You heard it here... last
There is so much in the news and on the internet about Moore's film that I hate to bore you with more, but I went to see it, and... aaaannd... it was good! Suprise, right? It was interesting to see that there were many different types of people in the crowd. I saw parents with their kids and quite a few elderly "folks". I'm sure that many who attended already had disdain for Dubya, particularly the couple next to me that would utter things like "what an asshole" every now and then.
But really, even though the film had a very biased approach, it raised many questions about the people in charge of this country. The first half was mainly bits of clever editing in which Bush's business ties to Saudi leaders are recounted, the Florida vote is recounted and subject to a loss of 27,000 votes, and Bush goes on vacation, for 42% of the first eight months in office... here is an interesting discussion on the the latter matter.
It was definitely a documentary, but it covered so many issues very quickly while keeping tight with the editing. Moore never really reaches a point, but rather leaves it open for the viewer to decide based on what is presented. One can't argue with the eggs being thrown at Bush's motorcade during his inaugaration, or the 700 billion that Saudi Arabia has invested in our economy, or the huge profits being made by friends of the henchmen.
There were attempts at persuading with emotional rhetoric, such as the woman who lost her son, or the innocent civilians that are killed during the war. Some might say that things like this will exploit the army in a negative fashion, though I would have to say that they were more attempts at justifying the argument that we have sent our troops to an unnecessary war... which is one of the main points of the film. I don't know that it will change people's minds about the monkey, but it will definitely reinforce the views of people that already don't like what has happened and it should at least get people thinking, which is good. People. Thinking. This is good.
posted by TheZenFly at 7:19 PM
3 Comments:
I’ve read very few articles on the internet which discuss Fahrenheit 9/11, so I’m sorry if these things have already been done to death.
I think Moore uses more than just simple emotional tactics in the film. In the beginning of the film it has a black screen with the sounds of September 11 playing; this instills a sense of anger/sadness/outrage into the viewer which might be carried over onto his main subject (Bush) without even needing a direct link between the two.
The parts where administration members are preparing for broadcast by having their hair attended to, putting in/taking out earpieces, warming up facial muscles, trying to prepare for the tone/mood of the broadcast, waiting with boredom, having makeup put on, etc., all seems to have been done in different lighting (probably since it was pre-broadcast) which allows the viewer to see dust particles floating, and the camera often zooms in on faces reminiscent of a Ren and Stimpy episode, all the while playing effective music. The effect it gives, at least to me, is a sense that they are: phony, robotic, inhuman, alien, insincere, grosse, dead, and so on – all done without the need for words or facts.
Moore also jumps from one bold statement to the next – I personally would have liked to pause the movie several times in order to contemplate what was just presented. He did the same thing in Bowling for Columbine; it’s almost hypnotic, before you can rebut one statement you are led into the next, and then the next, because you don’t want to miss what is happening you’re not allowed to ponder, and before you know it you’ve been led into a synergistic conclusion. If the length of the film was a constraint, he could have edited out a lot of minutes of the woman sobbing. For me the longer he spent on her, the less I felt emotional about it; I felt more like I didn’t belong in her living room. Yes I felt sorry for her, but it was like attending a three hour funeral of someone you never knew.
Moore also builds a repore with the viewer. For example, he makes jokes that even Bush lovers can’t help but laugh at. This makes Moore seem likable – seeing/hearing Bush get put down is more agreeable when presented by a funny person. “Moore is looking out for the common person; he is one of us.”
Anyway, I’m not saying I liked or disliked the film, I’m just saying that Moore seems to be good at weaving Psychological ploys into his films. I’m not saying that is bad either, it’s intelligent craftsmanship. I personally would like to see Moore’s statements written out, without the rhetoric, humor, emotion inspiring visuals, psychological tactics, and such – in a sense, just give me the meat and potatoes and cut the bullshit, maybe then I’d feel more confident in giving the film credibility.
Some of the broader topics the film brought up which I would like to think more about are:
Are poor people in bad neighborhoods given such shitty options that they feel joining the army is the only way for them to get ahead in life? Are they unable to get student loans?
If the decision to wage war was made by the people or the direct family of the people who would be doing the fighting, what would be the impact?
Does metal music, graphic films, graphic video games, and so on, warp our psychology at least on a subconscious level?
