“Fahrenheit 9/11” A Review by Phoenix-Pen

Before I begin, I would ask that you try to read this through to the end. It is not very long!!! It also effectively divides into two parts, though the introduction and conclusion tie the whole thing together. The first looks at one of Moore’s messages and evidence. It is in effect my two half-pence on the war in Iraq-Moore also discuses (strongly) social issues and the detail of some of the shadier sides of the Bush regime, including how Bush came to power. These topics seem to me to require separate essays, and Moore eventually seems to settle on the war in Iraq as his main topic, so I have done the same. In the second part of the essay I try to consider the film as a film, looking at some of the techniques Moore has used. So please read it all. Please feel free to review. I would be happy to hear from those who disagree with me as well as those who agree, so long as any feedback is presented in a reasonable and well thought out manner.

My initial “gut” reaction was that Michael Moore’s film is both convincing and powerful. On considered reflection I would still maintain this, despite one or two reservations.

   The image that is strongest in my mind is of a corpse, burnt black and still smoking, being hit by Iraqis. It is followed by a shot of fragments of the corpse hung from a bridge. This was repulsive, brutal and sickening. Yet I find that I cannot feel any real hate for the Iraqis who did it, only sadness. Yes, I am repulsed and horrified, but as one American soldier said, you cannot kill someone without killing a part of your own soul. It is a tragedy in itself that Bush+Blair’s reaction to the tragedy of 9/11 has simply led to more bloodshed and suffering. Whether it is an Iraqi child, an American soldier or a Japanese contractor makes no difference: the loss of life is simply wrong.

   I am not a pacifist. If my country was genuinely threatened I would support a war against the aggressor. If another country was threatened I hope I would do the same: I supported intervention in Kosovo. If my country was seriously threatened I might even fight. My courage has never been tested like that of my grandparents’ during World War 2, but if it were I hope I would not be found wanting. But the war in Iraq was not justified. Members of the USA’s security forces and government have now admitted this, both in Moore’s documentary and indeed on the news tonight.

   However, I am not in favour of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. We created this mess; we must see it through to the bitter end. Not only do we have a moral duty to rebuild the country after tearing it apart, it is the only sensible course of action. If true democracy, stability and prosperity are not established and maintained in Iraq then a dictator far more dangerous than Saddam will arise.

So the film was convincing. And yes, it was also well made for the most part.

   It was an improvement on “Bowling for Columbine”, containing less Michael Moore, less gimmickry, and more (and varied) interviews, as well as better reasoned arguments with stronger evidence.

   Nonetheless there were problems. I can accept that it was necessary to show the horrific images, the corpses and the coffins. However there were distinctly tasteless moments, such as continuing to film the sobbing mother of a young soldier killed in Iraq. The point had already been dramatically and painfully made, with the mother reading out his last letter home. To keep filming bordered on the tacky and the blatantly manipulative.

   More subtly manipulative was the juxtaposition of images of Iraq and sobbing mothers with clips of Bush etc. One interviewee said that the Bush regime had played the American people like an organ in the run up to war, building up a crescendo of fear with “terror alerts”, then a diminuendo with speeches to encourage tourism, then another crescendo. I do not doubt that this is true, and I find the regime’s manipulation of its people disgusting, but the film does something uncomfortably similar, especially in its second half.

   The contrast between (roughly) the first and second halves is noticeable. The first is consistently logical, with strong evidence to back up Moore’s assertions and an emphasis on fact. It feels almost like a normal documentary in its approach. The second half includes the more manipulative elements: the mother of the dead soldier, the most horrific images. The facts are still there, but priority is given to emotions.

This film raises hugely important points. It is a skilful film; anyone who is simply interested in media studies would do well to see it. The first half of the film is a generally well reasoned polemic. It is perhaps a shame that the second is so close to being pure propaganda.