Eve of Destruction

[oscar jubis]

As a pacifist and a liberal, it's easy to predict how I feel about the war and Moore's doc. My contribution will take the form of quotes from Jonathan Rosenbaum's review, which I found interesting/pertinent and reflect my p.o.v.

"F. 9/11 demonstrates a certain filmic intelligence not apparent in Moore's previous films. It's most apparent in his skillful and sensitive depiction of the attack on the WTC. His elliptical treatment of a Christmas Eve army raid on a Bagdad home later in the film is equally effective."

"Moore's most important achievement is delivering to American moviegoers many facts about Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that our TV news have downplayed or ignored. In fact, the current popular documentaries have scored at the box office precisely because they help fill in the enormous gaps created by our depleted and corrupted TV culture".

"Objectivity in a documentary (or a film review) is not only impossible but undesirable. The merit of Fahrenheit 9/11 lies in its ability to enrage you_or conversely, to clarify some of the rage you already feel_without abandoning the capacity to entertain that has always been Moore's trump card."

"Moore is no less scathing in his treatment of Congress, circling the Capitol in an ice cream truck to read the Patriot Act aloud to those representatives who never looked at it. He also documents the Senate's dismissive treatment of black representatives who came to the Senate chambers to protest the disenfranchisement of their constituents in the 2000 election. In fact, black and working-class people turn out to be the film's true heroes_ a part of its dramaturgy and argument that Moore develops with considerable skill and nuance."

[Chris Knipp]

I'm glad you and your guru Rosenbaum liked Moore's movie, Oscar -- I agree that you, like I, would have a hard time not doing so, given our politics. It's always interesting to see what the sage of Chicago has to say if only because so many film buffs swear by his words. However from my viewpoint his as usual dry, rather stilted style seems like kind of a funny way to get at what Moore's doing. You'd hardly guess he's describing the blunt populist from Flint and not Kiarostami or Hou Hsiau Hsien. Good point about the treatment of the World Trade Center bombings, though: it is a subtle approach. Some of Moore's editing isn't at all subtle, but that passage certainly is. I wish Rosenbaum had listed the "current popular documentaries" that have "scored at the box office precisely because they help fill in the enormous gaps created by our depleted and corrupted TV culture." I'm not sure what he's referring to other than this and Control Room. Typical self righteous tone: do we have to be told this about our "TV culture"? I hardly think so.

Interesting that Rosenbaum says "Objectivity in a documentary (or a film review) is not only impossible but undesirable." David Denby (whom film buffs abhor, I take it) says just the opposite in his very harsh treatment of the second half of Farenheit 9/11. Not that I agree with Denby, but this remark of Rosenbaum's (joining the Moore camp in makiing it) doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion, because obviously there are documentaries that take a very neutral stance, and Moore is an extreme example of the other approach -- hardly the only desirable method. It's not true that Farenheit 9/11 is the ideal or typical kind of documentary; it's a very special one, arguably not even a documentary but an empassioned argument.

Denby cites Jarecki of Capturing the Friedmans as the kind of neutral documentary people should make and calls Jarecki one of the "great" documentarians of today. That's ridiculous in my view: Capturing the Friedmans isn't brilliant, just lucky, much like Noujaim of Control Room, a matter of lucky timing and serendipity. In that sense Moore's Farenheit 9/11 emerges as a powerful piece of work because he has shaped his material so consciously and, yes, it is good to know what a documentarian's biases are, up front. But one thinks of To Be and To Have, the French documentary about a schoolroom, where the filmmakers are completely recessive and that, too, is clearly a wonderful and -- in a very different way -- a very appropriately constructed and shaped documentary. Perhaps it's obvious they believe the teacher and his classroom are worthy of our worshipful attention and that is a position, but it's never overtly stated and is hardly partisan.

