?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Fahrenheit 9/11 - Chronarchy

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Links
Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
MySpace
Chaos Matrix
OSU PSA

June 28th, 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
04:28 pm - Fahrenheit 9/11
Over the weekend, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11.

Oh, this might just make me unpopular, and I've thought about the implications of posting this, but I don't think I should pull punches. That would make me more unpopular.

Anyone who refuses to see this movie is a dolt.

Anyone who can watch this movie and not be affected is jaded, closed-minded, and probably couldn't get a hard-on watching Marylin Monroe take off her clothes.

Anyone who believes this movie is 100% factual is an idiot.

Anyone who believes this movie is unbiased is a moron who should go back to smoking more pot.

That said, I really liked it. It was fun to watch. It was engaging. It was the longest political ad I have ever seen. It struck at the heart and often won out over the mind. It was well-timed and wonderfully critical. It was boring and had me checking my watch, and sometimes exciting and funny.

It was obvious. It took cheap shots. It plodded along over the same ground over and over again. It didn't make logical sense.

It was fresh and sharply critical, and made excellent arguments. It stood on its own merit, yet never left the crutches far behind. My eyes rolled as I conceded good, thoughtful points.

Can you tell that my entire experience was just a bit conflicted?

Anyway, here's the deal: Michael Moore makes a genuinely entertaining, fun, thoughtful look at the events of 9-11, but often the movie (I'm not sure I'm ready to call it a "documentary" yet) descends into simple attacks on people, not actually addressing the issues raised.

Some things I liked:

1) Making W. look stupid. Of course, that's not really anything to get excited over, as you could tell very simply that the stupidity was obviously something W. does on a regular basis. Still, it was good to see that.

2) Bringing up good points about where the money is, who suffers during war, and the effect that the war has had on all sorts of people.

3) It's emotional and strong. You really want to believe what he's saying.

4) They didn't show people jumping out of the WTC. I was afraid he'd do that.

5) Michael Moore was not often on screen. This is a huge blessing (no pun intended) to many of us.

What I didn't like:

1) Annoying doubletalk. We have too much security on airplanes, but we don't have enough. It's appalling that a woman would have to drink breast milk to make sure it's safe, but equally appaling that secrurity isn't tighter about lighters and matches. We shouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq, but we obviously don't have enough troops over there. Osama escaped because we didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan, and yet we shouldn't have been there, right? Then, of course, there are the Saudis, who really want us to go to war, because this apparently lines their pockets, but yet the Saudis complain to no end about us attacking Iraq. Why wasn't that mentioned?

2) Factual errors/stretches. "Iraq has never harmed or even threatened a US citizen?" (paraphrased) Wtf? Did I dream the assasination attempt on Bush Sr.? What about the funding of Palistinian suicide bombers, or the planes that were shot at in the no-fly zones over Iraq? Heck, is genocide of Kurds not enough of an excuse, we need them to threaten us?

". . . relaxing at Camp David. . .", the words spoken as a shot of W. and Tony Blair walk down a path. I know they're close, but I have a hard time believing that the two guys aren't talking about something state-related as they stroll.

The bin Ladens flying out on Sept. 13 is apparently strange and frightening for some reason that I fail to divine. The movie insinuates, through its language and the images presented, that they were the only people flying at that time. Not true. I remember (yes, I was around then) that there were flights that day. It doesn't seem irregular at all that high-profile Saudis would be flown out. It certianly doesn't seem sinister.

"Biggest attack on American soil" my ass. We owned Pearl Harbor. It is a military base, and thus it *is* American soil. I'm sorry, but we were slightly worse off after Pearl Harbor, what with an organized, highly dangerous enemy hanging out on our doorstep and us with a navy that couldn't sail out of a paper bag that day. Sept. 11 was nothing in comparison. I'm ashamed to think that schoolchildren will be writing essays on the similarities between the two attacks for years to come.

There's a scene in there where an Iraqi woman is crying about her children and cursing America for killing civilians. The microphone she's screaming into is Al-Jazeera's. This doesn't make it false, but I've seen enough schlock come from them that I'm unswayed by the statement.

I'm not even going to argue WMD's. It's not worth it.

3) Ignoring details for the sake of a good story. Ooh, look at our list of allies! Haiti, Granada, and a bunch of other tiny republics. Did I miss Britain, Australia, Japan, S. Korea, and Spain (before they changed their minds?)

4) Flogging a dead horse. Oh, my. An election was lost 4 years ago! This is news! Amazing! Why didn't anyone tell me before! I thought Gore was president! And, ohmygods! Fox News won the election for Bush! Geez. Get over it and move on. I can't roll my eyes enoough about 10 minutes of flogging that horse. Someone get the ASPCA.

