I know there's an existing thread on the Michael Moore film dealing with it's accuracy, etc., but this is a seperate issue, dealing only in part with the film itself. Several events surrunding the film, it;s issues, and it's effect on the upcoming election have been discussed in the past day or so, and I thought I'd raise the issues in here. There was a discussion on Deborah Norville ( MSNBC) yesterday involving Peter Bart, vice president and editor in chief of “Variety,” and Glenn Kenny, the chief film critic for “Premiere” magazine. I should note that neither is exactly a Moore fan, and Kenny himself wasn't even invited to the press screening due to, he says, his previous criticisms of Moore's earlier work. So we're not talking about bandwagonners here. But several interesting issues were discussed, and one in particular is worthy of repetition: Contrary to the flak being fired out by conservative wags, the bulk of viewers, and fans of this film is NOT composed of liberal Bush bashers. In fact, going back to the right wing flap on the 22 minute standing ovation at Cannes, the fact that this was a reflection of French anti-Americanism is also a misleading spin, as only about one quarter of the audience were French to begin with, The point is twofold: as a film, independant of political bias, the praise for Fahrenheit 9-11 is astounding and consistent, and not due to political predisposition, while the fact that it's causing such a stir accross the nation is itself symbolic of a political phenomenon. First, the film itself. To say that it has been a hit is a massive understatement. Despite opening in less than 900 theatres, Michale Moore's film brought in over 24 million at the box offices this past weekend, easily the most in the nation despite the fact that the second place film, White Girls, played in over 3,000 theatres. It has earned alsmost as much critical acclaim as it has box office revenue, and as pointed out on notioriously left wing NBC, almost without exception what criticism has been heard has come from notably politicized sources. Ironic, considering that one of the common claims of these critics is political bias itself. Additionally, while there is some truth to the claim that Moore doesn't follow the traditional standards of a documentary filmmaker, unlike, say, Bowling For Columbine, this film consists largely of points made independant of Moore's editorial or creative control, and are usually made by actual occurences or utterances caught live on film without Moore commentary or direction, such as the Secret Service showing up, completely out of the blue, to question Moore for having a camera crew accross the street from the Saudi Arabian embassy. But as pure film, it's almost universally praised. BAY: Peter, let me start with you. As filmmaking, how does this measure up? BART: Oh, I think it‘s an excellent piece of filmmaking, in the sense that it veers between satire and tragedy. So, you are laughing one moment, and you‘re very affected the next. But here‘s the problem. It is not a good documentary, in the sense that, if you think of documentary filmmaking as a more structured, disciplined art form, on that basis, this is something of a mess. So I regard Michael Moore more as a performance artist than a documentarian. BAY: Glenn, what is your take? KENNY: It‘s definitely Moore‘s best film in terms of its pacing. The clip you just showed (Saudi Embassy-MacB) was really one of the more real moments of the film, in terms of, like, this is not something that he planned and it is a moment that hits audiences, like a “what the heck is happening here?” thing. He has got a very skillful grasp of montage. When he has got Donald Rumsfeld standing there making these fatuous pronouncements about how he so admires the humanity of the bombing, targeting in Iraq, and he‘s juxtaposing that with a clip of a little Iraqi kid with a wad of cotton coming out of his skull, it‘s powerful stuff. And the movie moves like crazy. There‘s not dull moment in it. BAY: Any missteps? BART: Well, you can poke a lot of holes in some of the factual things. He makes a lot of hay out of the connection between the Bush family and the Saudis, but never actually connects (CROSSTALK) BAY: Something, in our world, we‘ve been spending a lot of time analyzing, if it‘s factual. BART: Sure. And this whole depiction of Iraq as a land of kite-flying happy children before the bombing started is a little disingenuous. You could poke individual holes in quite a few of the segments. But the whole thing adds up to a very powerful whole. And it really does—and, like I said, it keeps moving. It‘s funny. Peter Bart was talking about the conservative noise against the film. A lot of the smarter conservatives are now sort of laying back and saying, oh, don‘t bother seeing it, it‘s boring, because that‘s maybe a little more clever than saying, how dare he do this? But the second point is, IMO, much more important. The very fact that the audiences aren'tcomposed exclusively of people already in the anti-Bush camp is indicative of what Kenny called a paradigm shift, in that people who traditionally support administrative claims on important issues without much question are now starting to reconsider, and are beginning to ask the questions for themselves, and not necessarily assume the White House is telling the truth. It's important to note that no one was really claiming that this meant these middle grounders had already turned against Bush, but were in fact saying that it indicated that the benefit of the doubt they usually afford standing presidents was no longer a given. BAY:But, in all seriousness, this film has become a pop cultural phenomenon. Why? What has gone on? KENNY: I think that‘s what happening, well, you can‘t call the situation in Iraq fortuitous for anybody. But has happened is, over the past several months is what our old friend Newt Gingrich would have called a paradigm shift, whereas, a year, year and a half ago, the very idea of criticizing the president and the administration and its policies with regard to Iraq in the days following the tragedy of 9/11 was considered an almost seditious act and you would get your patriotism questioned. BAY: Certainly unpatriotic, at the very least, right. KENNY: What‘s happened since then is that there‘s a lot of things have