Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Also known as "Fahrenheit 911"
The temperature where freedom burns!
Starring: George W. Bush, Michael Moore, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, John Ashcroft, Jack Cloonan, Rosemary Dillard, Jim McDermott, Abdul Henderson, John Tanner, Sam Hubba, Britney Spears, Lila Lipscomb
Director: Michael Moore
Running Time: 122 minutes
US MPAA rating: RUK BBFC rating: 15
Documentary, War
After 'Bowling for Columbine' (2002) won the Academy Award and became the highest grossing narrative documentary of all time, Michael Moore decided to direct his brand of activist journalism at targets no less prominent than the current president and ruling administration of the United States of America, and the result is 'Farenheit 9/11', a blistering onslaught on Dubya's record to date in America's highest office. Struggling to find a US distributor for so blatantly political a film in the lead-up to an election, Moore took 'Farenheit 9/11' to Cannes, where he promptly won the Palme d'Or, the smell of profit in the air guaranteeing him the US release he so wanted.
This is significant, for outside of America, George Bush is probably the least admired President that the US has ever had, so that, before a European audience, Moore is largely preaching to the converted. It is in America, however, where people actually have the power to remove Bush from office, that the impact of this film could really count, and in this case the votes of the general electorate may well prove to be a better reflection of the film's success (or failure) than the votes of Canne's panel or even of the Academy. The message of this film, made loud and clear, is do not support the Republican party for a second term - although arguably Moore's reluctance to endorse the only viable alternative, the Democrats (who at times are lampooned in the film), may serve to blunt somewhat the political aims behind his propaganda. After all, in the last election, Moore backed Ralph Nader, whose only achievement was to swallow up votes that would otherwise have gone to Bush's principal opponent, Al Gore.
As a filmmaker, Moore is definitely maturing. In his earlier documentaries, he has felt the need to place himself at the centre of his stories, and while he is without doubt an entertaining presence, such narcissism has tended to distract from the real issues. In 'Farenheit 9/11' he takes much more of a backseat, and shows a willingness to allow his political targets to be hanged by their own words as much as by his innuendos. Moore keeps his trademark stunts to a minimum here, which is just as well given their lack of substance. It is enough, surely, to be informed that only one member of Congress has a child on active military duty - but the further spectacle of Moore and a disgruntled serviceman confronting Congressmen on the sidewalk in an attempt to enlist their children adds little to the argument, and makes the only Congressman who proves willing to stop and talk with Moore, Democrat John Tanner, look unfairly ridiculous for his pains (despite having fought for his co untry himself).
Those who follow the news closely will find little new here - the questionable election victory in Florida, Bush's slacking in office pre-9/11, the business connections between his family and the bin Ladens, the profiteering opportunities brought by a war on Iraq, the breaches of civil liberties in the Patriot Act, the lies about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction and links to al Qaida, have all been documented before, and the footage of the Bush administration used in the film has been compiled mostly from standard media outlets. What makes 'Farenheit 9/11' stand out is its overwhelming concentration of information which, while shrewdly editorialised and certainly more convincing in some parts than in others, represents in its totality a devastating indictment of the current Republican government - and unlike, say, the coverage of events by network news, Moore's feature format allows him to make a point at some length, developing it from a nipping soundbite into a full-jawed mauling. It is one thing to know that Bush was attending a photo opportunity in an elementary school class when he was informed that the second tower had been hit and that the US was under attack, but it is another thing altogether to see the seven agonising minutes of inaction that followed, as Bush continued to read 'My Pet Goat' - and while some viewers may take exception to Moore's pointless attempt to reconstruct what was going on in the president's mind during this time, the long, leisurely focus on Bush's befuddled facial expression is a damaging image that the Republicans will find very difficult to dispel from the public's consciousness now that Moore has implanted it there.
It's Got: Merciless Bush-baiting, Paul Wolfowitz repeatedly slicking his hair with his own spit, footage of Bush clowning to camera just before announcing the first strikes on Baghdad, and a hilariously vapid soundbite from Britney Spears.
