I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday. I wasn't expecting to like it, having read unfavorable reviews from Christopher Hitchens, Jeff Jarvis and others, and having seen Bowling for Columbine. I wasn't thrilled about paying to see a movie I wasn't expecting to like, but I wanted to see it for myself because it's such a big topic of discussion these days. The most interesting thing about the experience was that my own reaction to the movie was different from the reaction I expected to have.
I was expecting the movie to make me angry, but the main emotion it produced was not anger but pity and sadness.
The movie was too poorly executed to make me angry. It was aimless and incoherent, a sequence of disjoint images devoid of logic, factual integrity or a narrative story line. The only unifying theme was hatred of the Bush family. Every moment in the film seemed intended only to be some kind of criticism of the President, his family and his administration. Even when the context of a scene wasn't clear, I could tell it was trying to cue the audience to react by blaming and hating the President.
I saw the film in Seattle's University District in the heart of "Baghdad Jim" McDermott country. Yes, when Baghdad Jim appeared on screen most of the audience applauded, even as he made his nutty bug-eyed facial-ticked paranoic insinuations of sinister Bush/Ashcroft conspiracies.
There was a scene about silly airport security measures where the passenger was told he could carry four, but not five, books of matches onto the airplane. The hippie-dippie marijuana-smoking audience giggled about how dumb this limitation was. But the joke was on them, the point of the scene, we learn a moment later, was not that four books of matches is a dumb limit, but that four books of matches is a dangerous hole in security that was created for the benefit of the tobacco industry. The point here is that the movie has no point.
But I couldn't get angry at any of this, because so much of the movie was similarly perfect nonsense. [Read the reviews mentioned above (Hitchens and Jarvis) for more detailed critique of the film's content. And be sure to check out the Fahrenheit Fact blog, which also fisks the film.] I only felt sorry for all of the people who are so emotionally invested in the movie and especially for all the otherwise serious Democrats who are pinning their hopes on the film as a substitute for legitimate political debate. The movie's popularity and the traction it's having with major league Democrats can only be seen as a symptom of the vacuum at the core of today's Democratic Party.
The Democrats have formulated no coherent and serious alternative to the administration in the war against miltiant Islam. The only message that Kerry and the Democrats have been able to articulate is one of Bush-bashing and little else. And that's too bad. Our system works best when there's a vital opposition that offers a substantive alternative and raises the bar for the party in power. Kerry and the Democrats aren't delivering that, which is why the vacuum is being filled with the silliness of Al Gore and the dishonest and incoherent hatred of Fahrenheit 9/11.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a signal that the Democrats will lose the election and that they know they will lose. As a Republican, I'm happy to feel more confident that my side will win this election. But unless and until the Democrats regain their collective senses and start to function like a useful opposition party, the whole country loses, including those of us who lean Republican.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 02, 2004 01:35 PMMoore has authorized free downloads from the net.
http://67.19.19.67/index.php/weblog/steal_this_movie/
Posted by: Dave on July 2, 2004 01:42 PM"The movie's popularity and the traction it's having with major league Democrats can only be seen as a symptom of the vacuum at the core of today's Democratic Party."
Very true. Parties that are intellectually vibrant and politically confident don't have to resort to blind hatred, mindless invective,... or for that matter, rampant vote fraud, and enfranchisement of illegal immigrants and felons to remain vital.
The Democratic Party is a hollow shell of patronage and cronyism, sustained by inertia and sixties-era leftist claptrapism. And the GOP is little better and declining rapidly. I think the reason 50% of Americans don't vote is because the major parties are completely alienated from the concerns of the average voter, and the minor ones are a waste of time.
i haven't yet seen the movie, but i am surprised at the overarching conclusions you draw about the democratic party from watching this film and the support it receives from certain dem establishment types.
i tend to agree with matt's 3rd paragraph.
i don't really understand how you can be so critical of the dems, yet so seeemingly uncritical of the republicans, when the tactics used by both are very similiar. both of these parties seek to obtain, consolidate and maintain power first and foremost.
i guess i could reach overarching conclusions about the republican party from watching a gary bauer or pat robertson speech, but i think that would be somewhat unfair and, frankly, facile. i think that some of your statements, especially fall prey to that same criticism.
Posted by: dinesh on July 2, 2004 03:44 PMI'd give more credence to your comments, Dinesh, if I heard more senior Democratic voices condemning this film and distancing themselves from other over-the-top anti-Bush rhetoric (e.g. Al Gore's "digital Browh Shirts" statement)
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 2, 2004 03:47 PMLocal Seattle viewers seem to think this it is a scoop, an expose, and whistle-blowing "Pentagon Papers" type of revelation. I hear comments like, "people are going to wake up," or "come to their senses."
If I understand Abu Moor's contentions, he think the president allowed the attacks to happen, evacuated accomplices, allowed the perpetrator to escape, and deposed the Taliban, all to build a Caspian oil pipeline. Then he went after Iraq for the Saudis.