There is a lot of stuff, including the black congresspeople's failed attempt to protest the ruined election and disenfranchised minority voters, that is new to us in the movie. But if this is the substance of Rosenbaum's description of it, he (not untypically, again) fails to note the essential power of it which lies in two things, mainly: first in the coherent chronological narrative that Moore constructs for us, which constitutes a sequence that's almost unbearable to see all connected together; and second, on another, non-verbal, non-logical level, in the images, in Bush's facial expressions, and those of the other adminstration clique members shown in TV outtakes, whose utterly damning message requires no explication by the narrator whatsoever.

[Johann]

OK, anduril- here's your 8 points- deconstructed.

1. Repeated violation of a cease-fire? "this reason alone justifies it?" Wrong. He's not under their jurisdiction! This not justification for war. The "red herring" you speak of is accurate- the US & Britain has no right to intervene, regardless of what Saddam is doing. The US is not a schoolmarm,anduril. They don't have license to police the earth.

2. How long has the U.N. been impotent? Uh, FOREVER. It shouldn't surprise anybody that they're corrupt too. What Bush is basically saying is "we are the only country that can rip off it's own people". Again, This is not justification for WAR.

3. Even if boatloads of WMD's were shipped out of Iraq before the inspectors could find them this does not give the U.S. the right to invade & attack anyway. My guess is Bush said "No weapons? He's not gonna make me look like an idiot on the world's stage! Prepare OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM!!!!!"

4. This point only shows that the U.N. are incompetent and Saddam is ignoring other countries. We know that already. Big deal. STILL NO JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR. I don't care if Saddam gave the finger to a thousand Presidents- you don't bomb him for that. You don't kill innocent people for his mistakes. If your nation is truly righteous, you find better ways to resolve the situation. Not doable when Bush is a WAR PRESIDENT!

5. Re-read what I wrote on your website about point #5. My employment of sarcasm was especially apropo, imho. Ridiculous excuse for justification...Pre-emptive strikes are cowardly, horrific abuses of power.

6. Even if you are correct, it still doesn't justify WAR. Am I getting my point across, here? These "justifications" are great for building a case for war, but not for war itself. It was just enough for 'ol Bushy to use his military, which needs to go to war otherwise where's the justification of the defence budget? No war means all our war toys collect dust, soldiers get rusty...

7. Duh. Saddam is a bad guy. The world knows this already. You don't have to tell us. Again, the US is not the world police. Again, this does not justify WAR.

8. I won't even dignify this one with a reply. You know my answer.

[Chris Knipp]

It's unfortunate that this thread has been dominated by Anduril. This is much the same thing that happened with a lengthy thread about Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which I believe he liked. He went to see it. I did not like it, but I went to see it the first night, with an open mind.

This is a film website. It exists for the discussion of films. This thread has been commandeered for a political debate. Now, sure, Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 is political -- and passionately partisan. But if this is really FilmWurld we're here to talk about a movie. And whether you are "familiar with most of the facts" contained in it or whatever, you're not qualified to talk about the movie unless you've seen it.

The thread has also been derailed into a narrower discussion than the issues dealt with in Moore's movie. Anduril's eight points are justifications for the US invasion of Iraq (or at least he thinks they are), but Moore's movie is an indictment of the US government's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or, to put it another way more germane to Moore's outlook, the policies the Bush administration has used 9/11 as an excuse for carrying out. Along the way, Moore is saying, obviously, that Bush and his family and his administration have shown themselves not only biased but incompetent and dangerous.

Some of Anduril's statements have been interesting, and they've stimulated lively responses from Johann, Raoul, and several others (unfortunately, not many others). I find it interesting that because Anduril thinks the war was justified he therefore thinks Bush's incompetence is irrelevant. I don't think the issues Anduril brings up have much to do with Moore's movie directly. He isn't addressing Moore's points; he's addressing the general idea that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, which he seeks to refute. That's a general idea; but Moore's movie deals with a much wider spectrum of issues. It's also a movie, not a text, and it must be dealt with as a movie, and not as a series of facts or claims or arguments.

