F** F*** Brings down the house in Cannes with Bush bash film

Variety:

Fahrenheit 9/11

(Docu -- Competing)
A Dog Eat Dog and Wild Bunch presentation. (International sales: Wild Bunch, Paris.) Produced by Jim Czarnecki, Kathleen Glynn, Michael Moore. Co-producers, Jeff Gibbs, Kurt Engfehr. Supervising producer, Tia Lessin. Directed, written by Michael Moore.


By TODD MCCARTHY

Its title notwithstanding, Michael Moore has delivered a film rather less incendiary than might have been expected -- or wished for by his fans -- in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Designed as an indictment of the Bush administration's domestic and international policies since the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., the sporadically effective docu trades far more in emotional appeals than in systematically building an evidence-filled case against the president and his circle. Thanks to Moore's celebrity, project has been a publicity magnet since its inception, which assures plenty of continued media attention on the ramp up to its intended July U.S. release by an as-yet-to-be-determined distributor, as well as hefty returns both theatrically and in DVD/homevid release in October, a month before the election.

Pic fails to provide any hard facts or make any incriminating connections that a reasonably informed person doesn't already know about, so intellectually Moore is largely preaching to the converted in this blatant cinematic 2004 campaign pamphlet.

Due to the way Moore has skewed his account to emphasize blacks, other minorities and the poor as the primary domestic victims of Bush's policies, it would seem that the groups the filmmaker primarily hopes to influence in November are the disenfranchised who don't normally turn out to vote in large numbers, and "patriotic" Middle Americans who might be convinced not to automatically vote Republican. In these respects, he might prove somewhat successful due to the emotionalism of his pitch.

It may then be of secondary importance that much of the film is constructed of recycled parts drawn mostly from television, and that it reveals Moore as an inadequate prosecuting attorney when it comes to collecting evidence, rationally laying out his argument and delivering the coup de grace in a masterly summation. Instead, his approach is scattershot and manipulative, his tone derisive, jokey and snide in regard to the administration and media, but earnest when it comes to regular folk.

If one agrees with Moore's politics -- and indeed, even if one doesn't but longs for the professional gadfly to give Bush his best shot -- there must be some disappointment that Moore hasn't made better use of his ample materials and various witnesses who appear to have the goods on the administration, the Saudis and other matters. One has the feeling there's a lot more beneath the surface that will eventually come out, but that Moore, in his haste to get this film done before the election, hasn't gotten it.

Opening minutes once more stir the pot of the 2000 Florida election results controversy before pic sketches a portrait of George W. Bush as a do-nothing president who spent "42% of his time" during his first eight months in office "on vacation" (one wonders where that statistic came from, and if it includes weekends).

Exaggerated and repetitive footage of Bush holding a children's book in a Florida elementary school class while the 9/11 attacks were happening are designed to make him look like a clueless dunce, but pic then jumps into the serious business of the connections between the Bush and Bin Laden families and the covert and seemingly outrageous way in which at least two dozen members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the United States when all other flights were still grounded.

There's a lot of meat here, and "House of Bush, House of Saud" author Craig Unger is briefly on camera to indicate as much. But Moore's account consists mostly of innocuous archival footage of the first President Bush meeting and greeting Saudi dignitaries. These images may be pregnant with import, but on the surface are no different from similar ones that could be found of any modern U.S. president or top official.

Moore then comes up with a bit about a certain James R. Bath, a fellow member of the Texas Air National Guard with George W. who subsequently became a business associate of the Bin Ladens. Other financial ties are mentioned as well, and a Taliban leader is even shown being given a guided tour around Washington, D.C. But for all the negative impressions one is supposed to take away from all this, Moore completely fails to draw all this info together and propose what it means at the end of the day.

Moore shows a photograph of one brother of Osama Bin Laden with the implication that there might be something sinister about him. But the film doesn't even spend one minute on backgrounding the Saud or Bin Laden families -- Osama has more than 50 siblings, after all -- or in dealing with realpolitik issues that would begin to explain the history of U.S.-Saudi relations under a succession of administrations.

A terrific entire film could have been devoted to detailing these ties -- indeed, the Bush-Bin Laden link was mentioned as the subject of "Fahrenheit 9/11" when it was first announced -- but Moore's interest suddenly turns away from this in favor of a section ridiculing what he sees as the exaggeration of terrorist threats and hanging out with a lonely state trooper along an empty stretch of Oregon coastline to illustrate the vulnerability of U.S. borders despite the heightened alert.

