Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    R
  • Running Time:
    110 minutes
  • Released:
    2004
  • Country:
    United States of America
  • Director:
    Michael Moore
  • Starring:
    Michael Moore
    George Bush
  • Genre(s):
    Documentary

Fahrenheit 9/11

30-06-2004 00:10 | 9650 views  |  Tiffany Bradford  |  Show Backlinks  |  Other "Fahrenheit 9/11" Content

Even before its recent US theatrical release, Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's eagerly-anticipated indictment of the war on Iraq, the events of September 11th and George Bush's 'fictitious presidency', was generating loads of controversy (a lot of it self-generated by Moore himself). Disney, the parent company of Miramax, blocked its domestic distribution, forcing the Weinstein brothers to buy back the film rights and look to a third party for help (they were eventually able to secure distribution from Lions Gate, IFC and created their own Fellowship Adventure Group). Then Moore announced he had interview footage of American businessman Nicholas Berg (who was later kidnapped and beheaded by members of an Islamic militant group ), that would remain private and he graciously offered to send copies to Berg's family. He later came under attack for his decision not to notify anyone of prisoner abuse in Iraq, despite his field team catching some of it on film months before the scandal broke worldwide, and author Ray Bradbury joined the media frenzy when he demanded an apology and asked that the title of Moore's film be changed, because he felt it was a blatant rip-off of his best-selling novel Fahrenheit 451. And lastly there was the matter of the film's rating. The MPAA gave it an R and Moore and company fought unsuccessfully to have it changed to a PG-13, because he wanted to reach the widest possible audience.



When Fahrenheit 9/11 premiered at the Grand Théâtre Lumière at this year's Cannes Film Festival, it received a 20-minute standing ovation and went on to win the Palme d'Or (the top prize at the festival). It's already set a number of box office records including highest opening weekend ever for a documentary of any type, highest opening ever for a Palme d'Or winner beating the previous record holder Pulp Fiction and its opening weekend numbers have already outgrossed the total domestic box office for Bowling for Columbine - high praise and lots of attention for what amounts to a brilliantly edited, 110-minute exercise in Bush-bashing. Using interviews and archived news footage and with no pretense of impartiality, Michael Moore (Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine) sets about deconstructing Dubya. He accuses Bush of stealing the 2000 election, ignoring dozens of terrorism warnings before 9/11, using the aftermath of 9/11 for his own political advantage, having close business and personal ties to the Saudi royal family and securing American support for the Iraq war with threats of Iraqi-held weapons of mass destruction, a Saddam Huessin/al-Qaida connection and future terrorist attacks.



A master of emotional-manipulation, Moore uses creative editing and selective video clips to tell his story. Two of the film's most effective scenes deal with the events of September 11th. While the planes were crashing into the World Trade Center, George Bush was in a Florida classroom reading My Pet Goat to a group of school children. After being told about the second plane crash, he sits there momentarily indecisive and then continues to read for seven more minutes (screen capture above). The other segment features a black screen - the only audio heard is the sound of the planes crashing into the Towers. The black screen then changes into a collage of reactions from stunned onlookers and survivors - it makes a huge impact without any narration. The film also contains the controversial footage Moore's crew shot of American military personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners out in the field - they are seen posing for pictures alongside a hooded prisoner fondling his genitals through a blanket. One of the film's most poignant moments is an interview with Lila Lipscomb. The mother of two serviceman, she's initially proud and patriotic when Moore first meets her, but we later learn her son has been killed in Iraq and there is a heart-wrenching scene of her reading the last letter he wrote before he died and her subsequent trip to Washington. But there is also Moore's trademark humour peppered throughout the film. When he learns that only one son of a Congressman or Representative is on active duty in Iraq, he stops pro-war Congressmen on the street and tries to recruit their sons for military service. After being told that no member of Congress read the complete Patriot Act before voting for it, he drives around Washington DC in an ice cream truck reading the act to members of Congress using a bullhorn, and he uses the Go-Go's song Vacation during a segment in which he claims Bush spent 42% of his first 8 months in office off on Holidays.



Moore seems to have learned a lesson or two from the criticism leveled against him for Bowling for Columbine. This time around he offers corroborating evidence to back up his claims (specifically the relationship Bushes Jr. and Sr. had with the Saudi royal family) and he's also cut down on the humour and sarcasm and spends less time on screen. The film absolutely dazzles when Moore literally takes himself out of the picture and lets his images and subjects speak for themselves. You won't soon forget a grieving Lila Lipscomb or the disturbing war images of battle weary soldiers and broken, bloodied bodies of civilian war casualties, and you'll be moved to tears (from laughing) at Attorney General John Ashcroft's rendition of Let the Eagle Soar, a song he composed himself and sings excrutiatingly bad. And nothing illustrates Moore's claims of Bush's incompetency and arrogance more than video clips of George Bush being himself... very little editing was needed there.



