Fahrenheit 9/11

By K.L. Kuo, Chinese Section

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 won the Palme d’Or award more because of its political stand than for its artistic achievements. This seems quite evident for anyone who has seen the film, even though the jury of the Cannes Film festival headed by American director Tarantino denied it. As a political instrument, it could indeed be very damaging to the present administration, especially after all the publicity in the media and when the election is less than six months away. On more than one occasion Moore has openly stated that this is the real intention behind the film.
The film can be roughly divided into three parts. In the first part, Moore tries to demonstrate that the present occupant of the White House did not win the presidential election of 2000 legitimately, and that he spent most of his time at the beginning of his term vacationing .The second part deals with the attack on the World Trade Center (hence the name of the film’s title which also refers to Ray Bradbury’s book and Francois Truffaut’s film “Fahrenheit 451”. In this part, Moore is more keen to demonstrate the financial relations between the Ben Laden family and the Bush family, rather than the actual event. He pointed out that just after September 11, when all flights in the US were being grounded, the Ben Laden family and some other rich Saudis were able to fly out of the country with special permission from the White House. The third part of the film is about the war in Iraq and its consequences. It shows that the war has made the life of Iraqi people even more miserable than under the former dictator. On the American front, GIs express their disillusionment at this pointless war, while at home military recruiters try by every means to enlist youngsters in the country’s poorest neighbourhoods.
As a film, Fahrenheit 9/11 is not as good as his earlier works. It is rather uneven, some of the scenes are funny and provocative, but others are superficial. It lacks the meticulous structure of Bowling for Columbine. Probably this is because the subject matter is too vast, and it is impossible to cover every topic with consistency. There is also too much readily available footage to be chosen from, and in Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore uses it more than he usually does, though he cleverly avoids this in the second part where the actual images of the attack on the twin towers are blacked out, leaving only the soundtrack and creating thus a much stronger impression in the viewer’s mind. However in the third part, many of the scenes are already familiar from television, at least on the European channels and this gives one a feeling of déjà vu.
The originality of Moore’s previous films was that he conducted a lot of interviews with personalities and that with his apparently innocent questions he was often able to corner them step by step and make them reveal the real intention behind their acts or the inconsistency between what they say and what they do. His interview in Bowling for Columbine with the then president of the National Rifle Association Charlton Heston was a fine example. He does try to do the same thing in Fahrenheit 9/11 by approaching congressmen, asking what they thought of the fact that among all the congressmen only one had a child servicing in Iraq. But Moore had already acquired such a reputation that he was avoided like a mad dog.
Moore’s previous films were subtler, more analytic and rational, while in Fahrenheit 9/11 he seems to get carried away by his personal feelings. This film is more emotionally pitched and lacks the distance, which is essential for a documentary whose aim is to go deeper than mere images and not just to manipulate them. The film is too close to the reality. It fails to keep up with the rapid development of events. For example when the film was made, the abuse of Iraqi prisoner by the American occupying force had not been disclosed yet.
On the other hand, this appeal to emotions was probably deliberate, because it has enabled the film to reach a wider American public than his usual intellectual followers.
If this is the case, this objection is unimportant since the end justifies the means.