Harry Paternoster
The most important thing to keep in mind when reviewing Fahrenheit 9/11 is the context within which the movie appears. Written, directed and narrated by Michael Moore, his motives in creating this movie are the means by which Fahrenheit 9/11 must be judged, rather than any measures of artistic beauty or superb acting. This is not just a movie, and this is certainly not just a documentary. This film was created to be Moore's spark before the elections, to be cast into the kindling of the American public's unsurity, discontent and frustration at government's war in Iraq, in order to start the roaring fire that will burn president George.W Bush out of office. The problem, however, is that this fire is certainly not directed at burning through the streets as public resistance, to the whitehouse where it will smoke the president out. It is directed specifically at the ballot boxes, which may be successful in dethroning Bush, but once it has completed the task for which it was created it will have nowhere further to spread, and will snuff itself out on its own support for the logical alternative, John Kerry for president, whom has committed himself to even greater suppression of the Iraqi people. While some scenes and elements in the movie are worth discussing specifically, all must be viewed in this context. To understand Fahrenheit 9/11 or any part thereof, we must first understand its background, its purpose and especially its creator.
It seems that Mike Moore has shifted in his political position since the 2000 electoral campaign. He spoke at Ralph Nader rallies, notably on one occasion saying 'If you don't vote your conscience now, when will you start? We're at the place we're at because we've settled for the lesser of two evils.' Ideologically, we know that the Democrats couldn't be much further from Moore's politics, which is especially visible at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11 when George Orwell is quoted with '...A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not victory but to provide a continual excuse for keeping the hierarchical structure of society intact.' Follow that line of philosophy and you basically get revolutionary politics. This is diametrically opposed to supporting another warmongering president like Kerry, who plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq by %30, hardly a good alternative for the Iraqis for which this movie is supposed to be playing up sympathy for. During the Nader rally, he also said ' 'Lesser evilism' can seem like common sense. But history shows us otherwise.' Yet Mike Moore is utterly uncritical of the Democrats, and whilst not explicitly supporting them, he leaves them as the logical alternative (especially by interviewing an ex-republican whom exults 'When I get back home, I'm going to get really involved with the Democrats!'). So Mike Moore focuses all his efforts on attacking Bush, never once mentioning Nader, leaving appraisals of Kerry uncriticized and speaks of nothing further than voting (such as any form of activism). Sounds like 'lesser evilism' to me.
In this light, many things about the film make sense. For example, precisely why, when creating such an anti-war-in-iraq movie such as this, he only attacks George Bush and his policies (such as the patriot act) in a horrified light. Surely, if you were simply attacking the war on Iraq itself, when linking it to presidential policies you critique those with the same policies. When picking on problems in America, such as the class composition of those sent to war (working class african-americans) and poverty in Flint Michigan, surely you would criticize the roots of the problems, not just look to the man in charge at the time. Mike Moore knows all this, so why isn't this the form of his movie?. It's because he's getting desperate. He's slipping into the trap of 'lesser evilism'. He's put an incredible anti-bush spin on this movie because he's clutching at straws, any attack on Kerry might be enough to keep Bush safely in office. And Moore wants anything but that.
But whilst Mike Moore occasionally spouts quite radical rhetoric, he still doesn't have any real conception of how to change things, and this is why we see inconsistencies in his actions, especially in the psychotic right/left wing split nature of this movie. This film is an exercise in populism; he is appealing to practically everyone. Nationalists and even right-wingers with his attacks on how bad Bush is for America (and what would be the 'national interest'), as well as appealing to left-wingers and anti-nationalists with illustrating the evils of war, poverty, and by inference (with the George Orwell quote), capitalism. In other words, he is attempting to rally everyone he possibly can against what he sees as the great evil man, deluding himself, that with Bush's collapse, so too will his evils fall. Perhaps he has simply lost faith in any other alternative. But in Dude, where's my country? he writes 'I don't know how to put it any gentler than to say that these bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.' That was in 2003. Surely he hasn't lost his belief in the statement so quickly?. Rather than belief, it illustrates Mike Moore's lack of any clear class analysis. He identifies all of the symptoms of capitalism and violently thrashes against them, however in the process slides his position back and forth across the political spectrum, from quoting Orwell to feeling sorry for Al Gore, from calling for a replacement of the entire 'system' to calling a vote for John Kerry as president.
So, to judge the movie not as a regular movie, but as a tool for achieving Mike Moore's own goals, it must be conceded that it points in the wrong direction. Even if it does achieve its immediate goal (ridding the world of George Bush's presidency), it will not achieve its real goals of a drive towards real freedom and equality. It will simply oust Bush and have him replaced. Nevertheless, aside from getting Bush voted out, the movie is having many sideaffects that are rippling through world consciousness. It is publicizing issues and creating a stir that may well go beyond the confounds of his own argument. If he looked to workers as those with the power to change society, he might clarify his point of view. But even if his direction is primarily flawed, this movie may yet play a deciding role in inciting the struggle he forgets to call upon, and in that sense, may be quite successful in achieving its real underlying goals; the change Mike Moore wants to see, but doesn't quite know how to achieve.