Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 clearly defies so many cinematic conventions that an academic analysis seems preferable to the customary "film review." Many filmviewers may be suspicious of a narrative that purports to be factual, yet much of the early portion of the movie is ably footnoted in the first chapter of his Dude, Where's My Country? (2003) and is beyond reproach. His discourse may seem unusual in a country where elites condition nonelites to consider themselves middle class, but Moore's approach is mainstream thinking among United Auto Workers (UAW) leaders and their supporters in Detroit, where unions are not shy about openly seeking a larger share of the profits for workers; his father and grandfather were UAW members. Perhaps the cleverest innovation in Fahrenheit 9/11 is that Moore never quite says what he means; he presents evidence and allows filmviewers to draw their own conclusions if they dare. What lurks behind the film footage, voiceovers, and interviews is a combination of class analysis, conspiracy theory, and network analysis. He begins with film footage from a joint session of Congress wherein African Americans and a lone Japanese American female (Patsy Mink) introduce a resolution that challenges the electoral vote count for 2000, followed by an intervention by the presiding officer, Vice President Al Gore, who notes that the resolution fails because of a lack of a Senator as cosponsor. Demonstrations against Bush during his inauguration ride to the White House are also presented. Presumably, filmviewers are to conclude that establishment Democrats capitulated to Gore's defeat and are either spineless or part of a plutocratic conspiracy, even though there may have been no practical alternative. A second example is Moore's focus on Saudi Arabians who have substantial financial investments in the United States, including corporate linkages with the Bush family. Moore notes that members of the Bin Laden family were secretly flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11 without being interrogated by the FBI while the rest of the country was unable to fly because airports were shut down. Filmviewers might then conclude that Bush, on taking office, discounted intelligence that Al Queda would strike inside the United States because he felt that the Bin Ladens, contrary to Richard Clarke's warnings, were friends and thus needed protected lest they might retaliate financially. Film footage of Bush immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center as well as other footage when he makes faces in front of a camera are clearly aimed at exposing the president as a fool, perhaps a puppet of those in Washington who are really in charge. But filmviewers will discount that implication, as the impression is widespread that Bush took decisive action in response to 9/11. Moore is on quicksand in presenting film images of Baghdad before Gulf War II destruction, as he seems to imply that Saddam Hussein's rule treated Iraqis better than American bombs; although many Iraqis may now agree, Moore's effectiveness is considerably undermined by appearing to be satisfied with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Much of the rest of the film returns to Flint, Michigan, where the UAW organized the famous sit-down strike of 1936-1937. He interviews unemployed high school graduates whose only career prospects appear to be in the military, where they will inevitably serve as cannon fodder for wars on behalf of corporate interests; in contrast, members of Congress demur at Moore's invitation to have their sons and daughters volunteer to serve in Iraq. At length, he interviews Lila Lipscomb, who is proud of the courage of those in her family who served in wartime until she learns that her son has died in Iraq. Filmgoers are thus encouraged to believe that Gulf War II provides no benefits for ordinary people and thus are not in the national interest. Moore leaves all the above conclusions to the filmviewer, unlike traditional documentaries that clearly state a point of view. When the Political Film Society was formed, documentaries were excluded from awards primarily because they tended to be one-week wonders, so members of the Society had insufficient time to review them, yet Fahrenheit 9/11 has been exhibited for several weeks already. A second reason for preferring feature films over documentaries is that the former raise consciousness by appealing to emotions through holistic imagery, whereas documentaries tend to be one-sided propaganda efforts that preach to believers and turn off unbelievers. Although Fahrenheit 9/11 sought to undermine George W. Bush's credibility, the opposite may have occurred during the 2004 election; according to polls, Bush supporters rallied to his defense in the light of what they considered to be Moore's cinematic mugging. The only feature film of 2004 that attempted to expose George W. Bush as a front man for corporate interests is John Sayles's Silver City, but the content was too cerebral for most film audiences, who are in the age range 18-25, and thus the movie had a short life at the box office. Now the rumor is that Michael Moore plans a Fahrenheit 9/11 ½--but to what end? Moore believes that the political left lacks a voice, which he now supplies. Indeed, he has become what C. Wright Mills called an "established dissenter," in contrast with Noam Chomsky, whose views are muzzled by the mainstream press. However, there is an unhappy political prognosis for a deeply divided country, as was present in the 1920s within Austria and Germany. Insofar as Moore is playing a role in widening the breach, he is advancing a dialectic, consistent with the UAW ideology espoused by Walter Reuther and his successors that doubtless motivated fellow Detroiter Tom Hayden in the 1960s. Among those who may bring the divisions together, therefore, Michael Moore will be absent. MH
I
want to comment on this film