It Needs: To lose the clownish stunts (like reading the Patriot Act on an ice-cream van tannoy outside Congress or buttonholing politicians to enlist their children in the armed forces) - the arguments are compelling enough without these essentially unhelpful antics.
Alternatives: 'Roger and Me', Bowling for Columbine'
Summary: Once again the big man stands up for the little man, in this powerful onslaught on Bush and co.
External Links
Official Web Site
Fahrenheit 9/11 at the IMDB
Comments21 Comments |
| I thought this was nothing but a propaganda film with massive inconsistencies. Moore was preaching to the choir. |
| Comment by:- Brian | | 11 July 2004 | ip: logged |
| I thought this was an excellent film. It bought to light a lot of issues that the average american citizen probably was not aware of! Great Job MM!! |
| Comment by:- T | | 12 July 2004 | ip: logged |
| If the truth is of any interest to you, read around this film at www.bowlingfortruth.com and www.moorelies.com - the film is mindless propaganda. |
| Comment by:- M | | 01 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Impressed with exposure to the truths described in movie. |
| Comment by:- Joseph Taylor | | 08 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I thought Moore's masterpiece was a brilliant and a much needed documentary for this day and age! |
| Comment by:- Sarah Brown | | 10 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Guess what? The outside world, (people living in countries that are outside USA) already knew most of the stuff about Bush, and his govt. You see, we have an unbiased (or if you see it that way, a biased) news media. SO we get the insides on whats going on in the US, while you are shown spin (Saving Private Jessica Lynch. etc.) Surprising that Moore did not talk about that. Atleast now the US media will be on guard, if not the general population. |
| Comment by:- szar | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Most of the things Moore uses in this movie are a load of rubbish. I do not necessarily support Bush, but I certainly do not agree with degrading him by using exagerations and video clips taken out of context. It is a movie, and anyone can make a movie come across the way you want it to by the twisting of the truth. Go to www.moorelies.com. |
| Comment by:- Jenny | | 26 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| It is sad to see that people still feel they must resort to gross deceptions and outright lies to counter another's ideologies. I would think that there is plenty of genuine errors in President Bush's actions to recant but they probably would make for a far less provacative film. Perhaps that was not the reason for actually filming a documentary. Perhaps finding the real truth was too much work for Moore. Then again, maybe people are just too afraid of the truth. |
| Comment by:- ironchex | | 16 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| Moore is a biased democrat and I feel the LIES told in Farenheit 9/11 is the sole view of Moore. This movie should be watched with an open mind and should not sway your decision in any way. Moore used propaganda as an extensive tool to get the majority of the population of the US to agree with him. Propaganda is a distortion of the truth, and Moore immensely distorted the truth of Bush and 9/11. Love the movie though, it was funny as hell. |
| Comment by:- Joe Mama | | 19 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| Of course Moore is biased! And Fox News or CNN aren't? Don't be naive! I wish all of you who are uncomfortable with Moore's bias good luck in your search for reporting on 9/11 or Iraq that doesn't reflect someone's perspective. And the definition of propaganda is not distortion of truth. Propaganda is putting out information or opinions that are meant to prop up your position or tear down someone else's. There's nothing inherently dishonest about propaganda. And, arguably, both Farenheit 9/11 and mainstream news programs are propaganda. |
| Comment by:- Ashley | | 22 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| Documentary? It is interesting the way Ashley defines propaganda...what would your definition of documentary be? Certainly not the bulls--- in this movie! When documents get declassified...it will be interesting to see EXACTLY how far off Moore is! THERE WAS an Al-Qaeda/Hussein connection...even the 911 report confirms this FACT. Furthermore, I PERSONALLY believe that Hussein was involved in the intelligence aspect of the WTC Bombing...which is why his chief intelligence operative met with Mohammad Atta in Turkey several months before the attack...could there be any other explaination? Also, wait until everyone finds out why Libya so willingly announced they had a Nuclear program, which the entire intelligence community was stunned about. How could Khadaffi have such an advanced nuclear program? Maybe because Saddam Hussein sent over 450 of his Nuclear Scientists