But these allegations don't even pass the laugh test, of course.
Do we want to live in a city that would elect McDermott, someone who believes this LUNACY?
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on July 2, 2004 06:44 PMdinesh....there was a special premiere of this movie for leading Democrats. Terry McAuliffe was in attendance. Very sadly, it seems that Moore's views *are* the mainstream of the Democratic party.
Posted by: David Foster on July 2, 2004 06:53 PMwhy don't we get enough conservatives together to have a private screening of the movie (or buy out the theater and see the movie together. The primary reason I would not go is because I cannot stand the thought of having to sit with a bunch of whacked-out Seattle Green-Demos --
Talk among yourselfs...
Brian asks "Do we want to live in a city that would elect McDermott, someone who believes this LUNACY?"
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I believe that Brian lives in the district that elected Jay Inslee to Congress. And Inslee is also promoting the movie.
Sadly, the 911°F fever seems to have infected almost the entire Democratic party.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 2, 2004 08:32 PMMoore says that "Americans are the stupidest people in the world." Americans who see this film are proving him to be right.
Posted by: Jed on July 3, 2004 07:24 AMMoore is a self-proclaimed expert on stupidity. Nice and profitable for him. But it's no good for the country to wallow in glamorous stupidity during a Presidential campaign when the discussions should be debates on issues, instead of the raucous cheers and jeers of lumpenagitators.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on July 3, 2004 09:22 AMNot so fast.
I'm inclined to agree with Dick Morris's political analysis which says that John Kerry has all but won the election. Think about it: The candidates are neck and neck, with a significant undecided factor, and those undecideds generally vote for the challenger rather than the incumbent.
A big reason why incumbents stay in office is inertia. But if you can convince the American people that the incumbent has screwed things up *so* bad that we're in dire circumstances by whatever means, they won't hesitate to take action. Hence, the "Bash Bush" platform has been a significant win for the Democrats, because of the "really makes you think" effect it has on the moderates on both sides. This effect is a pronounced characteristic of Moore's movies in particular, among those who haven't yet discovered what an insane pathological liar he is. Hardline Republicans will dismiss Moore's movie automatically, but more moderate Republicans will hesitate before pulling the switch. Those are your swing votes, and like him or lump him, Moore may have won those votes for Kerry.
Maybe in 2008, the Republicans will adopt the same strategy: no integrated platform, just bash the other guy until he loses. How postmodern.
Posted by: Jeff on July 4, 2004 01:24 PMI also expected to dislike the movie. But I certainly saw a point to it: Bush is bought and paid for by the Saudis. If you try to view it from the point of view of the average uninitiated voter, it seems to me that he did a reasonable job of connecting the dots.
Posted by: dov on July 5, 2004 07:55 PMYou concluded: "But unless and until the Democrats regain their collective senses and start to function like a useful opposition party, the whole country loses, including those of us who lean Republican."
What scares me is that, given existing demographic trends, Anti-Americanism, Anti-White Racism and Anti-Semitism could eventually become a winning strategy for the Democrats. If the two parties become racially polarized and their side has a majority, Republicans could be doomed to permanant minority status. Even worse America could be headed for a new era of Segregation-like policies, this time aimed at Whites and Jews.
As a Republican, I want everyone to see F 9/11 - though from the dismal box office it did this weekend, they will have to act fast before it disappears from the multiplexes. I want everyone to experience the propaganda. People are not fools, sooner or later they get the 'con job' attempt. Moore provides a slap in the face that reasonably-minded folks will use to get back into reality. The Ronald Reagan-inspired optimist in me says this will bring more than a few (particularly the young) into clearer vision regarding the issues. And the marketplace of ideas is where the Republican message will be heard. This is precisely why Democrats are so angry at Moore for his over-the-top treatment of the propaganda message they are banking on. And why Republicans must continue to speak out on issues and (importantly) values. John Kerry's bumbling flip-flop on abortion out in Iowa yesterday is just another example of why Democrats are nervous.
Posted by: P Scott Cummins on July 5, 2004 10:59 PMmoore says the saudis control bush
nader and buchanan says the zionists control bush
the saudi say the zionists are behind al qaeda
Al qaeda says that the saudis are the puppets of the U.S. and the zionists are the sons of pigs and monkeys.
I am going to bang my head now.
Posted by: neal on July 6, 2004 09:21 AMYou're a good one to be criticizing the audience for "misunderstanding" the matchbook restriction scene -- you've completely left out the *context* for the scene, wherein Moore presents a woman who had to drink her own BREAST MILK, in the name of airport security. Only an idiot could interpret the scene in the way you're suggesting. Don't worry -- those of us who were laughing understood the meaning of the scene (we also tend to know where Big Tobacco sends it's campaign money).
I'm as ready to criticize the "hippy dippy" seattle audience as the next guy, but I don't like conservative fanaticism either. You sound as dumb as the hippies I have to wade through to get to work every day....
Posted by: A moderate. on July 12, 2004 01:08 AM