[Orion27]

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT


One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.


Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:


1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq
Continuued:http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle

[PacHead]

Dedicated to the troops, yeah right. . .

Also, I liked the bit about his filmic skills not even being comparable to Leni Riefenstahl, lol.

[zachs]

Ton of reviews here:

"The movie's conclusions -- true or otherwise -- and highly emotional interviews with bereaved parents and injured soldiers will have a big impact on audiences around the world."
-- Ian Youngs, BBC

". . . an explosive and heart wrenching piece of cinema . . ."
-- Mark Salisbury, PREMIERE MAGAZINE

"To dismiss Fahrenheit 9/11 as "Anti-American propaganda" is doing the movie, the issues, the troops, and the country a grave disservice."
-- Jurgen Fauth, ABOUT.COM

"The movie is the least grandstanding and most purposeful of Moore's career."
-- J. Hoberman, VILLAGE VOICE

"It is a punishing, brilliantly executed indictment."
-- Victoria Alexander, FILMSINREVIEW.COM

"[Moore's] most disciplined and powerful movie to date."
-- A.O. Scott, NEW YORK TIMES

[Orion27]

Originally posted by zachs:
Ton of reviews here:

No reviews with an agenda here.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Orion27:
No reviews with an agenda here.

I know.

[zigzag]

Hitchens is a bit of a crank himself, and has an interest in defending his support for the war, but I generally agree with him: Moore can be funny and thought-provoking but relies too much on half-truths and cheap shots.

[zachs]

Oh, and here's a kicker: Faux News raves about it:

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theatre premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged at all to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host and writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element. But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" -- as we saw last night -- is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice. Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets like Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say. Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and Bin Laden families.[...]

But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. The film does Bush no favors, that's for sure, but it also finds an unexpectedly poignant and universal groove in the story of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Michigan mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide -- just like the commercials say -- and lives to regret it. Lipscombe's story is so powerful, and so completely Middle American, that I think it will take Moore's critics by surprise. She will certainly move to tears everyone who encounters her.[...]

On the other hand, there are more than enough moments that seemed to resonate with the huge Ziegfeld audience. The most indelible is President Bush's reaction to hearing on the morning of September 11, 2001, that the first plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. Bush was reading to a grade school class in Florida at that moment. Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes. Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.

But I know you'll reserve your final opinion of the film for when you see it...right?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zachs:
Oh, and here's a kicker: Faux News raves about it:



But I know you'll reserve your final opinion of the film for when you see it...right?

Expect one of two things:

• Rupert Murdoch will personally request the reviewer's resignation ASAP, or will ban him if he's freelance.
• The piece is so god-awful, it will embarrass Moore into becoming a recluse.

BG

[PacHead]

Wow, I was reading that this guy Chris Hitchens is a leftie and a socialist ?

He must be the smartest of their kind on the entire planet.

[zachs]

Wow, yeah, he's really brilliant.

Check out this winner.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by zachs:
Wow, yeah, he's really brilliant.

Check out this winner.

I'm no expert on MT, and I haven't read that much about her, but I don't see any problems with the article you linked to. Is he wrong ?

[Zimphire]

Those who want to believe Moore will. No amount of proving how big of a fat liar will change that.

The political zealots will still believe.



Esp if he has something bad to say about Bush.

IT MUST BE TRUE!!1

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Those who want to believe Moore will. No amount of proving how big of a fat liar will change that.

The political zealots will still believe.



Esp if he has something bad to say about Bush.

IT MUST BE TRUE!!1

Just out of pure curiosity (and since Bush couldn't come up with an answer)...what do you think Bush's biggest mistake has been since 9/11?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Just out of pure curiosity (and since Bush couldn't come up with an answer)...what do you think Bush's biggest mistake has been since 9/11?

Not getting rid of the Death Penalty.

And letting the left "scramble" things to make it look the "worst"

I think he knows in the end, they will be shown for what they are.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It’s good to see honesty from the left. Moore is a third-rate hack entertainer, nothing more, who makes mostly self-serving, highly-slanted propaganda films disguised as ‘documentaries’. Honest people of any political stripe recognize it. Hats off to Hitchens for not being one of the crowd to excuse the obvious shams in Moore’s work, and then try to elevate him to some bullcrap sacred cow status.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
It’s good to see honesty from the left.

And sad to see some supporting the liar for purely political reasons.

Heck, I don't even support Rush or Ann. They are just as bad as Michael Moore.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by zachs:
Wow, yeah, he's really brilliant.

Check out this winner.

Hitchen's attack of Mother Teresa reputation and her cult of followers is a masterpiece of debunking. There was a lengthy thread about her here last year:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=182938

[Logic]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
It’s good to see honesty from the left. Moore is a third-rate hack entertainer, nothing more, who makes mostly self-serving, highly-slanted propaganda films disguised as ‘documentaries’. Honest people of any political stripe recognize it. Hats off to Hitchens for not being one of the crowd to excuse the obvious shams in Moore’s work, and then try to elevate him to some bullcrap sacred cow status.

So you've already seen the movie and therefore know that it is a "third-rate hack" who is "self-serving, highly slanted propaganda"?

