Comments on: Unfondly Fahrenheit

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:25:53 +0000

There’s a second movie precisely on the runup to war via 9/11, called “Hijacking Catastrophe”, which can IIRC be ordered online for $20. It’s pretty good, in my opinion. Talking heads documentary with TV/document footage, largely.

By: mc

mc — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 07:54:16 +0000

In the end, the most obvious, but true, response is what he (they) said: Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

By: mc

mc — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 07:40:11 +0000

bradh: “Moore’s movie is for the blue-collar, lower and lower-middle class folks in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc. ” … and in Cannes ;) I guess you’re right about the main target, but you’ve got to take that award into account, as well as the worldwide popularity. Clearly his stuff can reach across diverse audiences. squeakyrat: “Fuck thoughtful reasoning — just crush the right.” Exactly. Fight fire with fire.

By: Robbo

Robbo — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:16:21 +0000

Moore is a crock. He might help the Democrats this year; but he’s also a potential landmine, IMO. He resorts to Nazi-esque propaganda techniques to lull the unthinking into his point of view—using half-truths, self-referentially incongruent theories, and outright misrepresentations of the statements of his opponents. If his movie ever gets associated with Kerry’s campaign in the public’s mind, and the depths of his deceptive techniques and lack of professionalism are fully exposed, he could sink Kerry. The current political trend to let spin be god not withstanding, if Michael Moore is helping the Kerry win, it’s a sad day for our country’s political process. On a related note, this link is to the best analysis I’ve seen of F9/11 so far (By Christopher Hitchens): http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

By: Robbo

Robbo — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:15:12 +0000

Moore is a crock. He might help the Democrats this year; but he’s also a potential landmine, IMO. He resorts to Nazi-esque propaganda techniques to lull the unthinking into his point of view—using half-truths, self-referentially incongruent theories, and outright misrepresentations of the statements of his opponents. If his movie ever gets associated with Kerry’s campaign in the public’s mind, and the depths of his deceptive techniques and lack of professionalism are fully exposed, he could sink Kerry. The current political trend to let spin be god not withstanding, if Michael Moore is helping the Democrats, it’s a sad day for democracy. On a related note, this link is to the best analysis I’ve seen of F9/11 so far (By Christopher Hitchens): http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

By: Sean Carroll

Sean Carroll — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 20:55:47 +0000

I used to know how to send a trackback/followup here, but either the process has changed or I’ve forgotten. Anyway, my two cents are here.

By: bradh

bradh — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:01:40 +0000

Moore’s movie is not for us, the intellectual elite. As such, it isn’t trying to prove any specific factual assertion a-la forensics club. Moore’s movie is for the blue-collar, lower and lower-middle class folks in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc. It’s the same message as Roger & Me. It’s all about the (really quite well focused from this view) parade of imagery exploding the popular myth of Bush as an ordinary Texas kind of guy and showing him instead as a heriditary member of an elite whose lives are nothing like the rest of ours. He wants to show that this group of which Bush is a part doesn’t play by the same rules as the rest of us, and they don’t want us to find out. That their public personas are a sham. That’s the point of all the pre-live camera preening, make-up, etc. It’s not just cheap shots. It’s about showing that what a carefully put on face they choose to show us, while off-camera they’re puffing cigars with Saudi princes. He doesn’t even have to prove that Bush lied about the war to get his message across. The lies aren’t important. Most of his real target thinks invading Iraq was a good idea even if Bush did lie. Moore merely has to demonstrate, and has demonstrated, that whatever other motives may exist, the Bush elite never stops looking out for itself and its cronies, and will happily take opportunities to do so on the backs of the working class and poor who make up the military. He showed convincingly that if they’re not utterly indifferent to the suffering and death they’ve caused to the invisible poor people, they’re at least willing to get over it for the right price. That’s a powerful message for its’ target audience; the very same audience the Bush campaign is also trying very hard to target with messages about what a “liberal Taxachusetts elitist” John Kerry is compared to Bush’s “family values”.

