Review: Fahrenheit 9/11
* * * ½ (out of 4)
June 26, 2004; The Movies on Exchange Street

I don’t like Michael Moore. Every time I have seen him talk, he has come off as nothing but arrogant and self-righteous, standing on a giant soapbox. He delivers his opinions in such a way that is so entirely overwhelming, it’s hard to even acknowledge that they may be valid. Thankfully, Michael has proven much better at making films than he is at making public appearances.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is Moore’s highly controversial look at U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Consider this a warning: he is wholly unsympathetic to the administration of George W. Bush, and no staff member is spared his scorn. Moore actually starts earlier than 9/11, going back to the questionable victory in Florida and the subsequent Supreme Court decision that installed Bush in the office of the President. From there, he moves through Bush’s first three and a half years in office, detouring to outline some unflattering connections in the President’s past. At every opportune moment, Moore uses appropriate video clips and interview segments to highlight his criticism.

And he more than makes his point. Assuming all the information he gathered is accurate, it is impossible to walk away from this film without a certain amount of embarrassment for the United States of America; the face the country has presented to the world community in the wake of the 9/11 attacks has not been one that any citizen can be completely proud of. While you may not leave feeling as Moore does – that Bush, Cheney, and the entire Republican power base should be immediately removed from office – you will at least believe that the government dropped the ball concerning an appropriate response to terrorism. More than that, Moore points out that despite the inappropriate response, the only effort the government has yet put forward to right that wrong barely amounts an “oops” and an apology.

The methods with which Moore presents his case are expertly crafted and edited. Most powerful, naturally, is his depiction of September 11, 2001 in New York City. Moore leaves the screen black, using only an audio track recorded on the street during the chaos. The infamous video clips are never seen. Other sections include news clips, Congressional session videos, interviews with politicians, professors, outspoken celebrities (one of these left me fearful for the sad direction our country may be headed), and Moore’s own investigative reporting in the streets of D.C. This last method raises one of the most valid and unsettling discussions around: of the 350 members of Congress, the men and women who send America’s sons, daughters, husbands, and wives to war, only a single, solitary one of them has an enlisted child.

Many are branding Moore a heretic and a traitor for his blatant insubordination against the leader of the country, but why? Michael Moore’s films, Fahrenheit 9/11 more than the others, epitomizes first Amendment free speech. He raises questions that need to be answered before voters enter polls in November to decide the next step. Unfortunately, I fear much of Fahrenheit may be Moore preaching to the choir. There is no sympathy for conservatives here, and those who may be on the fence might consider Moore’s portrayal too heavy-handed to be accurate. It’s safe to say that this film could be a major factor in the outcome of 2004’s Presidential election, one way or the other, and if that’s the case, then this is a victory for Michael Moore.