all night long to keep up with the demand.

Has anyone seen the trailer for Disney's America: Heart & Soul? Or whatever it's called? Looks like Eisner's trying a little hard at the damage control...

[Jeremy Blackman]

some spoilers

This is one of the most emotionally powerful movies I've seen. And I don't mean emotional like Bowling For Columbine... I mean emotional on a larger scale and scope.

This is technically and artistically Moore's best movie... I don't think many people will disagree. It makes BFC feel like a footnote. It's much closer to Roger & Me. He's obviously realized that when he has material this good, he doesn't need to step in very often. The amount of information in this movie is astonishing. The significance of that information, and the fact that it will reach millions of people, is even less fathomable.

I knew instantly that my favorite thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is the editing. It's absolute genius from the very beginning. The opening credit sequence is classic... subtle and silent but so expressive and overwhelming. It goes on like this for at least the first 1/3 of the movie. The only thing I can think of that rivals F911's editing is the Christmas Eve sequence in Roger & Me.

The opening election stuff was very good, if a little fast (the chronology and political details could be much more precise and less simplifying, though they're not misleading). The Saudi stuff, the corporate stuff, and the 9/11 stuff were all virtually flawless and very powerful. Factually and emotionally powerful at the same time. Which is surprising and satisfying, because I think this is exactly the kind of unity he's always sought. And it works beautifully.

When we get to the Iraq part of the movie, things slow down a little... which is not necessarily a bad thing. Up to this point, profundities have been firing at machine gun pace, and I guess it's okay to take somewhat of a break. It starts to look like a Why Iraq Is A Disaster FAQ, and I'm about to release a sigh of boredom, when...

The original Iraq footage weaves itself into the movie and the only thing I can do is ask myself... am I really seeing this? Not only is there serendipitously a Christmas Eve scene ironically similar to the one in Roger & Me, there are horrifying interviews with troops who play "Fire Water Burn" (lyrics here) in their tank as they roll into Baghdad. The ensuing commentary on military recruiting (it's amazing how seamless these transitions are) is really unique, and the day-in-the-life episode with the predatory recruiters is simultaneously tragic, absurd, and hilarious in the way that only a Michael Moore movie can be.

My only significant complaint about the movie: Michael Moore. He almost let the material and the editing completely do the work for him, but he too often states the obvious and opines when it's completely unecessary. The worst thing about it, really, is how he says it. His tone of voice can be obnoxious and distracting... either faky (when he's concerned) or sarcastic (when he's pissed off). This is a minor complaint, and I realize that (A) the production value of his narration suffered because the movie was finished at the last minute and (B) these obnoxious moments only happen two or three times throughout the movie.

[mutinyco]

I disagree. While I agree with its message, the film seemed more like a stunt to me. It seemed like it would've played better on TV, and lacked the entertainment of his previous films. I can see myself still going back to those in years, not this. It seemed rushed and designed more to affect the moment than to have any longterm sense of quality about it. The humor seemed overdone and repetitive (homorously juxtaposed music), and the tragic elements, with their mood music, seemed manipulative.

That said, I hope it does its job. The audience I saw it with gave it a thunderous applause.

[Jeremy Blackman]

the film seemed more like a stunt to me.

More than other Michael Moore movies? How so?

The movie is basically a one-size-fits-all comprehensive denunciation of the Bush administration. Is that what feels stunt-like?

lacked the entertainment of his previous films . . . the humor seemed overdone and repetitive

What kind of entertainment do you want, then? Aren't the Bush clips alone entertaining enough for a whole movie?

the tragic elements, with their mood music, seemed manipulative.

Which ones? If you're talking about the SPOILER military mother story, I know exactly what you mean (that was tonally top-heavy). But I thought all the other tragic elements were extremely well-done and felt completely natural.

[Jeremy Blackman]

A few surprising appearances at the New York premeire...

[Myxo]

Gunna go see this on Sunday I think.

Woohoo!

[Chest Rockwell]

Saw it today. I'm reeeeeeeaaaaaally impressed with the ability Moore has at making the audience agree with him (call it manipulation, if you will). And the editing is very well-done, as blackman said, which is obviously important for a subjective documentary that aims to persuade its audience. Even if one doesn't agree with the material, one can not deny the power Moore wields and his skill at crafting a documentary. Call it propaganda, fine. It's probably the best propaganda I've ever seen.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Saw it today. I'm reeeeeeeaaaaaally impressed with the ability Moore has at making the audience agree with him (call it manipulation, if you will). And the editing is very well-done, as blackman said, which is obviously important for a subjective documentary that aims to persuade its audience. Even if one doesn't agree with the material, one can not deny the power Moore wields and his skill at crafting a documentary. Call it propaganda, fine. It's probably the best propaganda I've ever seen.