Please tell those of us who haven't seen it yet what you thought about the movie. Please give us your review.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Logic:
So you've already seen the movie and therefore know that it is a "third-rate hack" who is "self-serving, highly slanted propaganda"?

Please tell those of us who haven't seen it yet what you thought about the movie. Please give us your review.

And once again you fail to live up to your username.

Newsflash: This isn't Moore's first film.

[Logic]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
And once again you fail to live up to your username.

Newsflash: This isn't Moore's first film.

So are you going to wait and see how this movie turns out, or have you already decided what it will be like?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Given that Moore already has a track record that reveals his penchant for pushing propaganda and blatant misconceptions, and indeed being a hack, why would I expect anything different from him all of a sudden? Moore isn’t a respected journalist. He’s not even a journalist. He’s just another entertainer with no special insight beyond any other average Joe, despite his wishful-thinking pretense otherwise. He’s merely an entertainer. He deserves no more weight of credit for his opinions than, for example, Rush Limbaugh deserves for his.

Because perhaps you’ve elevated the status of his opinion above its true worth (which isn’t any more than any other entertainer’s), you think everyone else has to do so also? Doesn’t work like that.

So will you read Ann Coulter’s next book from cover to cover and see how it turns out, or have you already decided what it will be like?

[Logic]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Given that Moore already has a track record that reveals his penchant for pushing propaganda and blatant misconceptions, and indeed being a hack, why would I expect anything different from him all of a sudden? Moore isn’t a respected journalist. He’s not even a journalist. He’s just another entertainer with no special insight beyond any other average Joe, despite his wishful-thinking pretense otherwise. He’s merely an entertainer. He deserves no more weight of credit for his opinions than, for example, Rush Limbaugh deserves for his.

That means that you should perhaps be extra careful when you watch this movie because there might be factual errors in it. But you can't claim that now, before you've seen the movie. I don't think Moore is anything close to a respected journalist but there is one thing I've noticed that he is good at, generating a debate. That is something that seems to be severely lacking at the moment in the US(and many other western nations for some odd reason). Do you really think he will make these accusations about the sitting president without making sure there are no lies in the movie and as few factual errors as possible?

Because perhaps you’ve elevated the status of his opinion above its true worth (which isn’t any more than any other entertainer’s), you think everyone else has to do so also? Doesn’t work like that.

Absolutely not. But I think we should all wait until we've actually seen the movie before we begin with the slander.

So will you read Ann Coulter’s next book from cover to cover and see how it turns out, or have you already decided what it will be like?

I don't have much time to read books(except for work and school) but if she would make a movie I'm sure I'd watch it. At least I wouldn't judge the movie before I see it.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

Because perhaps you’ve elevated the status of his opinion above its true worth (which isn’t any more than any other entertainer’s), you think everyone else has to do so also? Doesn’t work like that.

So will you read Ann Coulter’s next book from cover to cover and see how it turns out, or have you already decided what it will be like?

Ah but his opinion is worth more, has Coulter won an Oscar?

[Orion27]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Ah but his opinion is worth more, has Coulter won an Oscar?

Yes! Oscar means credibilityt? The level of discussion here is appalling.
I want this thread to die! I'm almost in aggreement with those who want the whole Political Lounge to go away. Did anyone even read the Kitchens article? There is enough grist in that article, philosophical as well as political, to spawn 10 threads. And we are lending credibility because of obscure movie reviesws, partisan audiences and celebrity comparisons? What a wasteland. This thread must die.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Yes! Oscar means credibilityt? The level of discussion here is appalling.
I want this thread to die! I'm almost in aggreement with those who want the whole Political Lounge to go away. Did anyone even read the Kitchens article? There is enough grist in that article, philosophical as well as political, to spawn 10 threads. And we are lending credibility because of obscure movie reviesws, partisan audiences and celebrity comparisons? What a wasteland. This thread must die.

The exit is that way

: points in the direction of the Lounge:

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
So you've already seen the movie and therefore know that it is a "third-rate hack" who is "self-serving, highly slanted propaganda"?

Please tell those of us who haven't seen it yet what you thought about the movie. Please give us your review.

Maybe it's cause of things like this.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialR...20040601a.html

(CNSNews.com) - One of the central charges made by left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore in his upcoming, Bush-bashing film is being undermined by another critic of the president -- former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.

But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.

Chris Horner, a GOP strategist, finds irony in the fact that the credibility of Moore's film is being undermined by one of Bush's biggest critics even before the film is released in the United States.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Maybe it's cause of things like this.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialR...20040601a.html

(CNSNews.com) - One of the central charges made by left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore in his upcoming, Bush-bashing film is being undermined by another critic of the president -- former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.

But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.

Chris Horner, a GOP strategist, finds irony in the fact that the credibility of Moore's film is being undermined by one of Bush's biggest critics even before the film is released in the United States.

And Kitchens is certainly no Bush apologist. I have always found him credible even though
I felt he was a little rough on Bush. His stock has certainly risen in my portfolio, though we have our disagreements. I just appreciate thoughtful and well documented journalism for which Kitchens is known.

