Up to now, I haven’t had much interest in seeing the film that earned Michael Moore the ever-lasting enmity of political conservatives, namely his anti-Bush polemic Fahrenheit 9/11. I figured there was little point, since my opinions of the incumbent president and his administration are already well-developed and, I believe, well-informed. I had a pretty good idea of what charges Moore would level against Bush in this film, and they’re all issues I’ve learned about through other sources, so I didn’t need to see F9/11 for educational purposes. Nor did I need the film to stir up my political passions, because the daily headlines are usually sufficient for that. Finally, there was the deterrant effect produced by Moore himself. If he was a typical documentarian who stayed safely behind the camera, there wouldn’t be a problem in that regard, but one of the valid criticisms of Moore is that he likes to take center-stage in his films. In short, it often seems that Michael Moore’s movies are less about the subject matter than they are about Michael Moore.

However, after thinking and writing so much about the UVSC controversy over the past few days, my curiosity was aroused. And so, with Anne away on her Church history tour and nothing better to do on a fine early-autumn Saturday, I decided to go ahead and have a look at what it is that has everyone’s panties in a bunch.

The film was playing at exclusively at Brewvies, a unique Salt Lake venue that combines a movie theater with pool tables, food and beer to produce the state’s only “cinema pub.” Not surprisingly, this venue tends to cater mostly to people of the more liberal persuasion, and the fact that this was the only place in the valley that was playing F9/11 perhaps says as much about the compartmentalized nature of Utah’s political culture as the UVSC situation. I walked into Brewvies ten minutes late, politely informed the activist in the lobby that I was already registered to vote, thank you very much, then got myself a draft Cutthroat and settled in with about a half-dozen other (presumed) liberals to hear what “our guy” had to say.

I won’t bother to discuss the content of the film here, other than to note that F9/11 rambles through a litany of familiar left-wing complaints about President Bush, ranging from the still-troublesome election of 2000 to Bush’s apparent inattention in the days leading up to the 9/11 attacks to the unseemly connections between the Bushes and the wealthy families that control Saudi Arabia, including the bin Ladens. The movie finally gets up to speed when it touches on Afghanistan, the USA PATRIOT Act, and, for a big finish, the war in Iraq. Depending on your level of political sophistication — that is, how closely you follow the blogs and the various whistleblower books that have been released over the last four years — none of Moore’s assertions are news, which makes me wonder exactly who was the intended audience for this film. Hardcore liberals already know this stuff. Hardcore conservatives are unlikely to believe any anti-Bush argument that originates with Moore. And the small handful of undecideds in this country are likely to be put off by Moore’s blatant partisanship.

Even more troublesome (for me) is the question of the film’s intended purpose. Is it supposed to be informational? That is, is it supposed to serve as a piece of investigative journalism that informs people of facts that weren’t previously known? If so, then it falls far short of its goals because it fails to delve very deeply into any of the myriad points it raises, or to build any particular thesis beyond “Bush bad.” If the film doesn’t work as a piece of intellectualism, is it perhaps supposed to function on an emotional level, to rile people up enough to join the anti-Bush cause? It is somewhat successful on that level, although, as I noted, most of the people liable to see it are already firmly in that camp. In addition, if F9/11 is intended to function on that level, then it can’t honestly be called a documentary, as Moore tends to do. “Documentary” implies a certain objectivity, and there is little about this film that can be objective. Instead it appears to be exactly what Moore’s detractors say it is, a propaganda piece. But is that a bad thing? Honestly, I’m not sure.

These days the term “propaganda” has a negative connotation. People tend to associate it with brainwashing, or with the pro-Nazi films of Leni Riefenstahl. They think that propaganda is, by its very nature, untrue, and that only “bad guys” produce it. They forget that the United States produced an immense quantity of propaganda films during World War II, and they don’t understand that the most effective propaganda is built around kernels of truth, even if they are buried beneath layers of hyperbole. So how deeply buried is the truth in Fahrenheit 9/11? Again, it’s hard to say. As I noted, Moore doesn’t pursue any of the charges he makes against the Bush administration, to build an overwhelming case to prove his points. He seems content to stop at innuendo, guilt-by-association, and (his favorite tactic) the cheap shot. His propensity for taking cheap shots, while entertaining if you dislike Bush, is the film’s greatest weakness. All the jokes, all the film clips that are obviously chosen to make Bush look foolish or insensitive, tend to undermine the film’s credibility. Even I, an avowed liberal and certainly no fan of the president, started thinking that you could easily do to any politician what Moore does to Bush. Simply take some film of your target, freeze-frame it at a moment when the guy looks particularly goofy, add some pop music that conveys a particular message, and voila! You’ve just made someone look like an ass. (Of course, it’s pretty hard to argue that the president doesn’t look like an ass in the scenes that seem to catch him off-guard, the ones in which he drops his “everyman” persona and reveals the “fortunate son” beneath, the privileged child of wealth who expects others to kneel before their betters. Take, for example, the clip of Bush playing golf, in which he turns and essentially commands his lackeys to compliment him on his shot. If he was trying to be jokey, it doesn’t come across like it. He sounds more like Harvey Korman in History of the World, Part One calling for the piss-boy and pronouncing that, “it’s good to be the King.”)

