| Overall Grade: |
A |
|
| Story: |
B+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
A+ |
|
|
| Direction: |
A+ |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A+ |
|
|
A Liberal's Catharsis: Bush is not the problem
by Michael (movies profile)
Dec 24, 2007
4044
of
5194 people found this review helpful
During the two hours and change of Michael Moore's scathing "Fahrenheit 9/11," I came to a very slow, yet crucial realization:
George W. Bush is not the cause of all that is wrong and corrupt within the United States government. He is, however, a major pawn and a figure head.
Yes, the film is funny. Yes, people gape at Bush and laugh at what he says. Yes, Moore's ability to catch unsuspecting people flat-footed draws good laughs. But will Moore's film be effective?
In a sense, yes. And in another, no.
Michael Moore's film may actually be counter-productive to his declared intention of ousting Bush from the White House. I left the theater cursing not, specifically, Bush, but the money-hungry (and power wielding) massive corporations which use W's (and his father's) political sway and business savvy to increase their profits. Bush, himself, is a moron. This isn't my personal opinion so much as it is common sense. If you met a Joe Schmoe on the street who acted and talked like Bush, you'd disregard him as an ignorant redneck/hillbilly.
The more I thought about this idea in particular (namely, Bush being a moron), the more it confirmed my belief that if the Enrons and Halliburtons and Bin Laden oil industries had their way, they would have selected (and had elected, presumably) a much more articulate, intelligent man who could at least avoid the, again, common-sense conclusion of being a puppet on strings.
No, Bush *himself* doesn't need to go per se- the driving force of money and power that created "Bush" need to be ousted. That's a crucial difference to what I thought coming into the film.
What else do I realize? Republicans aren't the problem, specifically.. Ironically, they'd be part of the solution if they'd acknowledge that in the process of "generating wealth," they were doing so nearly exclusive to the upper-upper-middle class to the rich, and not at ALL catering to the lower tax brackets. And sure, the hairbrained ideals of "decency" and moral stifling they advocate makes me wonder why America has more laws and less freedoms than dozens of countries around the world.
Anyway, Democrats certainly aren't the solution of our government's woes either, because they target (incorrectly) Republicans as the source of unquestionable government corruption. Republicans aren't the problems- the people pulling the strings (the major corporations) are the issue. Republicans, sure, they may be, but their status as villains wouldn't change even IF they were Democrats.
But yes, y'all came here to read my thoughts on the film.
First of all, it is a film. People somehow seem to think the term "documentary" entails an unbiased representation of the fact, but as Roger Ebert pointed out in his weekly "Ask the Movie Man" section, that's actually never the case. Just as it's impossible for a scientist to research anything without interfering with the thing being studied, it's impossible to present a story without taking SOME side to it. All of this being said, the film is well done from a style and plot construction point. Moore is scathing towards Bush, yes, but the way in which he achieves this end is perhaps the most important aspect of the film:
He lets Bush hang himself.
Some of the things Bush says, in any context, defy reason. Again, I allude to him *probably* not being the ideal candidate for the Republicans in 2000, but someone with a famous father and lineage who could win and achieve party interests. Bush has never shown an ability to think on his feet, a fact compounded by the fewest number of presidential speeches/appearances (for lack of better term) since the onset of television/mass media.
Does Moore take the liberty of crucifying a man not very well suited for public speaking? Without question, but ultimately, that's Bush's own fault as well. Moore shouldn't be criticized for including some of the ridiculous things Bush says- they're in the public domain, and as any D+ student of US civics could tell you, the principles of the US constitution and Bill of Rights are framed around the ideas of accountability and distribution of power. Public ignorance (which is rampant, about everything) is a derelection of our civic duties as American Citizens.
Moore's conclusion of the war in Iraq being a pre-meditated plan by the administration BEFORE 9/11 is probably accurate, though Moore makes it seem all the more damning by insinuating Bush used 9/11 as a gateway to striking Iraq.