5) Asking Congressmen to send their sons to war. Yes, I know the statement he wanted to make, but what would you do if someone said, "Hey, you should send your son to war just because you're in Congress!" Would you stand there dumbfounded? I sure would. And so, apparently, would the congressmen.


Honestly, go see it. It's good. I mean it. Just take it with a small Siberian salt mine.

Now, here's the thing that irks me most about the movie, though: No one who needs to see the movie is going to go see it. Try to find a Republican in the crowd. Try to find someone who's really unsure of what he/she is going to do with their vote.

Everyone in that theatre, I suspect, already knows what to do and who to vote for. Seriously.

That is the fatal flaw of the movie. It will fall on deaf ears.

Gods willing, though, someone will get out and vote because of it.
Current Mood: bitchybitchy
Current Music: "Buttermilk Grove", -JB
Tags:

(30 comments Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:tlachtga
Date:June 28th, 2004 04:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So, genocide of a particular group of people isn't a valid reason to go to war? A holocaust, so long as it's in another country, is fine?

It's not fine, but it's not my job to fix it. Hey, did anyone come over here and stop slavery? No, we did it ourselves in a bloody war.

Why is it conservatives want Americans to pull themselves up by the bootstraps without government assistance, but they're happy to "help" the poor people of other countries?

As for the genocide of the Kurds, hey--they're still around and had an autonomous region in northern Iraq. Hell of a genocide. And I don't remember us--or U.S.--getting to upset about it when it happened 15 years ago. We pick and choose what we get upset about. Does anyone really think we're gonna go into Sudan? Did we go into Rwanda? Nope.

I suppose we, technically, could stand by and watch. Or turn off our TV's. Whichever one is more comfortable doing.

It's not a question of being comfortable. I don't think we should be the world's police. Afghanistan I supported--hell, we should've gone in much sooner and gotten bin Laden when we had the chance. Now we're just waiting to get blown up again.

Then again, by this reasoning, we should also have invaded Ireland.

Sure--when we invade the Republic of Ireland, Colombia, etc. for harboring terrorists, then I'll get behind invading Iraq. Otherwise, it just looks shady to me.

When did they decide to draft kids?

Check out S.89, the Universal Service Act of 2003. Frankly, I support some sort of universal service, as long as it's truly universal. However, I know that the rich kids will still just go into the Peace Corp instead of the Marines. They always find a way out of real work. (Bitter much? yes.)

Make sure you're registered to vote, of course :)

Yep--registered Democrat since I was 18.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:June 29th, 2004 06:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
As for the genocide of the Kurds, hey--they're still around and had an autonomous region in northern Iraq. Hell of a genocide.

I suspect they're still around thanks to the first Gulf War.


I don't think we should be the world's police.

No one else is willing, either. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the rest of the world can screw itself, and we should just let them. NATO obviously isn't going to do it without us, and if we want it to stick around, we need to be an active player.


when we invade the Republic of Ireland, Colombia, etc. for harboring terrorists, then I'll get behind invading Iraq.

Hehe. Not suggesting it's a good idea, but by this line of reasoning, we should be doing that.

I'd love to see the faces of the British if we invaded Ireland. That would be classic.


Check out S.89, the Universal Service Act of 2003.

Won't pass. It's been sitting since Feb. 2003, and it's a dead duck in the water. Once something's been in subcommittee that long, it just doesn't come out. It's like sending something to the Mother Grove *winks*
[User Picture]
From:tlachtga
Date:June 29th, 2004 01:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
As for the genocide of the Kurds, hey--they're still around and had an autonomous region in northern Iraq. Hell of a genocide.

I suspect they're still around thanks to the first Gulf War.


Perhapse, but that was never our reason for going in during that war. My point is that it can't be our job to play policeman for the world. Are we to invade China for what they're doing to Tibet? Are we to get bogged down in South America? Northern Ireland? Africa? Hell, cut economic ties with them, don't give them financial or military support, maybe get behind some sort of peace-keeping action done by the U.N., but I can't support the U.S. doing everything. Our resources can't handle it, and frankly, we shouldn't have to. The whole world should be concerned, and if they're not, I'm sorry--I'm not going to be a martyr. I'm just not. It's not a case of necessarily tell the world to screw itself, but there are other ways to go around doing things other than military interventions, which just use up our reasources, kill our citizens, and makes the world hate us.

Still, yeah, I'd kill the see the face on the Brits if we invaded Ireland :)

As for S.89, you're probably right. It's about as likely to pass as the new DP (heh heh heh).

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com