Fahrenheit 911
Some thoughts, by Joel
Fahrenheit 911 opened on August 21 in Japan, and I finally got around to seeing it yesterday.

Of course I like to use this blog to cover my thoughts and opinions on issues, but by the time I get around to something like Fahrenheit 911, does anyone care anymore? So much ink has been spilled over this topic already, both in the professional print media and among my circle of friends. For instance my friend Phil wrote this excellent review of the film (you may have to scroll down to find it) which pretty much says everything there is to say about the film, and there's nothing really I could add to it. (On a side note, I also like the review of the film found in the Japan Times.)

So, instead of retreading that ground, I'd like to argue that if you haven't seen this film yet, you need to. Dare I say you are neglecting your civic duty as an American citizen if you vote in the November election without first watching this film. Now if you haven't seen the film yet, and you aren't planning to, then at least hear me out on this and read to the end of the post.

There's been a lot of back and forth on this film, and it's sometimes confusing to know who to believe. I myself often find that I'm agreeing with whose ever opinion I happen to be reading at the time.

On one hand there is the fact that everyone in the past four years who has come out against the Bush administration has been smeared as a liar. People like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke who worked in the Bush administration, have impeccable resumes, are non-partisan, and have good reputations (or at least used to) have had all sorts of nasty things printed about them since they came out against Bush. It is a safe bet that if the Pope came out strongly against Bush, the next day we would hear all about what a sleazy evil liar the Pope is. So it should hardly surprise everyone that in the weeks preceding the opening of Fahrenheit 911, all sorts of attacks were made against Moore's credibility, and it is difficult to know how seriously to take these allegations.

On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with Moore's work know he does have some problems. Phil makes the point that comparisons with Ann Coulter are unfair, and I can go along with that because Ann Coulter is really in a class by herself. But because of Moore's love of cheap shots, and his selective inclusion of facts, perhaps it would be fair to say that Michael Moore is "The Rush Limbaugh of the left".

And here, I think, is where we start to get into the problem.　　Because of the nature of the polarized society we live in there are a number of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh faithfully, and a number of people who enjoy Michael Moore, and the groups don't seem to overlap. This is unfortunate because the very people who should be seeing Moore's film are the ones who have been listening to Limbaugh and Fox news all last year.

The number of people I have heard say that they are refusing to see Michael Moore's film on principle is very disturbing. The National Review even printed a review of the movie by a reviewer who bragged that he had not seen the movie he was writing about. (Again, thanks to Phil for the link). And groups like Move America Forward even launched a campaign to stop distribution of the film by boycotting theaters that were showing it.

Often I will read the news and think to myself, "With all the awful things that are happening, how is Bush's approval ratings still at 50% ?" This is how. If a large segment of the American population barricades itself behind a wall of conservative propaganda, and refuses to listen to anything else, then this is undoubtedly why the President still has such high approval ratings. This added to the fact that the mainstream media has been appalling soft on the President, and largely uncritical of the war in Iraq, especially leading up to the war.
This is undoubtedly the reason why a large number of Americans still believe that there are WMDs in Iraq, or that Saddam had connections to Al Qaeda, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Now Moore's film is not perfect. I have a few criticism of it. I'll try and be brief here because, like I said at the opening, far too much ink has been spilled over this film already. But briefly: the film is somewhat emotionally manipulative. Like "Bowling for Columbine", the film is unfocused, and seems to jump all over the place without a coherent thesis. Moore can't seem to resist throwing in a few cheap shots, which I think unfortunately takes away a bit when he actually has a good point. And the whole sequence about the Bush family being connected with the Bin Laden family seems rather pointless and rested on the premise of guilt by association.

And yet the film has many good points as well. Moore is probably at his finest when he is reporting facts that have been well documented by others, but not given sufficient attention in the mainstream media.

The most moving scene in the film is when Moore films the mother of a dead soldier coming to Washington DC. At one point when she is dialoguing with an anti-war protester, a conservative rushes over and says, "This is all staged." The mother responds, "My son was not staged." And that is really the best point the film has to offer in its own defense. The dead soldier and the mother's grief was not something Moore made up. The images of the bombs falling on Baghdad, and of the dead and wounded Iraqi children, and of the families crying, were not staged by Michael Moore. The 1000 American soldiers who will not ever be home for Christmas again was not staged by Michael Moore.

Moore's film is far from perfect. I've always said before on this weblog that Moore needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and it is good to read criticisms of his movie along with seeing the movie itself. There is a lot of shrill right wing screaming at Moore right now, but calm debate can also be found. I like Spin-sanity as a web site that tries to be fair.

But the film needs to be watched. We must consider the cost of the war. The Bush administration and the media have discouraged us from thinking about the costs of this war. Although media in other countries have showed the dead and maimed Iraqi children, the U.S. media has been very reluctant to do this. And Bush even forbade the showing of American coffins on TV.

Moore's film, with all its faults, shows the cost of the war. Those screaming Iraqi children weren't staged.

This past year we fought a war. And although Saddam was a bad man, we didn't have to fight this war. We chose to. And if you supported the war, and if you listen consistently to people like Limbaugh or Coulter or Fox news who tell you that the war is okay, and you shut out all other opinions, or even, like "Move America Forward", try and block opposing opinions from even being heard, and then vote for Bush this November, shame on you. Anyone who is refusing to see Moore's film, shame on you.

Anyone who doesn't see this film by November has failed in their duty as an American citizen.

Video Version