Well, I finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. I was actually surprised, I expected a lot more animated finger-pointing and wild accusations. Instead I simply found endless circular arguments and nebulous facts edited in a leading way. It wasn’t as if Michael Moore was showing numerous newclips/soundsbites and connecting the conspiratorial dots for you, it was more like he threw up the dots and hinted in an elbow-knudging, rhetorical way at how they should be connected.
As a skeptic, and someone who prides themself on critical thinking, I thought on the whole it was rather unconvincing. I like my documentaries based on arguments and evidence. I have been told that I “expect too much.”
Anyways if you have seen or will see this film I would like to recommend the 9/11 Commission Report preparation exercise prior to viewing the film, and this interesting Slate article by Christopher Hitchens as a follow-up exercise.
Oh and one more thing, I can’t believe this won at Cannes…
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « This is getting embarrassing
- » A welcome trend
COMMENTS / 2 COMMENTS
SpaceFish added these pithy words on 23 Oct 04 at 11:08 pmI had problems with the movie as well. He played the same game as the Bush Administration, trying to lead the audience to draw conclusions without actually explictely stating anything. (Iraq and Bin Laden are intimately connected.) The only difference was that one guy was making a movie to make money, the other guy was getting the public to back a war that would kill thousands of people. I find it funny you choose to critisize the former. :P
As for the Christopher Hitchens review, it just sounded like he was jealous that his own documentaries aren’t blockbusters like Moores are.
This is a great spoof of the movie: ( a bit slow in parts but the kite flying orc kid is worth the price of admission )
Younghusband added these pithy words on 24 Oct 04 at 1:48 amOh believe me, I have a whole bag of criticism reserved for the the war in Iraq, in particular the argument leading up to the war, the PR during the war, and the sloppy second-phase execution.
I think there were a few very interesting facts that came up in the film though. Things that could stand on their own without any slick editing. For example how Prince Bandar has a contingent of Secret Servicemen covering him at all times (to read more about the Saudi-US relationship read Bob Baer’s book , not as good as his first one, but interesting all the same). To bad he didn’t actually go anywhere with these facts, no investigation, just a lot of wink-wink nudge-nudge.
We also watched the extras on the DVD, and the short thing on the Swedish journalist that was embedded in Charlie Company, which was posted in Samarra. This part of the DVD I found most convincing because it had filmed documentation of prisoner abuse. No speculation. No Bonanza music. But then again that guy was journalist.
By the way, that link was hilarious. The comb scene was too funny.