come to pass, including various—a lot of the insurgency activity, the very bad stuff happening in the prisons and so on. And things have really turned around and people have started questioning. You combine that with stuff going on in the news like the vice president cursing out a senator on the floor of the Senate, and it looks like these guys are going off the rails. So clearly Moore, through no contrivance of his own, has an atmosphere in which this now becomes a cultural event that‘s like a really popular reality TV show and it‘s what everybody wants to be talking about. BAY: Yes. And talking about it, they are. BAY: Glenn talked about the Zeitgeist. Do you think, sure, there‘s marketing, but there was something about the message in this film that touched a nerve? BART: Yes, I think this is a moment when the audience out there is definitely responsive to something of a counterculture approach. I think everybody has been fed somewhat the same line. And I think this reflects a desire in many segments of the American public learn more, to try to figure out what‘s happening. BAY: So do you think people on both sides of the aisle are going to see this movie in an effort to figure this all out? BART: I do. BAY: You do? BART: Yes, I do. I do not think this is—I remember when I saw this picture first in Cannes, every said, well, the only reason everyone loves it, the audience is so responsive, it got a 22-minute ovation, was because they‘re all French and they don‘t like Americans. It wasn‘t true. Only about a quarter of the audience was French. I think, similarly, over here, I think you‘ve got people on the right and the left who are going to see this picture. KENNY: Yes, I didn‘t go to a press screening. I got shut out. I might have not said enough nice things about “Bowling For Columbine.” But I ended up seeing the picture in a neighborhood in Brooklyn where I live and the audience was not a homogeneous one at all. And there‘s a lot of different people there and they were all responding to the picture. BAY: Interesting. In the wake of the latest poll which shows that 51% of the American public dissaprove of the President's job performance vs. only 42% who approve, his lowest ratio to date, it seems clear that the film has come along at a time when the message coincides with what many are feeling. Many are finding the repeated gaps between administration rhetoric and actual fact troubling, and not just those for whom Bush was already a lost cause. What effect Farenheit 911 will have on those middle ground voters is up in the air, but the point is that, contrary to earlier Republican spin, middle grounders are going to see the film, and there might be a reasons why. There has never been a film like this, never been a documentary recieved like this, and never been one which could have an effect on an election. But this might break the mold in that respect as it already has in so many others. BAY: Peter, Michael Moore was very clear that he wanted to effect change with this film. Do you think that it does have the power to influence the elections? BART: I think that there is a percentage, 5, 6, 4 percent, no one knows the exact amount, of independent voters, of swing voters, and I think those swing voters are susceptible to a very emotional kind of film like this. So, yes, I think that all of this is extraordinary, not just because of the box office numbers, but because, for the first time that I can remember in film history, you do have a movie that could affect the vote. BAY: And, Glenn, and really shape the national conversation quite profoundly. KENNY: And, man, if he fixes it so he can put out the DVD in the third week of October, that‘s going to be problematic for some people. BAY: Glenn Kenny, Peter Bart, thank you very much. KENNY: Thank you. BAY: For your time. So, given that this film isn't being seen by liberals, but is drawing in people across the spectrum, and given it's almost universally acknowledged general effectiveness, if not point by point accuracy, do you feel that it's unprecedented popularity is indicative of a loss of faith in Bush, and a desire to look for answers elsewhere? And do you feel it will have any serious effect on the election?
To answer one of your last questions, no, I don't think the film itself will have a significant effect on the election. I think most people have their minds already made up before seeing the movie. I think another reason the movie is a success is it's a movie for the thinking adult. Most of the flicks out today are garbage geared towards teens. They were also smart releasing it the week they did and not going head to head with Spiderman 2 which should do blockbuster numbers for at least a few weeks after it's release.
One thing about the movie is that even though conservatives claim that it is propaganda, probably 95% comes from actual news footage or footage that could easily be on the mainstream evening news or the infotainment type programs like 20-20. About 5% or less is the famous Michael Moore type "gags" e.g. driving the ice cream truck around reading from the Patriot Act over a loud speaker or asking the Congressman to sign their kids up for Iraq duty.. These "gags" serve to effectively lighten up and be breaks from the continual streak of interviews or news clips often from various administration speeches. Moore himself for his fans and others is often funny just to look at. Many of the interviews are fascinating such as those with servicemen done in the field in Iraq, the long interview with the woman from Flint Moore's beloved home town of Flint who had her son killed in the famous Blackhawk down event in Iraql, the interviews with young kids who are potential recruits and the army recruiters and on and on. Many of the film clip such as the charred consultant's bodies on the electric wires in Fallujah, Powell's Niger claim at the UN etc are really not news to those who followed the events closely like many on this bbs, but it is impressive to see these events one after another. In many cases I had read of the incident or speech, but never saw a clip of the actual event previously. In away the film functions as an archive of the various high moments in the story of the build up to the war, the initial fighting and the present war between the American troops and the Iraqi resistance.
