Fahrenheit 9/11

I'm an American, NYC area. Most of my friends are liberal.

The most effective part of the film, for me, was actually the segment about the military, because this was the only part of the film to transcend anti-bush agit-prop and get a little deeper into humanity, societal structures, etc. I think that this part of the film may have had the much needed consequence of convincing a lot of rather disconnected (from the working class) liberals that the army isn't just a bunch of buzz cuts frothing at the mouth to kill arabs. The affluent left here needs to reconnect with its poorer counterpart in order to have any viability.

The Saudi connection in the film was a bit overwrought -- I winced when he asked whether Bush might put the Saudi interests before our own (an idea disproven, like it or not, by his decision to invade Iraq, which was very much against Saudi interests). Moore also could not successfully make Bush look evil. He looked sort of hapless and likeable in most of the shots. I actually came away from the film with a better opinion of Bush as a person, even if I continue to dislike the administration.

Many films on both sides of the political spectrum will probably try to imitate Moore's success, a prospect I'm not looking forward to.

If you want the simple "Did it convince any voters?" answer, I'm sure it had at least a marginal impact, but that impact was definitely lessened by the conservative media blitzkrieg against the film.

I disappointed at Moore's lack of foresight in releasing the film so early. He should have known the backlash it would get (as all of his films do), and releasing it in october (with a video release in late october) would have had more impact.

For anyone who may think the Saudi/Bush connection was "overwrought", pick up a copy of Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil".

Thank you! very interesting.

"Many films on both sides of the political spectrum will probably try to imitate Moore's success, a prospect I'm not looking forward to."

Good point. I think there are already something like six response films to Farenheit 9/11, with such moronic titles as "Fahrenhype 9/11" and "Celsius 41.11--The Temperture At Which The Brain Starts To Freeze". They really create no new debate, and serve only to dispute claims made by Moore with sheer facts rather than explore the morality, deceptions and fears that are inherent behind those facts that are what truly touch people.

I watched this film with my girlfriend, my cousin, her fiance and her 12-year old daughter. By the middle of the film, with the footage of dying U.S. soldiers and aid workers held captive at knifepoint, the 12-year old ran out of the room crying. I thought about it, and decided it was good that she had that reaction--horror is a valuable reaction. One of my favorite lines from Godard's "Weekend" is "the only way to overcome the horror of the bourgoisie is with more horror". It's a shame that network news and the government will not show the public the true face of war. It's sheer statistics and rhetoric, along with some pixelated progressive scan shots of "imbedded" reporters, extremely long shots of night vision explosions and cutting before the executioner's blade is shown. We're adults watching a PG version of war, a censored half truth. It's like seeing a town from an airplane--insignificant, seemingly lifeless. It's not surprising how a person could drop a bomb on such a distant object. It's only when you're close to it that the humanity reaches you, and that's what Moore's film does--it brings you close, to the soldiers, to the parents that have lost sons and daughters, even to politicians in their most intimate moments, when the soundbites end and the camera still rolls on to capture the real truths.

I think Moore has been substantially underestimated as a filmmaker. In an age when revisionist scholars have made it acceptable to hate Leni Riefenstahl's message but still appreciate the artistry of her films, the same cannot be said of Michael Moore. There is little talk of Moore as a filmmaker, and it's a shame--he is a masterful director (and a true original, despite doing a bit too much of an Errol Morris rip-off in F911), and he is capable of creating some intense emotional responses. When Spielberg does the same thing, it's called "moving" and when Moore does it, it's called "manipulative". Go figure.