I think you're right. It is exactly what you said, "a subjective documentary that aims to persuade its audience." But given the information (which is true and not misleading or out of context) it's extremely difficult to disagree with Moore's conclusions, some of which are obvious... corporations should not run the government, those same corporations should not rule the world using our country as their parasitic host, etc etc. Although there are just a few journalistic weaknesses, as I mentioned before (but let's not forget he's covered all those things in exhaustive detail in his books), it's going to be difficult for people to deny that (A) the film is factually solid (it's hard to argue with video evidence) and (B) Moore's conclusions are reasonable and often painfully obvious. If the media wants to call that propaganda, that's technically true... but like I've said before, it's dangerously stupid to confuse it with propaganda created by those in power and imposed on the population. Read an Orwell book and you'll know the difference.

[mutinyco]

It feels like a stunt because it has one sole purpose: to convince its viewers not to reelect Bush. It came just months before the election for that very reason. It's geared to elicit a specific reaction.

Unlike say, Columbine, which was more interested in stirring debate. It wasn't anticipated. It came from nowhere. And Moore had as much time as he needed to work on it. Here, he had a deadline to affect.

When I use the word "entertainment", I'm referring to the enjoyability of watching the film. Columbine is more enjoyable because it's timeless -- it's about the Amercian culture. 9/11, however, will be dated. It might ultimately be considered a more "important" film because of its shotgun execution, but his previous film was better thought out. And as for the Bush clips, you can see those any night of the week on the news.

I think people are reacting more strongly to the content which they (and I too) agree with, than the filmmaking itself.

[metroshane]

Saw it today.  I know what Moore's agenda is and watched it with that in mind...and it's still one of the most powerful movies I've ever seen.  Even if 911 or Iraq had never  happened...the rest of the facts are astonishing and should not be ignored.  

I think Moore's fans should watch it very closely...and his detractors should watch it even closer.

[Ravi]

It doesn't matter that it was made to convince people not to re-elect Bush.  I hope it accomplishes that.  The facts about Bush and his administration are presented here, and I could not find any gaping holes.  The filmmaking itself is terrific, except for the slight overuse of songs over the footage.

[mutinyco]

According to MCN:

Fahrenheit 9/11 On Fire In Theaters... Early Numbers On Friday Projecting To A $10m - $12m Day... Sell Outs In Most Major Markets... Could Be A $30m Weekend...

[Jeremy Blackman]

It feels like a stunt because it has one sole purpose: to convince its viewers not to reelect Bush.

And how is that illegitimate? Sure, it feels different, and it is, but like Pubrick has said, how do we really justify that lingering feeling that it's somehow tainted?

I've read a few reviews. And it boggles me why film critics continue to call Michael Moore a "bully." Since when has rebellion against those in power been an oppressive act? It reminds me that the blame the victim impulse has pervaded our culture so much that many people are only outraged about rape when it happens to a minor or the victim is kidnapped/killed.

And Ebert, who recently complained about BFC inaccuracies without citing any, just published a review laced with inaccuracies. He claims that "only Moore thought to contact the teacher" from the 9/11 classroom when in fact the video has been on the internet for months. He says Moore "brings along an unsuspecting Marine recruiter as he confronts congressmen"... he was not even close to being "unsuspecting," and I'm not sure that he was even a recruiter.

And I can't believe how strongly I disagree with every word of this statement, one of the most confusing things Ebert has written:

If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"

What Ebert describes as "catching his subjects off guard" has enormous deconstructive power, and more often than not reveals some kind of truth. And on a personal level, it's absolutely thrilling, exactly like Bush's April 13 press conference (if only Moore could have included some of that footage). It's not violence, it's not harassment, and I can't think of how it's illegitimate.

Columbine, which was more interested in stirring debate . . . Columbine is more enjoyable because it's timeless -- it's about the Amercian culture. 9/11, however, will be dated.

BFC, first of all, is almost as closely linked to a time in American history and culture. While it includes history of violence, the concern is the absolute now. Are Charlton Heston and the Columbine Massacre more timeless than, for example, the U.S./Saudi relationship or military recruiting?

I see what you're getting at, but I would put it on different terms. BFC is slower, more contemplative, intimate, introspective, and thematic. F911 urgent, sharp, and intense. It's a different kind of movie... more specifically activist... drawing more obvious and less daring conclusions... but as I said above, I can't see how it's illegitimate, and I would love to hear a good reason.

I think people are reacting more strongly to the content which they (and I too) agree with, than the filmmaking itself.

Here's another thing that boggles me: the ideal of separating politics and art. Can't there be simultaneous appreciation, a kind of Gesamtkunstwerk? I've heard countless people praise the skillful filmmaking of BFC but feel at least ambivalent about its politics.

[mutinyco]

Dude, you need to chill the fuck out. As I said, I agree with the film's politics. I just don't think the movie was that great. Please cool down and learn how to separate my pragmatic complaints from your overall need to rail against those attacking the film.