to Libya to construct his nuclear program in LIBYA! Don't take my word for it...open your eyes and do the research yourself. You can google the key words and find plenty of declassified intel, as well as information pieced together by independent intelligence groups that attest to this. By next year it should all be out...if the liberal media doesn't continue to try and bury it. Also...the WMD EXISTED. The UN wants it both ways...the UN Weapons Inspectors all say it wasn't there (after the fact, of course). Yet the UN WMD branch is concerned and released a report in July claiming that the WMD was taken across the border to Syria disguised as scrap metal in the weeks leading up to the war...and is currently buried in three sites, two of which are located in the Bekaa Valley...this has been verified by a Syrian Defector. Just food for thought. Don't take my word for it...look it up yourself. OR...YOU CAN LET MICHAEL MOORE TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK. If he was really a documentarian, maybe he would have discovered some of this stuff...he obviously didn't look very hard. It's easy when you are simply trying to prove that your opinions are right, in complete disregard for facts or truth. |
| Comment by:- John | | 22 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| Here are a couple sites: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970152/posts http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581 http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000236.htm |
| Comment by:- John | | 22 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| Wow John that is wonderful news. I don't suppose you happen to know when Dubya wants to invade Lebanon and Syria? |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 22 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| I wouldn't be surprised if Syria isn't in his sights. They certainly seem to be sending mixed signals. Although they are allowing us to assist in securing the border...I think they may actually come around diplomatically...maybe they will admit to the WMD...we'll see... |
| Comment by:- John | | 22 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| Actually, the 911 reports show that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein. Did you learn that there was a connection on FOX news? |
| Comment by:- justin | | 24 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| Justin- you obviously didn't read the 911 report. The 911 report (which is certainly not the "End All" on this subject, actually showed EXTENSIVE ties between Al Qaeda and Hussein. What you are refering to is that the 911 report stated that there was no DIRECT CONNECTION between Hussein and the WTC attack. This is still a tenuous argument, because Hussein's Intel Chief met with Mohammad Atta in Turkey in July....what a coincidence. There just wasn't enough proof that Hussein ordered or participated in any way with the actual 911 plot. And I DO watch FOX news...at least they give both sides of the story, and don't make facts and documents up like some other quasi (527) "news" organizations. However, you might find reading non-partisan, non-US, non-spin articles (Like Jane's Weekly) or other public access intel services to more fully inform yourself. |
| Comment by:- John | | 25 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| For the supporters of this film - and see Bush's actions of war motivated on the basis of a monetary act (oil). Then what about Moore's objectives in the so called - documentary. Where are the profits of this film going to?? Did moore make this a non-profit film to tell "his" truth or see it as his gold-mine... |
| Comment by:- deb | | 26 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| i hate librals! and this show! |
| Comment by:- George Bush | | 04 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| george bush is the f u c k i n g man all the people who dont agree are idiots |
| Comment by:- george bush fan | | 15 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| lol..seems like this place is turnin red neck ;) |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 30 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| So i am an idiot for not supporting Bush? thats exactly the narrow minded comment i would expect from a "Bush-Fan"!! at the end of the day, this film is just that - a film - a profit making box office hit made to entertain. not one person who has commented here can say whether the information is right or wrong, because we only know what we are told. and i would imagine that we all obtain our knowlegde of these subjects through the TV/ newspapers/ books/ word of mouth. i'm sure there is much truth in this film, and i'm also sure that Moore has manipulated things to portray his own beliefs. But what do i know? I'm English (you know, that tiny little country on the otehr side of the atlantic... ?) |
| Comment by:- Lucy | | 21 December 2004 | ip: logged |
