Harvard Square Cinema, Cambridge, MA

*** ½ / ****

by Scott Muoio

Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ was undoubtedly the cinematic event of 2003. Love it, hate it, or otherwise, The Passion stirred emotion and got people talking about the film’s subject matter long after its blockbuster opening weekend, a feet certainly praiseworthy regardless of your opinion of the movie. But at the end of the day, The Passion was just a movie: one man’s interpretation of events from thousands of years ago. It wasn’t necessarily truth and it didn’t purport to be. A mere six months into 2004, we have our next cinematic juggernaut event: Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. But unlike The Passion, Moore’s documentary claims absolute truth and authenticity. It is unquestionably the first in a new wave of filmmaking with a direct and personal agenda never afforded a work of fiction, and something we are bound to see much more of in the near future.

As a cinematic event and informative bit of filmmaking, Fahrenheit is a must-see for all Americans. The movie’s goal, which is completely straight forward, unapologetic, and often times giddy in its unabashed denunciation of everything President Bush, is to make as many evil and corrupt connections between this President, his administration, and bad guys around the world as it possibly can. It certainly does that, and as such, is impossible to merely toss aside as bitter slander. Yet for all its effective mudslinging there remains a glaring problem with Michael Moore’s approach: he begins with the terrorist attacks of September 11^th2001 but fails to elaborate on the reasons for the tragedy.

In my opinion, if Moore wants to begin his film with September 11^th and truly wants to make a movie about that event and its aftermath, he should have shown how on earth Bush and company can defend their policies and actions against sharp and pointed criticisms. It is one thing for Moore to put up the facts as he sees them for all to ingest, it is another, bolder action to test those facts by outlaying the opposition’s side as well. Moore is clear in his argument, but not for one moment does he offer up an ounce of the opposition’s reasoning. Sure, Michael Moore has never been in the business of portraying both sides of a story, but if he is serious about changing minds without merely snowballing them, offering a diversity of opinion is the only fair way to do it.

Unfortunately, Moore instead uses charisma and chutzpah to show that the poor are often the martyrs of big money wars, that Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family have ties to the Bush family that go back generations, that big business is still in charge of not only the economy of America but its political policy as well, that the war in Iraq has more to do with the preservation of America’s elite individuals and their business interests than terrorism, and that the Machiavellian canon of fearful control is far from a thing of the past with the Bush administration. It is convincing rhetoric for sure, and I believe much of his bigger ideas are truth, but the sad fact is Moore nearly ruins his film with the aforementioned blind eye to the opposition and by his own on-camera showboating.

The weakest moments in the film involve Moore shamelessly following a grieving mother of a dead soldier with a camera until her heart nearly falls out, harassing senators to enlist their children in the military, endless shots of Bush making “funny” faces, and more than one quote portrayed out of context for Moore’s own personal agenda: Anyone But Bush in 2004. Moore’s own image does more harm than good for his cause, and if he is to ever affect change in a meaningful way and bring the masses to his point of view, I imagine it will only come when he humbles himself and ditches the grandstanding, self-promoting theatrics.

Griping aside, I liked this movie and think we could do with more like it. Far from uplifting and skirting the issue of laisse fair capitalism as the root of America’s problems, the film nevertheless makes its points without falling into the documentary trap/manipulation technique of endless stats distorted in the name of truth and agenda. Rather, Moore connects the dots that are really all too obvious yet sadly pushed underground by mainstream media and big money interests. Yes, Moore seems to be carrying a pro-Democrat agenda, and this may be a bit trite coming from someone who recently bashed Bill Clinton in print as a Republican in Democrat’s clothing yet more-or-less heralded Clinton/Gore here, but Moore is clear sighted in his attack on Bush and goes for the jugular, a brave and daring move, especially in a time of endless security searches and the Almighty Patriot Act. Moore effectively shows how the Bushes, oil, Saudi Arabia, and the bin Laden family have been in cahoots for generations, a haunting revelation that puts the expression “it’s a small world after all” in the most vile and unnerving context. However, beneath these revelations, there are flaws in Moore’s logic.

The biggest hole in Moore’s ultimate thesis regarding the connection between Bush and the bin Ladens is why did September 11^th happen in the first place? Adding insult to injury, by titling his film after September 11^th yet failing to address the question “why was America attacked,” Moore opens the floodgates for easy criticism. If the Bushes and the bin Ladens and Saudi Arabia and The Taliban were so tight, why would either side bite the hand that feeds them? Calling Osama merely one bad apple in an otherwise savory bucket just doesn’t cut the mustard for me; on the contrary, there is a little expression that seems far more accurate for this particular situation: the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Almost everyone involved in “the system” is corrupt, and for Moore to hide behind the flag of the Democratic Party, which has plenty of blood on its own hands, is as cowardly an act as the man he hopes to cripple with this documentary.

It is my hope that somewhere, sometime, someone will be brave enough to throw off political agenda, forget about censorship and finger points of racism and bigotry, and tackle the true reason and explanation behind the horrendous events of September 11^th. Until that day, Michael Moore’s approach of merely calling a spade a spade but failing to offer any actual solutions to our country’s numerous problems while continuing to bask in his own spotlight will be the best we’ve got. With Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has created a top-notch riveting angry criticism; now if only he could offer up some useful solutions to his venomous targets and stop pandering to the equally corrupt Democratic base, than we’d be getting somewhere.