Fahrenheit 9/11 is most effective when it’s focusing on Iraq. Moore includes graphic and often disturbing film footage that hasn’t been widely seen in the American media (which I’m sure my conservative friends would say was carefully chosen to illustrate a particular bias, a difficult point to argue) as well as interviews with a woman from his hometown (Flint, Michigan, made famous in his film Roger & Me) who lost her son in the war. For a change, Moore lets the camera run without inserting himself into the action, either in person or with an intrusive voice-over, and the depths of her grief are truly heartbreaking. The camera also follows this woman to Washington, D.C., on her quest to see the White House, to make some kind of contact with the forces that took her boy from her. In front of 1600 Pennsylvania, she stops in front of a shanty erected by a war protester, only to have a passerby get in her face and tell her that the anti-war people are telling her lies. It’s an infuriating moment, one that illustrates how the polarization of opinion in this country has led to a death of civility and, in many cases, a death of common sense.

Unfortunately, this segment is followed by a typical Moore moment in which he tries to stop congressmen on the street and convince them to sign up their own children for military service in Iraq. While he’s making a good point — the children of those in power rarely become cannon fodder for the wars their parents start — the stunt he uses to make his point is stupid and ham-handed. He’s been using this same tactic for fifteen years, ever since Roger & Me. It was effective back in 1989 because no one then knew who the hell this portly guy with the camera was. Now, the congresspeople know who Moore is and they practically run away from him rather than be made fools of. It’s not funny anymore, Mike…

And that sums up my feelings about Fahrenheit 9/11 as effectively as anything, I think: good points, poorly made. I didn’t necessarily disbelieve any of what Moore was saying about the president, but I didn’t find him convincing on an intellectual level, either. I kept thinking throughout the film that if this same information was presented in a sober manner and the evidence was assembled bit-by-bit until it really added up to something (think of the way the PBS series Frontline operates), then it would be something truly important and possibly even politically useful. As it is, the film is really just preaching to the choir. Either that or a red flag waved in front of the bulls of the opposition. It adds nothing to the conversation except more anger, and more name-calling.

None of which means that people shouldn’t be allowed to see it, which brings me back to the issue that sent me to Brewvies, the flap over Moore’s appearance at UVSC. I don’t have much more to say on this subject (no doubt my three readers are thanking God for that), but I would like to direct your attention to a wonderful Op-Ed piece in today’s Salt Lake Tribune. It’s written by Pierre Lamarche, an assistant philosophy professor at UVSC, and it provides a reassuring echo of what I’ve been trying to say here on Simple Tricks. Notable passages:

Given the political climate in Utah County, it seems reasonable to suggest that someone like Michael Moore would be useful in providing some kind of balance to the one-sided perspective that is offered, daily, by the [school] administration itself, and by the right-wing pundits who are so popular in that particular part of the state.

 

Opposition to Moore’s visit has little to do with the need for presenting fair and balanced perspectives on issues of great importance. …

 

When you disagree with the policies and direction your government is taking, you must voice your concerns, loudly and publicly — it is, indeed, your duty to do so as a citizen. Whether you agree or disagree with Michael Moore, that is precisely what he is doing. …

 

I fear that the truth is that those who oppose Moore’s visit are not interested in balanced perspectives on Iraq. They are discomfited by Moore’s vehement criticisms of the Bush administration. It’s disturbing to them and they would prefer not to hear those views at all, or, at the very least, to be comforted pre-emptively by views that do not challenge their conception of the administration or its conduct in Iraq.

After you finish reading Mr. Lamarche, take a look at Pat Bagley’s cartoon on the situation. Bagley has an undeniably leftward perspective, but he has a gentle hand that pokes fun at both sides of the cultural divide as well as a knack for cutting through the bovine stuff. Plus, I just think he’s damn funny…