dubya & me: moore depicts the prez as a buffoon.
I finally watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. It is, without question, Michael Moore's most ambitious, well-produced, focused, and provocative film to date. I say that not as an ardent supporter or detractor of Moore. I say that because this film doesn't suffer from the same pitfalls as Bowling for Columbine in that it doesn't wander off and become a Michael Moore wankfest.
Let's be straight, though. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a commentary more than anything else. Think of it as a filmed version of a liberal op-ed piece. It takes shots at Democrats. It takes shots at Republicans. It takes shots at the media. It takes shots at the current administration. It takes shots at the Bush family. It takes shots at the Saudis. And most of all, it takes shots at the president.
What I found most interesting was the fact that Bush isn't portrayed as a mastermind, a cunning leader, or a clever man. He's played out as a bumbling halfwit who couldn't pick up a clue even if it had handles. Truth be told, Bush was less of a character in this movie than I expected. He was there mostly for comic relief. Although Moore all but accuses Bush of stealing the 2000 election. I'm not sure any of us have the desire to relive that year, do we?
The most difficult sequences in this movie are the war scenes. Moore indicts mainstream media in the U.S. for not showing the reality of war -- the deaths, the casualties, the destruction. He shows it, dead babies and all. It's difficult and painful to see, but it drives home the point that war -- any war -- should be a last option. And most of all, it should be waged against the people who attacked the U.S. (Osama bin who?).
I'm not sure I'm down with the Bush-is-connected-to-Osama line that Moore purports in Fahrenheit 9/11, but I am behind the notion that the Iraq war was senseless.
To the anti-Moore folks out there who think this is all a ploy to elevate the Democratic party, think again. Moore calls out the DNC leadership for not taking a stand against Bush's policies. Granted, he doesn't give it the same weight as when he goes after the Bush administration, but he's not stroking any DNC egos here.
I don't know that I could say I "enjoyed" this movie because it's such a heavy subject. I do know that I am glad I saw it. Did it change my views? Not really, but I come away feeling sad about the war and the combatants. I feel sad for the Iraqi people. I feel sad for the families of soldiers.
While Michael Moore may be a lightning rod for conservatives and liberals, at least he's offering a different voice than the parroted news on mainstream media outlets.
It's most interesting to me the amount of conservative critics to this film who have never seen it. People always fear something that challenges demagoguery. It happened with The Last Temptation of Christ. It's happening with any criticism of George W. Bush and his war in Iraq.
I recommend Fahrenheit 9/11 to everybody. Will it change the way you vote? I don't know. But what are you afraid of seeing here?
Let's be straight, though. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a commentary more than anything else. Think of it as a filmed version of a liberal op-ed piece. It takes shots at Democrats. It takes shots at Republicans. It takes shots at the media. It takes shots at the current administration. It takes shots at the Bush family. It takes shots at the Saudis. And most of all, it takes shots at the president.
What I found most interesting was the fact that Bush isn't portrayed as a mastermind, a cunning leader, or a clever man. He's played out as a bumbling halfwit who couldn't pick up a clue even if it had handles. Truth be told, Bush was less of a character in this movie than I expected. He was there mostly for comic relief. Although Moore all but accuses Bush of stealing the 2000 election. I'm not sure any of us have the desire to relive that year, do we?
The most difficult sequences in this movie are the war scenes. Moore indicts mainstream media in the U.S. for not showing the reality of war -- the deaths, the casualties, the destruction. He shows it, dead babies and all. It's difficult and painful to see, but it drives home the point that war -- any war -- should be a last option. And most of all, it should be waged against the people who attacked the U.S. (Osama bin who?).
I'm not sure I'm down with the Bush-is-connected-to-Osama line that Moore purports in Fahrenheit 9/11, but I am behind the notion that the Iraq war was senseless.
To the anti-Moore folks out there who think this is all a ploy to elevate the Democratic party, think again. Moore calls out the DNC leadership for not taking a stand against Bush's policies. Granted, he doesn't give it the same weight as when he goes after the Bush administration, but he's not stroking any DNC egos here.
I don't know that I could say I "enjoyed" this movie because it's such a heavy subject. I do know that I am glad I saw it. Did it change my views? Not really, but I come away feeling sad about the war and the combatants. I feel sad for the Iraqi people. I feel sad for the families of soldiers.
While Michael Moore may be a lightning rod for conservatives and liberals, at least he's offering a different voice than the parroted news on mainstream media outlets.
It's most interesting to me the amount of conservative critics to this film who have never seen it. People always fear something that challenges demagoguery. It happened with The Last Temptation of Christ. It's happening with any criticism of George W. Bush and his war in Iraq.
I recommend Fahrenheit 9/11 to everybody. Will it change the way you vote? I don't know. But what are you afraid of seeing here?