The film contains enough footage (most damningly a business summit to discuss Iraqi contracting bids and money DURING the fight) and enough Bush family corporate-advisors turning into ambassadors to create, nearly beyond the shadow of a doubt, a reality that yes, Saudi interests had a great deal of influence in how Bush handled a politically difficult situation like 9/11. Did Bush act inappropriately? As leader of the "free world" and of the United States of America, yes.
As a businessman, absolutely not.
That, for me, is the crucial point in which I agree with Moore. Bush's actions (and inactions) make complete sense from a business standpoint. I'd say the ideas and notions reek of conspiracy theories were I not watching Saudi officials basically saying what Moore hinted at. Throw in that Moore has argued a journalistic fact-checking team to immediately attack (and sue) any person or organization which attempt to slander or libel him, and I'm forced to say that yes, Moore's presented information is nearly beyond reproach.
If anything, the inaccuracies of "Bowling for Columbine" will not hurt Moore, but only enhance the credibility of "Fahrenheit 9/11" because of the excessive efforts he has made to make "Fahrenheit" infallible. At this point, and this is crucial, POINTING TO BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE'S ERRORS IS A MOOT POINT BECAUSE THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IN FAHRENHEIT 9/11 IS VERIFIED.
So any mindless blubbering about comparing the two is worthless, because they're two separate works. Will right-wing interests (who, again, are as misguided in their hatred of a "liberal" (see: right-exercising man)) attempt to make this correlation? Absolutely, and with moderate success because of something Hitler once said:
"How fortunate for men in power that people do not think."
Moore's critics will say he shamelessly exploited grieving people towards his own ends. I actually entered the movie fresh off of reading Ebert's review in which he said more or less the same thing (several other critics agreed with this). However, as I watched the people on screen talk to more during these "exploitative events," I found myself in disbelief:
How could these critics miss out on the fact that the people in question WANTED their voices to be heard, and WANTED their grief known? They're enraged over their personal losses, and Moore provided them with a microphone to speak out. Exploited? Not at all. Moore used them just as much as they used him.
What of the Marine recruitors who literally targeted potential recruits as "fresh meat?" I don't have a clue what those recruitors were thinking. Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, whoever was behind the camera filming, you just don't say the type of things they were saying. Exploited indeed- praying off of the ignorance (and innocence) of uneducated, predominantly BLACK men in an attempt to nab enlistment for a cause losing support hardly embodies noble intentions or methods.
My sister made the most telling statement on our way out of the theater and on our way to the parking lot. She observed, "The people who really need to see this film never will." I agree. Bush has sold himself on being an idea, a concept. Bush is clearly not someone we want to act as a spokesperson for the United States. He's a concept that people buy into: a concept of American Pride, "don't mess with texas," and down-south sincerity (disguised as stupidity) that paints a picture of an everyman.
Will Fahrenheit 9/11 change the political scope of a nation like Thomas Paine's Common Sense did? Probably not. Let's say Bush loses in 2004 (an increasing probability). Kerry wins.
Will major corporations just stop attempting to exude power and influence over Congress and the White House? Of course not. The problem will remain the same. Perhaps what makes Bush "worse" than Kerry at this point is his ties and now-exposed-and-hated ties to industry and profit off of a war he declared on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and posed no threat to any country. Fahrenheit 9/11 reiterated repeatedly the cause of the war.
As one Marine puts it best, he and his troops patrol the areas surrounding the coveted oil fields for around $2-3k a month. Behind them, driving trucks and operating around fields protected by the Marines with their necks on the block, the Halliburton engineers earn $10-20k a month. The tragedy of Iraq, and of not just the Bush administration but the government as a whole, is how the people who benefit most invest the least. It is the uneducated, the under-privledged, and the needy, who comprise our armed forces. Their actions and sacrifices, with promise of little pay, tragically (and ironically) provide the pathway for the rich to get richer. |
My Public Profile 