[Joshua]

My favorite bit from the Hitchens piece:

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

Ouch!

[itai195]

Nice review. He takes Moore head on. My favorite part, and the angle I tend to take toward Moore:

So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

This isn't to say that he's not useful. He's a provocateur, he creates debate... While all the facts and connections don't add up the way he presents them, at least it gets people talking.

[Zimphire]

That would be ok if it weren't for the fact that a lot of people believe his crap as if it were based on the truth somehow.

In every MM film there needs to be a "warning, this movie isn't based on facts" warning before the film.

Not that that wont stop the people who "Want to believe"

There is no hope for them. They will believe anything anti-Bush lie or not.

[Orion27]

Originally posted by itai195:
Nice review. He takes Moore head on. My favorite part, and the angle I tend to take toward Moore:

This isn't to say that he's not useful. He's a provocateur, he creates debate... While all the facts and connections don't add up the way he presents them, at least it gets people talking.

This is the film Europe was all agog about at Cannes. To think viewers who came with the choir would have the temerity to challenge the film within the group POV is wishful thinking. To say Moore is useful because this American propagandist creates debate is nothing short of an apologists imprimatur. The left, as shown at Cannes, would pimp the big lie to support their agenda. Don't let the facts get in the way of the "debate". The usual
suspects are conspicuously missing here because quite frankly, Kitchens is right and they know it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Orion27:
This is the film Europe was all agog about at Cannes. To think viewers who came with the choir would have the temerity to challenge the film within the group POV is wishful thinking. To say Moore is useful because this American propagandist creates debate is nothing short of an apologists imprimatur. The left, as shown at Cannes, would pimp the big lie to support their agenda. Don't let the facts get in the way of the "debate". The usual
suspects are conspicuously missing here because quite frankly, Kitchens is right and they know it.

I disagree. I think the Europeans like this movie because they feel there isn't enough political debate within the US. Moore is about as useful as any right-wing talking head (who, btw, also 'pimp the big lie to support their agenda').

[Orion27]

Originally posted by itai195:
I disagree. I think the Europeans like this movie because they feel there isn't enough political debate within the US. Moore is about as useful as any right-wing talking head (who, btw, also 'pimp the big lie to support their agenda').

Are you telling me there is no debate in the United States? You're joking right?
Ah, where did you say the debate was in Europe? Is there any argument made in Europe to support the United States? As vigorous as the media here in the States opposes our policy? You're joking right? I just listened to an hour of NPR hand wringing on the way to work this morning. A great piece on Che Guevarra, produced in Brazil and directed by Robert Redford. It was the second coming and the left trash talk on Iraq and the revolution parallels. Coming to a theater near you. Viva Che! No debate? Maybe You're right. The left's demagoguery on NPR on my dime.

[itai195]

I'm not necessarily referring to the media, I'm referring to the American population. Politics is a dirty word.

[bleuvixen]

n/m

[tie]

I'm no fan of Moore -- never seen any of his movies, haven't read his book (books?). This is, though, a rather lame review. I think Hitchens is doing exactly what he accuses Moore of: writing shallow propaganda without basis in facts (either to boost his ratings, or because of a grudge against Moore).

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

By "divine," I suppose Hitchens means guess? Can Hitchens see into Moore's head? He needs to back up statements like this with evidence. This kind of jumping to conclusions wouldn't be surprising in a MacNN post -- you're against the war, so I divine you must be a terrorist -- but it is childish in a movie review.

Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.

This black or white argument is absurd.

More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup.

So I guess not only Michael Moore himself, but the entire "Michael Moore community" is insane. Broad overgeneralizations, stereotypes and speculation don't make a good review.

In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. ... Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? ... Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do?

Since troop levels have been increased, I think even Rumsfeld agrees that more troops have been needed. I read this as Hitchens being too childish to admit Moore was right. Concede the point. As to the rest of the above quote: why is this relevant? Moore isn't a politician.

Instead of sticking to facts and evidence, Hitchens repeatedly gives his own speculations and divinations. It's a propaganda piece.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by tie:
I'm no fan of Moore -- never seen any of his movies, haven't read his book (books?). This is, though, a rather lame review . . .

I don't think Hitchens intended it as a movie review in the conventional sense - he and Moore have gone at it before and this is just one more in a series of rants. Hitchens has much more serious academic and journalistic credentials than Moore but he's just as opinionated and, as you've observed, doesn't pull punches.

[alphasubzero949]

Why should I listen to what the mass media thinks about Moore when the corporations that control these outlets have given wads of money to the Bush campaign? Someone enlighten me.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
Why should I listen to what the mass media thinks about Moore when the corporations that control these outlets have given wads of money to the Bush campaign? Someone enlighten me.

You do know that the Dems get TONS of coporate money too right?

I remember a year back reading a statistics article showing that the Dems were getting MORE corporate money than the right.

[itai195]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
Why should I listen to what the mass media thinks about Moore when the corporations that control these outlets have given wads of money to the Bush campaign? Someone enlighten me.

What campaigns did the corporations that paid for and distributed Moore's film give contributions to?