By: SqueakyRat

SqueakyRat — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:36:58 +0000

Fuck thoughtful reasoning—just crush the right.

By: Motoko Kusanagi

Motoko Kusanagi — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 08:36:45 +0000

“Two insightful documentaries, Control Room about Al-Jazeera, and Corporation about just what it says, are playing to small art house audiences in the US this week while Moore’s muddled flailing about is being hailed by the left-wing version of Passion of the Christ boosters as the Revelation of the Ages.” Aa a matter of fact, Michael Moore is quite prominently present in The Corporation. Which, by the way, didn’t seem to me to be the insightful film you say it is. Contrarily, it could function as more evidence that film isn’t really the medium for thoughtful reasoning. Interviewee: “A corporation is like a shark!” Inspired director, in the editing room: “Give me stock footage of a very mean-looking white shark!”

By: mc

mc — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 08:09:56 +0000

I’m with pathological optimist here. And it should be added, you won’t find many photos of Presidents doing business with the family of the guy accused of masterminding the biggest terrorist attack ever, whose father and brother happened to perish in odd circumstances in plane accidents in Texas and New Mexico within a few years of each other, and whose family and associates whose identity is not known were swiftly flown out of the US the day after that biggest attack, courtesy of the US government. Maybe, because there’s so many wacky conspiracy theorists in the US tradition, there’s a general reluctance to even acknowledge things that do sound like innuendos to wacko conspiracy theories, except they’re real, and rather relevant. Aliens and Elvis sightings get more attention than politically important facts. Isn’t it bizarre? Also, I don’t get why the option has to be either accepting US-Saudi relations as they are and have been for decades, OR single-handedly destroying world economy. Either you say nothing and don’t ask questions, OR you are a catastrophist. I’m starting to understand why Bush & mates get away with murder. I can’t say about the film or Moore, but perhaps the really sad thing is that it takes a film like that to bring some big questions to the fore. The fact they’re not asked anywhere else in such a prominent fashion. steve carr – “In any case, if George W. is in the Saudis’ back pocket, how do we explain the fact that he is the most pro-Israel president in American history? Or how do we explain the toppling of the Taliban, which the Saudis opposed, or the invasion of Iraq, which the Saudis opposed?” Doesn’t that sound a bit simplistic to you? you’re making it sound as if you’re discussing a film plot that you find incoherent. Since the 30’s, the US has been supporting both the Sauds and Israel. It’s always been a dodgy but profitable balance. India similarly has deals both with Israel and Iran, if that doesn’t make sense to you, it’s just because your way of thinking is too reductive. Geopolitical strategies and financial-military interests don’t work in straightforward fashion. We the people can’t understand the half of it, but you can’t apply those either/or expectations that clearly don’t fit in the real world. Forget Bush, forget Moore, read something about the kind of relations the US was handling during the 70’s and 80’s in this respect. It’s kind of funny to see people nitpick on how many billions exactly the Sauds have invested where, as if it was just a matter of fiscal accountability. It’s not just the Sauds either. Read a bit about the history of the BCCI, for instance. I think this administration’s biggest success is convincing people that the policies of the cold war and the Kissinger-style realpolitik have been completely swept away in favour of “exporting democracy”. Bush has not single-handedly created anything, he’s just the culmination of years and years of the same old story. Is it too tacky and populist and conspiracy-minded to ask, where did that investigation into the 9/11 insider trading end, and why? shouldn’t that be an obvious question, and a rather important one too? They’re filling prisons with people picked from Afghan fields and Iraqi streets and when they have a lead to the bank accounts of people who speculated on the attack and made millions out of it, they don’t follow it, and it all gets forgotten? How is that not a big deal? I don’t care how bad Moore sucks, at least he’s bringing these questions out. Maybe the worst effect is that he’s discrediting them by association, but that again says a lot more about a certain mentality than about him. If some people find it easier to dismiss troubling but real stuff just because it’s brought up in a flamboyant way, then it kind of proves his point about propaganda, doesn’t it? Meanwhile, your current government happily manages for the fourth year in a row to be spared a fraction of the questioning a big fat obnoxious film director is getting for being so big and so obnoxious. Hurrah for democracy.