Still, there is a very funny montage of administration honchos' heads superimposed over the credits of "The Magnificent Seven," priceless footage of John Ashcroft publicly singing a ludicrous song of his own composition seemingly entitled "Let the Eagle Soar" and some glibly effective montages that catch officials in doubletalk and lies.

Skipping quickly over Afghanistan -- Moore never lays out his opinions about the legitimacy of that war -- pic devotes its second half to Iraq. Loading up on the sort of gruesome images of the dead and wounded generally not shown on U.S. TV, Moore takes his cheapest shot when he follows extended coverage of a distraught Iraqi woman wailing about her lost relatives with a clip of Britney Spears supporting the war.

But against the backdrop of deteriorating conditions post-invasion, the film settles into humanist mode, focusing on the cost of the war in human terms rather than in the context of government miscalculations or rising rage in the Arab world. Moore returns to his native Flint, Mich., to look at the army's recruiting efforts in areas of heavy minority and unemployed populations, and juxtaposes this with blunt interviews with G.I.s who openly wonder what the hell they're doing in Iraq, express their distaste for the place or state their intention to oppose he war in the voting booth when the opportunity arrives. This, above all, is Moore's message here.

Most moving interlude features a very brave bereaved mother, Lila Lipscomb, surrounded by her family and keeping it mostly together as she talks about her dead soldier son and reads his last letter home. She then travels to Washington seeking some solace by physically confronting the White House, a visit disturbed by a ranting protestor and a pro-war passerby, and by Moore's silly sidewalk efforts to get members of Congress to get their children to enlist in the military.

Although he narrates, Moore himself is less of a physical presence in "Fahrenheit 9/11" than usual, which actually increases his effectiveness onscreen at certain moments, such as when he's questioned by an officer when he's filming outside the enormous Saudi Embassy across from the Watergate Hotel in D.C.

Although there is an ominous shot or two of hooded prisoners, chronology of the version shown in Cannes ends before the prisoner abuse scandal. Moore has indicated that he will update the film before U.S. release, and that the DVD will include extra footage and a commentary.

 

The Hollywood Reporter

May 18, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11

By Kirk Honeycutt

CANNES -- In "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore drops any pretense that he is a documentarian to pull together from many sources an angry polemic against the president, the Bush family and the administration's foreign policy. Where "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" were personal quests for truth, looking at a subject from different angles and talking to people polls apart in their points of view, Moore stays "on message" here from first shot to last. There is no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the mess we are now in.

The film arrives, of course, amid recent revelations of Bush insiders Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill, the turmoil over the 9/11 commission and the growing sense that the Iraq problem is not going away anytime soon. And the very public dust-up between Moore and the Walt Disney Co.'s Michael Eisner, which has left Moore momentarily without a distributor, certainly raises the film's profile even further. So the film should reach a large enough audience; the question is: Will Moore be preaching to the choir?

Charting the American political scene over the past 3 1/2 years, Moore is forced to rely mostly on other people's material. The assertion that America's Saudi policy has been determined largely by financial ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royals -- including another Saudi clan, the bin Ladens -- comes largely from "House of Bush, House of Saud," by Craig Unger, whom he interviews.

The Bush White House's obsession with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 despite overwhelming evidence that al-Qaida was behind the attacks comes from former counterterrorism czar Clarke in his book "Against All Enemies." Most of the film's interviews come from TV network news shows or CNN's Larry King.

There is one piece of new information. When the White House released the president's duty records with the Texas Air National Guard, a name was censored. Moore reveals this name to belong to James R. Bath, a fellow airman who became friendly with George W. Bush and who wound up as a financial adviser to the bin Ladens. Much of their money was invested in Bush-related companies. Certainly an interesting fact, but this serves only to further demonstrate the already known oil business ties between the Bushes and Saudis.

The movie begins with the contested 2000 presidential election. Moore takes the usual anti-Bush view that the election was stolen. Moore then characterizes Bush as country bumpkin in the initial months of his presidency, spending 42% of his time on vacation and falling rapidly in public opinion polls.

Then comes 9/11. Moore touchingly conveys this day of infamy with a montage of sounds and visuals that refrains from showing images of airplanes hitting buildings or the World Trade Center collapsing. Instead, we get noise of horror over a blank screen, then shots of crying, horrified people staring into a sky filling with smoke and debris.

Moore recounts the Afghanistan invasion, the "botched" search for Osama bin Laden and the administration's fear-mongering through constantly upgraded, color-coded levels of the terrorist threat issued by the Homeland Security Department, all designed to make the public more willing to back the invasion of Iraq.

