Fahrenheit 9/11

[Ravi]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html


'9/11': Just the facts?

June 18, 2004

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC  


A reader writes:

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.


Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.



Considering the presence of inaccuracies in BFC, I hope this time around Moore made sure that he wasn't fudging the facts.

[Jeremy Blackman]

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

I don't see how his "ambush" on Heston (if you can really bring yourself to victimize him) is an "inaccuracy." And the plaque thing was just his opinion of what the plaque implies... it's not like he quoted it.

[Pubrick]

i think the idiots succeeded in creating such controversy over BFC that now the accepted truth is that it was sumhow FULL of blatant inaccuracies. the hype was overblown and now everyone just assumes that it is a tainted work, when in fact the points it made are still relevant, and it deserved the accolades.

so whatever, expect the same thing this time, sum group of idiots will attack a couple of scenes and once again not argue any of the points the movie makes. because to them and to everyone else, it is more important to act naive about the reality of film and documentaries than to think about what is going on.

i just hope that in light of recent FACTS, the same ppl who think BFC is manipulative hav equal if not stronger distrust for their established network news media sources, and their government. done and done.

[rustinglass]

f 911 already under rain of shit*

the link is in P's post
VVVVVVV


* by this I mean media fact-attacks

[Pubrick]

f 911 already under rain of shit*
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/


* by this I mean media fact-attacks

am i missing sumthing? there's nothing anti-f911 there at all, maybe u mean this link: http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/isikoff.php

even then, it's pretty weak. i would hardly call it a rain of anything.

[rustinglass]

um, yeah, that's the one

[coffeebeetle]

Yeah, umm, where exactly is this rain of shit?  Isikoff clearly has an agenda.  I wouldn't be surprised if more of these "partisan" attacks happen in the coming days.

[rustinglass]

alright, sorry, I chose the wrong term, I mean these kind of attacks of course.

[mutinyco]

I agree with most of the points in the film -- which was sold out all day on all 3 screens at the theater I went to -- only I just don't really think the MOVIE was that good. I felt like I'd seen it all already.

[FeloniousFunk]

Why has this film not have been rated yet? Is that a joke, or can the MPAA really not make their mind up?

[A Matter Of Chance]

I was looking up showtimes on moviefone, and the info for the movie had it rated NC-17. Is this true? Anyone have any info on this?

[mutinyco]

It's rated R.

[Stefen]

baahaha, Bill O'reilly getting owned on The View right now.

O'Reilly: Moores new movie is nothing more than propoganda.
Skinny View Girl: Then so is your show.
O'Reilly: Well my show is fact.

AUDIENCE ERUPTS INTO LAUGHTER. O'Reilly turns beet red.

[Jeremy Blackman]

AUDIENCE ERUPTS INTO LAUGHTER.

That just made my day.

[coffeebeetle]

TAKE THAT, Bill O'Reilly!