Fahrenheit 9/11   

George W. Bush

Written and Directed by

Michael Moore

In terms of pure filmmaking, I think this is clearly not Michael Moore's best film (that title still belongs to Roger & Me).  It's not even the best documentary of the year, and it's a shame that politics won out over artistry in France.  It is too deliberately paced as Moore too often labors to make certain points in his attempts to connect the dots to set up his argument against Bush.  Sometimes the connections make sense, as in the role played by fellow Air National Guard pilot James R. Bath who eventually became the money manager for the bin Laden family.  Or the Saudis hiring of James Baker's law firm to represent them in the lawsuits brought by families of 9/11 victims.    

But, more often, the connections are rather tenuous and have trouble making a point.  So, the FBI approved flights out of the country for prominent Saudis.  Does this mean the Bush administration was behind the attacks, or that they deliberately ignored a lead because they were from the same country as the terrorists?  There are many reasons for this action, but Moore provides his own innuendo and presents it as fact, and he does it frequently.

This is what Michael Moore does best and he has managed to produce a pretty decent work of propaganda.  Facts frequently give way to make room for Moore's opinions and conjecture in the instances where Moore doesn't have enough information that will work in his favor.    

The film does make many compelling arguments in support of his position, but the weight of these arguments is lost when he resorts to camera trickery and out-of-context shots to paint Bush as a buffoon.  These unnecessary potshots are humorous, but the message of "Bush is dangerous" gives way to "Bush is an idiot" and only serves to offend the very people he is trying to sway with this film. 

The first half of Fahrenheit 9/11 is very effective in the way it tries to tie together the Bush family's relationship with the Saudis and the eventual road to the war with Iraq.  These links are important things to know no matter what you believe their ultimate meaning is, and the film's effectiveness lies in the way that it has become apparent that the original reasons posited by the administration for war have largely been proven false.  This serves to provoke deeper investigation into the real reasons for war, and the resulting conclusions are, both, troubling and persuasive.    

However, the second half of the film turns into a typical leftist rant against the rich and against the military.  These two segments of society apparently prey on the poor and the destitute.  And in the end, Moore becomes guilty of the very thing that he condemns the Bush administration for doing.  He plays upon the fears of the unsuspecting public in his efforts to garner support for his agenda. 

This is a flawed film, albeit a somewhat interesting one.  That should be expected when the director has such a personal stake in the subject matter, as Moore does here.  I only wish he had done some things differently to stir up more meaningful debate, but, as it stands, the only thing this film will do is further divide an already polarized country.  It preaches to the already converted and will prove to have absolutely no impact on those already weary of Moore's ravings.