So, given that this film isn't being seen by liberals, but is drawing in people across the spectrum, How sure are we that this film is drawing across the political spectrum, besides anecdotal? and given it's almost universally acknowledged general effectiveness, if not point by point accuracy, do you feel that it's unprecedented popularity is indicative of a loss of faith in Bush, The conservatives, the haters that they are, have shot themselves in the foot. Their continual haranguing of this film and MM has keep this film in the forefront of the daily news. Look at the Green National Convention and how little press coverage it got. Think how much coverage it would have gotten if the Republicans could not stop talking about it for the week leading into the convention. and a desire to look for answers elsewhere? And do you feel it will have any serious effect on the election? Events in the last two months leading into the general election will have more impact on the election than a film four months before.
I still say those who are anti-Moore but still want to check out the movie should buy a ticket to another show then just walk in to see F911.
It's about to get it's ass knocked to the curb by Spider-Man 2, I-Robot, etc.. A true test of a film is its staying power, and if current trends hold true (Harry Potter seeing a 60 percent drop in its 2nd week of release), it doesn't hold much hope for the movie to have any kind of enduring impact on the political scene come election time, despite the zealous claims of it's "Passion of the Christ" like supporters. From a personal standpoint, even if the film were provocative, I'd never see it in theatres for the sheer fact that Michael Moore is such a smug, self-aggrandizing ass.
I went to see it yesterday. There were parts that I liked, parts that I was indifferent about, and parts that I hated. ******ACHTUNG SPOILERS AHEAD WARNING DANGER******* I liked when Moore was talking to the congressmen, I thought it was funny that he only actually got to speak with two of them, because the rest of them ran away when they caught a glimpse of him, which frankly is not that tough to do. I also liked when the SS came over and questioned him. He didn't make an ass out of himself because he cconceeded that such an important ally should probably be well protected. The defense of the Oregon coastline segment was entertaining, but also a little sobering. It might give the terrorists ideas. I thought most of his gotcha type stuff on Bush was pretty weak. It wasn't the made up crap that he pulled on Heston, but it was not really damning. Stuff like the Bushes have business relationships with the bin Ladens, not including Osama, that Bush blacked out another persons name when he released his military records (hello, he wasn't releasing someone else's military records, so it seems more prudent than conspiratorial to me), or that Bush didn't react immediately to news of 9/11 because he was in the middle of a "photo-op". There were also several parts that I really disliked. His none to subtle insinuations of racism in the government, when he is interviewing a group of people on a basketball court and asks if any of them have a relative in the Armed Forces and all of them respond affirmatively, and all of them are black (the only way he could have made his point more obvious would be to have one white guy there that said he did not have a relative in the military, or maybe have a black marine who had returned from Iraq say that he refused to go back because he didn't think he should be over there killing other poor people, ooops, he did that). Then, the soldiers that he bothers talking to (outside of the afforementioned human rights activist) he shows in the worst possible light, such as the tank driver that says they rolled into Baghdad blasting Drowning Pool's Let the bodies hit the floor on their helmet headsets since that seemed an appropriate song, and he chose to show this scene right after the scene where he showed the dead Iraqi civilians and children. Overall, I would say that I liked this movie the least out of all of his movies, but it was still pretty descent. I don't agree with his politics and I would draw different conclusions, but for what it is, it isn't too bad. (begin Adam Sessler or Morgan Webb voice) I give this one a 3 (long pause) out of 5.
Excellent post, MacBeth. When I saw Farenheit 9-11 at 11AM last Saturday here in Houston (at the AMC Dunvale), I counted at least 6 cars in the parking lot with Bush-Cheney stickers on them. Inside the 3/4 full theatre, it was a mix of young and old, people dressed like preppies and people dressed like hippies, white, black, Latino, Asian, all sorts of people, including one Muslim woman wearing a head scarf. Everybody is seeing this movie, and everybody should.
The turnout for the movie is more like a Mapplethorpe/NEA dynamic than a referendum on Bush. Try and ban it and people are going to go see it in droves. One thing to keep in mind is the point that the interview above makes: this isn't really a documentary. It's entertaining and definitely art, but it's not the next 'World of Charlie Company.' As such we should keep the 'universal undisputed heavyweight uncontested acclaim' claims in perspective. If it actually does affect the elections, I'd have to compare it to those who vote for Bush because they believe exactly Fox tells them. Neither seem to be...fair and balanced...
Hayes, we haven't heard from you since the whole wmd thing went down the drain. Still happy with the preemptive war?
hey glynch, how's it going? you're incorrect, as usual. i've been on the board since the WMD thing disappeared. i've admitted i was wrong, with caveats of course. but i'm still happy that we removed saddam from power. aren't you?
Hey, right wing conservatives have their comeback piece: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/ "Michael Moore Hates America." Damn, he took our punchline.
From what I have read, not having seen the film yet, the biggest political impact it has could very well be motivating people, particularly "young" people, to vote in November. A movie can have a visceral impact that goes far beyond most political commercials, imo.