Even if one agrees with all of Moore's arguments, the film reduces decades of American foreign policy failures to a black-and-white cartoon that lays the blame on one family. He ignores such facts as the policy to arm and support Afghan rebels began in the Carter administration. For that matter, the Clinton team never mounted a serious effort to go after al-Qaida even after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.

The Iraq violence is more gruesome than what normally appears on American TV. One particular sequence follows a Yank patrol on Christmas Eve, but Moore never identifies who shot the footage. Since Moore is very good at jumping in front of a camera when he is around, one can only assume he shot none of the Iraq footage. But his editing is designed to emphasize Iraqi suffering and GI indifference or even hostility.

The movie contains only one episode of Moore's patented "ambushes" of the famous. He collars congressmen leaving Capitol Hill and tries to persuade them to enlist their children to fight in Iraq. Not surprisingly, he has no takers.
When the movie devolves into problems of veteran benefits, harassment of peace groups or the grief of one family over a killed son, Moore simply loses his focus. These are worthy topics but have nothing to do with why the United States is in Iraq.

What Moore seems to be pioneering here is a reality film as an election-year device. The facts and arguments are no different than those that one can glean from political commentary or recently published books on these subjects. Only the impact of film may prove greater than the printed word. So the real question is not how good a film is "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- it is undoubtedly Moore's weakest -- but will a film help to get a president fired?

FAHRENHEIT 9/11
Dog East Dog Films and Wild Bunch
Credits: Screenwriter-director: Michael Moore; Producers: Kathleen Glynn, Jim Czarnecki; Director of photography: Mike Desjarlais; Music: Jeff Gibbs; Editors: Kurt Engfehr, Christopher Seward, T. Woody Richman.
No MPAA rating, running time 120 minutes

 

Actually, he has, in several swing states.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2570546

Bush 04 = Carter 80, Bush 92.

 

I won't ever see one of his works because they are biased trash. Waste of time.

If he ever happens to uncover anything noteworthy, others will pick up on it (actually, if he did not already pick it up from someone else).

E.g. , the whole Bush-Saudi connection thing is nothing, means nothing. What's his point?

Reread:

 

I don't really see the point of a movie like this.

 

Wow is Moore auditioning to be Jabba the Hutt? He is really getting large.

 

The Bin Laden flight thing means nothing.

The Bush family's very public and well documented coddling of the House of Saud and its members is very relevant, and very important to national security.

 

Just like your pResident.

 

I for one am SHOCKED that this film would go over so well amongst the Hollywood elite. I never would have guessed.

 

Oh.....I get it! Duh! At first I was so confused...then it made such sense. He's wrong...because he's fat! I can be such a dolt, sometimes, don't know why I didn't twig to that immediately.

 

No he's wrong because he is fat, misguided, distorted, idiotic, and filled with immense hate, froth, and hot air...

Perhaps he will die of a heart attack soon enough...

 

Wussy socialists from Europe love American socialist's attack piece masquerading as "art." What news is there in that? Of course they're going to love it. Just like conservatives trip all over themselves to say how great Sean Hannity's new book is, for example.

 

I don't think so.

If there's a point to it all, please share it.

 

That's nice.

 

And Bush is wrong because he's "stupid" and can't play poker.

 

Wow, and we're the ones full of hate.

From this post and Uncle_Tim's signature mocking the death of four students in the 70s, y'all are really giving conservatives a good name.

 

Well, personally, I'll wait for the movie to judge it, even though Moore's history (and even his current distortions regarding the distribution of this film, which may or may not be his fault as we've not heard what Harvey Weinstein told Moore and his people) doesn't make it seem promising.

The reviews talking about Moore cribbing so much from other sources makes me think he might be trying to fight the biggest criticism of Bowling for Columbine (i.e. the ease in disproving many of the distortions within the film). He may have stuck to a more defendable tack throughout the movie because he didn't want it to be so easy to pick apart factually (a defendable tack being one which has other sources that have done the legwork. At the very least, he can point to the book and blame it for any misrepresentations, if there are any).

But, like I said, I'll wait to see it before deciding what I think about it.

Although I will say that if he sticks to needing a July 4th premiere date, he's going to have trouble with distributors and theaters. July 2nd works just as well AND it's a Friday rather than a Sunday.

I just hope he doesn't claim that distributors are trying to silence him if they won't go along with releasing the movie on a Sunday.