By: SqueakyRat

SqueakyRat — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 05:24:23 +0000

So, how does “completely incoherent” sit with “not incompatible, exactly”? Are they not incompatible, exactly, or are they completely incoherent?

By: Lance Boyle

Lance Boyle — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:33:29 +0000

“…jostling for room – Bush as tool of American big business, Bush as catspaw of Saudi oil interests, Bush as lackey of the security establishment, Bush as cigarette industry flunkey, Bush as dimwitted doofus…” That’s a vividly accurate depiction of what’s on the minds of most awake Americans right now. Something’s happening, something stinks, but what? All of the above works, but all of the above plus X works even better. The most important question is whether Kerry’s aligned with X. That question’s more important than whether Bush’s ties to corrupt sheikhs clouded the real cause of 9/11. If we don’t know who did it we’re going to have a hard time stopping them from doing it again. The idea that Kerry will block a Republican Congress only matters if he isn’t in the pocket of whoever or whatever put American soldiers permanently in Iraq. Bush spent America’s future on that. There’s a massive resistance to knowing exactly who told Bush what to do. Nothing points up the extent of that denial and resistance more than people who insist he did it all by his pointy-headed self. – Things will start to seem inevitable now, but we didn’t have to go this way, it wasn’t necessary, not for America as a promised ideal, or as a country of 300 million anxious souls. A small selfish minority of people has taken us through the guard-rail. I don’t think Moore pins it, I think he’s electing Kerry at the expense of the truth, and I think he knows more about the truth than his movie gives out.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:44:25 +0000

If I remember correctly, PBS Frontline has done more than a couple good documentaries on the Iraq War and Bush administration. Tho “biting, savage, funny” isn’t really their style.

By: nick

nick — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:28:26 +0000

I think Atrios pretty much got it right about the construction of the film: it seems to have started out as a Bush-Saudis-Patriot Act film, and was overtaken by events in Iraq. I found the first section a bit of a loose, baggy monster—though it (valuably) reprised things that have been forgotten, especially the complaints of African-American congresscritters in 2000, and the capitulation of the Senate. I liked the concise discussion of the BE-AFRAID-BUT-BUY-STUFF thing; I liked the Oregon state trooper. And the section dealing with the war—especially the recruiters in Flint, but also the Walter Reed segment—was pretty much unimpeachable, because Moore was pretty much out of the way. Not much there that struck me as Instahack territory. The Saudis? Correlation doesn’t make causation. I do think that there are lots of screwy things about the relationship between the Bush coterie and the Saudi hierarchy, but I don’t think there’s enough ‘there’ there for cinematic purposes.

By: Lindsay Beyerstein

Lindsay Beyerstein — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 02:45:29 +0000

The whole movie would have made a lot more sense if Moore had explained what Saudi Arabia is like. Something along the lines of: Saudi Arabia is a theocratic kingdom with deep internal divisions. The Bush family is inextricably allied with the quasi-secular faction headed by Prince Abdullah. Unfortunately, these great friends of ours are considered “the near enemy” by Islamic fundamentalists within the Saudi royal family and al Qaeda. The US has made itself into the “far enemy” in the minds of many Saudi princes and Osama Bin Laden by allying itself with the “near enemy.” These are bare and uncontested facts. Everything else is gravy, as far as Moore’s thesis goes. He goes on to prove that Bush is in financial conflict of interest, via his established ties to the Saudi oil industry. What Moore doesn’t prove is a causal connection between Bush’s Saudi ties and 9/11. These known conflicts of interest are relevant to our understanding of American foreign policy in general, and the events of 9/11 in particular.