Fahrenheit 9/11

[pauraque_bk]

Tonight keladryb invited me out to the late showing of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Is it propaganda? Of course it is. I didn't expect to like it, and I didn't. It was artistically well done, but all propaganda makes me want to do is find out how the other side would rebut it. There were too many instances where I wondered where they got this or that number (you've heard figures as high as 630 billion? you've heard? from where?), too many times when footage was shown with no date or other identifying information. Too many for me to like it, I mean -- for what he was trying to do, it was fine, and cohered extremely well as a narrative.

Someone on my flist complained that they wished Moore had made a different movie, one more likely to persuade swing voters. I don't know if that objection is well-founded. The fact is that people react to propaganda, they react to strong visuals and are taken in by biased reporting. People are stupid: That's why it works. I wouldn't be surprised if many people were persuaded against the war by this movie, and came away questioning Bush's integrity when they hadn't before. These are people who hadn't considered their positions carefully to start with, and don't understand what these filmmaking techniques do to your brain, and I think there are a lot of them.

That's not to say that if the movie makes you think Moore's onto something, you're stupid -- far from it. If it raises questions and makes you want to find out more -- wonderful. I certainly want to find out more, particularly about the pipeline in Afghanistan, which I hadn't heard of before tonight.

To me, though, this is really two movies. One about corruption in the Bush administration, which presents a lot of complex connections and really needs unbiased information to be fully convincing, and one about the horror of war.

I am a pacifist. To me, images of war need no explanation or illumination. It's killing, it's organs ripped out in the street, it's people becoming murderers. That's reality, a reality that's been kept from us. That makes me viscerally angry in a way that the oil connections don't. It makes my heart beat faster, makes my hands shake. It's killing, and I hate it so savagely that I have difficulty finding words.

It could be my own bias, but I wouldn't be surprised if more people were convinced by this movie of war's inherent wrongness, than of any specific corruption.

I guess that's about it.


[EDIT: keladryb's thoughts are here.]

Comments

[noblerot.livejournal.com]

It could be my own bias, but I wouldn't be surprised if more people were convinced by this movie of war's inherent wrongness, than of any specific corruption.

I don't think that's going to happen. War has become an integral part of human culture, unfortunately. God is always on someone's side. There's always someone fighting for a "good cause." There's always a crusade (to quote our president's ill-chosen term).

My disappointment with F911 -- though there was much of it that I liked -- came in the fact that I expected it to be a better piece of propaganda than it was. I had hoped for a film that would make the case against the Iraqi invasion and the Bush administration's born-again imperialism accessible to mainstream America. F911 didn't do that; it just preached to the choir (which I happen to be a part of.)

I deliberately chose to see the film in Daly City instead of SF, because I wanted to try, in some small way, to get away from my usual liberal echo chamber. Was curious to see the responses of a slightly broader audience. In the end, the theater was so quiet it was difficult to tell what anyone thought -- though I did ask a few people their opinions, which were generally positive.

I suspect, though, that farther afield, in the the red states of the Midwest, F911 going to alienate more than it convinces. And considering what's at stake, that's just depressing.

[pauraque]

War has become an integral part of human culture, unfortunately.

You may be right about that, though of course I hope you're wrong.

I agree, I'd rather Moore had made a film that really made the case. That would have precluded the pointless elements of mockery, which you're quite right will alienate people. If you're seriously trying to make me change my mind, mocking my position will not help you. Assuming that Moore's views are correct, he could have made a film that zeroed in more closely on particular corrupt practices, addressed the other side's rebuttals, and absolutely demolished the administration's credibility. The fact that he didn't do that (or explain why he couldn't) only weakens his own credibility. ie, if you're right, why can't you be more even-handed?

What this movie does do, however, is serve as a record of why people are angry and what the objections are to what's going on. That, I think, makes this a film that will be very important in a historical context, even if it doesn't change minds now.

[noblerot.livejournal.com]

he could have made a film that zeroed in more closely on particular corrupt practices, addressed the other side's rebuttals, and absolutely demolished the administration's credibility

Yes, exactly. And he could have done just that -- the holes in the administration's arguments are a mile wide and begging to be demolished.

What this movie does do, however, is serve as a record of why people are angry and what the objections are to what's going on. That, I think, makes this a film that will be very important in a historical context, even if it doesn't change minds now

I do think it's a good film, and I do think it will stand as an important historical document. But we need more than that now. If Bush is re-elected, the ramifications will be widespread -- from the supreme court to civil rights to the economy to the lives of people in countries the administration deems threatening. What we desperately needed was a documentary that would open eyes and enlighten those who don't have access to (or, sadly, the inclination to locate) information beyond corporate U.S. news. What we needed was -- and I always flinch to have to say it -- effective propaganda, pure and simple. And I don't think F9/11 pulled that off.

Alas, in the past four years my idealism has gone into survival mode. I'm looking forward to a day when that changes.

[norah.livejournal.com]

I've been reading a book by a war correspondent called "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" - recommended, as it explains the appeal of war, which I wtill don't understand at gut level - but now I have a better picture of the mechanics.

Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left. I agree with him the way most conservatives agree with Rush - because I already agreed with him. But if you're not a leftist, any facts or evidence he may present are obsured by his extremist rhetoric, absolutist opinions, or straw-man arguments. I'll probably see the movie, but I don't expect that I'll be any more impressed with Moore at the end than I was by Bowling For Columbine.