If a moral cause is widely accepted and something is done to fix it, changes will take place – so are we only standing up for the causes whose consequences we are personally willing to accept, and then turning a blind eye to those whose consequences we are not?
There is a certain amount of pleasure in arguing a topic, a certain amount of pleasure in feeling outraged and ready to vent out our opinions in hopes of physically/intellectually/emotionally crushing the opponent, do humans sometimes ignore details and ignore other people’s sensitivities in order to gain this pleasure?
It seemed to me that the film’s major objective was to show the Bush Administration as bad. If a person believes everything in the film, it could be argued that oil is a staple that is holding them up. They went to wars for oil, they deal with the Saudis for oil – the reason for wanting oil is to make a profit and gain power, so why don’t I hear more people calling for a reduction in oil use? The Bush in the film knows people will never give up their cars, not to mention electricity and everything else that’s derived from oil, so he knows it’s a secure profit. We’re screwed when it comes to fossil fuels. Even if you ignore pollution, look how dependant our way of life is on energy. It’s going to run out soon, and then what, chaos, economic collapse? It doesn’t take much research to see the problems with alternative energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric. We’re just waiting and hoping some scientist will come up with a miracle in time. Look how pissed people are with current gas prices. With all of this, is it any wonder that the evil Bush in Moore’s film would try and seize some of the remaining deposits of oil? Not only for profit and power, but also for his country, because the people demand oil and the economy demands oil, they just don't want to know its true cost. So why is it that the people in the theater who are so passionately angry, leave the theater, get into their car and drive away? There is a bus stop outside of the theater which can get nearly anywhere in town in less than an hour; it’s summer, a perfect time for a walk or bike ride; people talked with friends before the movie came out, but I didn’t see anyone car pool.
I'm not at all trying to imply the film was bad or that I support Bush, I'm just saying that I hope people get more out of it than, "Bush Bad, Hulk Angry!".
POSTED BY THE WALKING DUDE
It is very true that oil is a staple for us, though what would bother me about our leaders investing in oil, or fighting a war for oil, would be that this isn't what we were told were the reasons behind the administration's foreign policy. If not lied to, just never informed about... ok, lied to. I'm not sure if oil is the main problem, at least it wouldn't be my main issue with the war, though we do here the typical "no war for oil" protest pretty frequently. Maybe all of the circumstances surrounding bush's decisions seem suspect to some... maybe it's the way he repeats himself like a broken record, or all the smudged records, the secretive nature of the henchmen and henchwoman, the contradictory statements, business ties that have to make anyone see a gap between what monkies will say and what monkies will do. At any rate, you raise many different issues, thanx.
BUYANKASHA
I'm not saying the actions which Bush and his administration are accused of are justified - they're horrible; I just wonder if in the whole cause and effect nature of things if the average American citizen is at least part to blame. If we are truely upset about what is going on, then it would seem like reducing our oil consumption would be a positive action to add to voicing our outrage and protesting. When it was discovered that Kathy Lee Gifford's clothing line was being manufactured using child slavery, people not only protested, they stopped buying the clothes. I'll admit I strayed from the topic to a certain degree, but it seems like the only moral issue I hear discussed in public is the anti-Bush topic.
Maybe I let my personal feelings get involved; I've been reading about energy problems since grade school, I wish it could get this kind of attention. Of course a documentary on energy consumption would never win favor, since people would be overt hypocrits for not giving up a lazy lifestyle - it's easier to bitch. Sorry, I'm drifting again, I just sometimes get disheartened by peoples in your face preaching, because they ignore so many other topics, and it seems as though all of this hatred spreading on both sides will come down to one day, a day which, if like the last election, will have many outspoken people of the last three years telling me that they overslept, or that they didn't think their vote would make a difference.
As far as my metioning of Moore's film techniques, I did so for two reasons. One, becuase I found it interesting, I don't get to analyze many persuasive movies. And two, if people are upset about being misled, they should be careful not to make the same mistake again. I see people on both sides of the issue acting like lemmings - unwilling to hear the other side or admit fault within their side, I honestly don't care which side someone is on, I'm just frustrated with the large number of people lately who have been voicing their opinions in public with a WWF type attitude.
POSTED BY THE WALKING DUDE
Post a Comment
<< Home