A lot of people have mixed feelings where Michael Moore is concerned - while they applauded his messages, they're not fans of the messenger. His likable, tubby David taking on corporate Goliath was refreshing and original when he burst onto the scene with Roger and Me, but his credibility was called into question after the release of Bowling for Columbine and he's been slated for his tabloid techniques. He's matured as a filmmaker since then and created one of the most important and thought-provoking films in recent years. As a documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 is technically on a par with his excellent Bowling For Columbine, but, because it's basically a regurgitation of things we already know, lacks the 'wow' factor of the other film. Still, it's a funny, compelling, chilling, heart-breaking and hugely entertaining piece of filmmaking that should be seen by everyone. Despite his hope of influencing the outcome of this year's Presidential election, I don't see the film having much of an impact on American voters as a lot of the material it covers can be seen on nightly news programmes and most of the voters have already made up their minds one way or the other about their Commander-in-Chief's performance in office, but its messages deserve to be heard by the rest of the world and love him or hate him, Michael Moore never ceases to get our attention or provoke discussion.

DVD Times Ratings

  • Overall: 
    9
    9 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Overall: 
    7.7

Comments

#1 Posted: 30-06-2004 06:36
greath
Member
Posts: 77

Report this post
As has been said, this film is is no way impartial and I think that the people in the US watching it know that. I've read comments that say is being viewed more as making fun of Bush than for the politics of it. I can't say I agree with the way that the self-publicist Moore has gone about bringing this film to the attention of the world, but it would appear that he's going to make Mel Gibson type money from this film. I wonder what the so called working-class man will do with it all :D
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 30-06-2004 12:37
chimera01
Member
Posts: 218

Report this post
I've not seen the movie have heard a lot about it. Most folks bash mr. Moore for this and the last movie he made, why????? I think he does tell his truth but it occasionally touches a raw nerve of general truth and that seems for some folks reason enough to demonize him.
His opponents went a long way trying to block the release of this document, why??? By doing so it gave mr. Moore more standing than the movie might be worth.

I'd love to see it just because I was made curious about it because of all the negative attitude towards the director. Makes you wonder why they feel so threatened????:cool: :cool:
Quote this post
#3 Posted: 30-06-2004 13:06
Richard Booth
Contributor & Filmmaker
Posts: 980

Report this post
Although I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine, the amount of rhetoric and manipulation in the film was absurd - some of the claims put across by Moore were completely false. It did, however, make for an entertaining watch...likewise I'm sure Fahrenheit 9/11 will be very watchable when it comes to the UK in July.

I also have to admit that in recent weeks my opinion of George Bush Jr. has slowly dropped: at first I was supportive of the man and admired his decision making, but now he does indeed seem to be a bully in charge of the world's most influential and powerful state. I hope he is voted out of office at the end of this year - perhaps even John Kerry will make a viable alternative.

Great review Tiffany; this sort of film is not easy to write about, but you did indeed pull it off - once again - with style. :)
------
We do not tell time, time only tells us.
Quote this post
#4 Posted: 30-06-2004 13:46
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

Report this post
Fine review, Tiffany. Very useful to have an American perspective on the film.

Reaction elsewhere suggests you are right that it is unlikely to change already firmly held opinions and political allegiances, but I can't help but think (or hope) that its message will make people a little less complacent and credulous about what their government tells them in future.
------


DVD Times Reviewer
Best DVDs 2008 | All My Reviews

Quote this post
#5 Posted: 30-06-2004 14:58
Colin Polonowski
Administrator
Posts: 413

Report this post
Great review Tiffany :)

For anyone in the Bristol area, the Watershed are having a preview showing on 4 July:

SPECIAL PREVIEW
Fahrenheit 9/11 Certificate 15
Sun 4 July 1200noon Cinema 1
Dir: Michael Moore USA 2003 1hr 50mins
A chilling and controversial investigation into the four years of US
President George W Bush's time at the White House, the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the Iraq war, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' delivers
a devastating blow to the Bush administration in the run-up to its
re-election campaign. An appalling, enthralling portrayal of what Moore
sees as the Bush administration's error-strewn and hypocritical foreign
policy.
Tickets available from Watershed Box Office: 0117 927 5100
Fee: £5.00 full / £3.50 concessions

The film opens at Watershed on Fri 9 July - for more information see
http://www.watershed.co.uk
------

Colin Polonowski, Editor
All My Reviews | My Film Journal | CD Times

Quote this post
#6 Posted: 01-07-2004 01:26
Tiffany Bradford
DVD Times Princess
Posts: 92

Report this post
"Very useful to have an American perspective on the film."