[noblerot.livejournal.com]

I've been reading a book by a war correspondent called "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"

By Chris Hedges, no? Heard him interviewed on NPR a while back. It's on my ever-growing list of books to read.

Confession: I'm one of those unfortunates who has been pining for a Rush Limbaugh of the Left -- not because I think such a voice would add anything substantive to political discourse, but because we desperately need a populist, liberal voice to balance out the tidal wave of talk radio and conservative programming on networks like Fox. My reasoning: What's the point of consistently taking the rhetorical high road if it has no tangible effect and leaves the door open to neverending war, lost lives and the erosion of fundamental rights? Sadly, intellectuals are suspect in this country... even Kerry has to hide the fact that he speaks French.

In sum... I agree that Moore is problematic, but I'm sure glad he exists. He's arguably the Noam Chomsky of the masses.

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

At middle 15 minutes and at the last 15 minutes of the movie (I have seen it twice now) does Moore's film becomes something extremely powerful- the corruption and confusion of the war is shone in a focus that make you just ache. His end montage moved many people in that theatre, including the old grandpa guy

Moore is a writer and filmmaker with decided left wing bent, whose has at this for 15 years. Documenetarians ( and journalists) like to think that they are not putting forth a pov ( see Chris Hitchens rant on Slate Magazine) but they do that. It is inherent in the stories they choose to show, that they choose to write about. I was not terribly put off by the tone; I have seen more even handed films on the Iraq war and occupation ( all on Frontline on PBS). But It is good, I think, to see films that are passionate and brave. F9/11 is one of them.

[bardsmaid.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Eo. I've been having similar reservations about seeing the film (the propagandistic angle, etc., though I'm certainly no lover of the current administration.) I don't want a pre-tinted presentation. Just give it to me straight and I'll sort out the facts for myself; I have a brain.

But it's disturbingly true how many people don't think for themselves, or analyze. Unfortunately, you've hit it on the head ("People are stupid: That's why it works.")

As to war, while it seems to be inherent in human nature, you're right that much of it is a reality that's kept from us (probably because, if you're not in the thick of it, it clearly makes no sense.) One of the worst aspects of war to me is what huge numbers, historically, of ordinary people's sons are sacrificed to stabilize the political positions--or satisfy the ambitions--of a few leaders. The other is the fact that by sending people into war, you change them as surely as if you'd exposed them to harmful radiation. Read Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front; it's a textbook of what war does to the people who fight it. Paul and Ben, who ate this book up when they were at the fourth and fifth grade level (okay, so we got to a lot of things early by 'normal' school standards) always maintain that anyone going to war should read this book beforehand to know what they're in for.

[pauraque]

One of the strongest, most unanswerable points Moore made was actually one of his tertiary points: That it's the poorest, most disadvantaged young people -- the ones the system has failed miserably -- who are the first to join up to defend that system with their lives.

He doesn't spell out this connection directly, but the censorship of the images of war struck me as related to his point about the members of Congress not reading the Patriot Act before voting for it. I suspect a lot of people who tell pollsters they support the war are essentially voting for something they haven't read -- they've been taken in by the propaganda of war being heroic and noble and clean ("just point at the target and shoot", as one young soldier in F911 said he'd expected).

I do think it's possible for a reasoning person to support a particular war, but there's a lot for them to overcome if I'm going to respect their position. They need to see and accept the harsh reality of what they're supporting.

[bardsmaid.livejournal.com]

One of the strongest, most unanswerable points Moore made was actually one of his tertiary points: That it's the poorest, most disadvantaged young people -- the ones the system has failed miserably -- who are the first to join up to defend that system with their lives.

Yes, definitely. And the worst part of it, for me, is that you hear these kids who have come from hardscrabble or blue-collar backgrounds interviewed who simply believe what the government is telling them about the threat, etc. At least, they did until they got there. Even as they were going off at the beginning of this war, I was thinking what a tragedy this was--the way they were being lied to and their willingness taken advantage of. They marched in believing in the accuracy of the threat the administration had spelled out and found themselves in a mess every bit as complicated (and distinctly non-black/white) as Vietnam.

I suspect a lot of people who tell pollsters they support the war are essentially voting for something they haven't read -- they've been taken in by the propaganda of war being heroic and noble and clean ("just point at the target and shoot", as one young soldier in F911 said he'd expected).


OMG, I can't tell you how predictably this happens over and over again with each new generation! As you probably know, I've done extensive research of first-person accounts of U.S. military personnel in Vietnam, and especially in the early years (say, until 1966 or so) it was absolutely unbelievable the number of guys who said they'd expected war to be like a John Wayne movie: go in, blast the bad guys, holster your weapon and walk home. When I first came across this mindset it seemed inconceivable to me; I mean, anyone with half a brain can visualize what will happen on a battlefield when guns are fired.

But I've come to believe that part of the mindset is something that feeds coveniently (for the military) into the male (Superman) psyche--that 'invincible' state of mind guys have until they find out they're actually mortal. Soldiering looks like a chance to go out and prove you've got the right stuff, and the potential glory from doing that just kind of clouds over the nasty realities that anyone who's actually thinking will realize that war entails.

I do think it's possible for a reasoning person to support a particular war, but there's a lot for them to overcome if I'm going to respect their position. They need to see and accept the harsh reality of what they're supporting.

Agreed.