I did my best to stay impartial :)

I have really strong opinions on the film's subject matter, but I didn't want to colour the review with them. I actually like Michael Moore now... he kinda grows on you after awhile and the film is brilliant.

Thanks for the comments guys.
------
My Top 20 Films
Quote this post
#7 Posted: 01-07-2004 08:18
Graham Nelson
Contributor
Posts: 35

Report this post
I share some of Moore's analysis, but he maddens me by indiscriminately mixing shrewd analysis with cheap shots. Bush did corruptly steal the election, but if it hadn't been a dead heat there would have been nothing to steal. It's not as if the electorate endorsed Gore either.

The Bush administration goes out of its way to confuse the Afghanistan war with the Iraq one. But we shouldn't. If you really want to know what happened in the wake of 9/11, try reading Bob Woodward's "Bush At War". What you find is that the moderates on the National Security Council - Powell, Armitage, Tenet - always prevail over the neo-con extremists - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney - because common sense and realism win through. The whole decision-making process works quite well. (Bush doesn't even participate except to generate a sense of urgency: he has no discernable views and is mostly not even in the room when the real decisions are taken, but that's how the Presidency works: it's not because of any failing in Bush himself, who asks a great many questions before signing off on what people do.) It's not until you get to the Iraq war, and the setting-up of the Department of Homeland Security, that the really dangerous people - Rumsfeld, Ashfield, etc. - get to push their agenda, and the inner circle falls apart.

I think my problem with Moore is that, like him, I find it objectionable when the neo-cons justify drastic things like Iraq by referring to 9/11 all the time. And I think I should hold Moore up to the same standard: he shouldn't use the shock value of 9/11 to generate outrage at what Bush did two years later. There's a good case to be made that what the Bush administration did in the three months after 9/11 was effective and measured.

Of course like everybody else I'd like to see Mr Bush defeated for what he's doing to the environment, for his undermining of the UN and the Geneva Convention, etc., but that's another story. He doesn't match up to Clinton but he's not stupid, he is a man of conscience, he does mean well and historians will record the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as his one achievement in office.
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 01-07-2004 15:23
chimera01
Member
Posts: 218

Report this post
Nice writing about Bush, but I am not so sure that the movie is as nice about him.

Knowing Moore from his books and movies you know what to expect from him, that is not always the truth but the version as he sees it. All the noise about this movie shows me that some folks are horrible afraid that viewers have no brain or opinions themselves. It would have been better handled if the folks who were against it would have simply said: well that is one way of looking at things since we live in a democracy let him do his thing. If you have any questions we'll answer them openly.:cool:
Quote this post
#9 Posted: 01-07-2004 17:25
cm-9
Member
Posts: 64

Report this post
The Ray Bradbury book (and the movie) is Fahrenheit 451, not Fahrenheit 411.
Quote this post
#10 Posted: 01-07-2004 17:30
Tiffany Bradford
DVD Times Princess
Posts: 92

Report this post
Thanks cm-9, I've corrected it.
------
My Top 20 Films
Quote this post
#11 Posted: 05-07-2004 14:02
Lex Luthor
Criminal Member
Posts: 189

Report this post
The most common accusation levelled at Moore is that he's not impartial, well since when did this become either a new thing or uncommon?! You only have to pick up a newspaper, switch on the television or listen to a colleague at work and you're hearing someone tell you their side of a story. So why when Michael Moore opens his mouth is this suddenly a talking point? I think the reason for that is that the people who say this are the very people who are scared of what he is prepared to come out and say. It has become the easiest way to attack someone who criticises you. What's so bad about being critiscised? If you can defend yourself against an allegation then defend yourself, don't just accuse the critic of being unbalanced.

All we ever hear are "the voices of reason" who tell us that they know best and that we should listen to them and unquestioningly do as they say. Micheal Moore has become the figure-head for the movement of people who are prepared to say "No, I won't accept all that you say as being honest and true, I know there is another side to the story and I want to hear it." If you look at what we hear as spectrum then yes, Moore exists at one end of it, but if what he is saying can bring the mainstream conciousness further toward the middle of the spectrum then I have all the time in the world for him. I don't agree with everything that he says myself, but he speaks more sense to me than most other people who manage to find themselves broadcast time these days.
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 10-07-2004 10:20
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1651

Report this post
Saw this last night, and I have to say it's probably the best film I've seen so far this year. As with BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, it could never be accused of impartiality, but again, as with BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, there are certain elements in it that simply can't be argued with. I spent the first half of the film laughing and the second half enraged by what I was seeing. I think what tipped me over the edge was the two US soldiers laughing about how they liked to play music because it got them fired up for killing people. Bare-faced callousness like that somehow seems even worse than all Bush's bumbling and incompetence.

The film got a round of applause when the end credits began to role, something I'd never experienced in a cinema before.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post