I'm sorry that Johann doesn't even bother to reply to the intricate and convoluted series of points Anduril included in his #8 point in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Some of Anduril's arguments are fairly conventional. But at times, here, he really goes off on his own:

the instability in Iraq has meant that terrorists, who might otherwise attack civilians in the United States, are engaged in conflict with soldiers there. Many analysts are quick to point out that the Islamic militants have come flying out of the woodwork in Iraq but few have realized that this means they are not in the United States attacking civilians.” The United States has effectively opened a front for its war against terrorism. This front contributes considerably to the safety of the world.

"Few have realized...." Few indeed. This is one of the more inspired examples of doublethink I've ever seen. But ingenious though it is, I doubt it would gain much currency on the rightest of right wing websites.

But to get back to my point: none of this is a critique of Moore's Farenheit 9/11, which Anduril has not seen. Whether he avoids seeing it out of fear, out of a desire not to "aid" the "causes" Moore stands for, or because (although he can spend hours participating in this thread) he is too busy working on his thesis to go out to a movie -- movies are a waste of his valuable time -- I have to protest against the lengthy commandeering of this website for partisan, non-cinematic uses.

I didn't mind dropping $10 into Mel Gibson's treasury, no matter how pernicious I found his film: I'm here to discuss films. And you've got to see 'em to talk about 'em.

[Johann]

Thank you Chris for bringing us back to reason.

I'm so caught up in my indigance over anduril's claims I find it difficult to enunciate myself. anduril uses his "learned-ness" to blast me from on high. The invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in his eyes.

Indeed, how can we discuss a film in such frustrating circumstances?

[Chris Knipp]

When somebody has his "twelve points" or his "eight points" it's easy to get caught up in trying to refute them -- and lose sight of the fact that his whole discussion is "pointless" because it's not what we really mean to be talking about! It gets interesting, but it keeps others from engaging in the discussion, when it turns into a slugfest between two or three participants.

[Johann]

Yes, and a slugfest between two people who know each other very well (maybe too well) degrades the situation even further..

He knows I'm not quick on the draw with "eloquent language", so I'm forced to reply in a manner that makes me look like a jackass...Many apologies for my outbursts on this thread- as I've said before anduril riles me up like no one I've ever met.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
It's unfortunate that this thread has been dominated by Anduril. This is much the same thing that happened with a lengthy thread about Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, which I believe he liked. He went to see it. I did not like it, but I went to see it the first night, with an open mind.

Well, I'll come to Anduril's defense on this one. He wrote at length about the faults in "Passion of the Christ", and he led a healthy debate against a person here called MickeyMoose who was a strong proponent of the film. Anduril, a person with an extensive background in biblical studies, found the film to be more in line with a traditional passion play (historically anti-semitic) than a true interpretation of the Bible. I hate to be speaking for him here, but I don't think he would argue with that description. I, for one, learned alot from Anduril's postings about that film.

Of course, I agree one should see "Fahrenheit 9/11" before really delving into its subject matter. As has been mentioned before here, the images in the film are its strong point. We live in an image dominated soceity, and control of images and information is something that the Bush Administration has mastered. Now, Moore comes along and presents other images, ones that aren't nearly as flattering to the Administration. I applaud that.

I also find somewhat perplexing Anduril's statement about the "new front" on terrorism in Iraq making the U.S. safer. This argument about movements of concentrations of terrorists might be a bit more applicable, if at all, to Israel. Possibly the suicide bombers (or "suiciders" as Bush calls them) may shift their focus to Iraq, but I don't think there would be any effect on the U.S. directly.

[Johann]

Christianity is anduril's forte. It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. If you notice, he spoke about Gibson's film from an authoritarian position.

You won't see him "talking movies" here in any great detail.
Jesus is priority #1.

[JustaFied]

I'm not sure I agree with you that he was speaking from an authoritarian position. More of an professorial (or academic) position, which is what he's in training to be. I was impressed with his knowledge on the subject, just as I'm impressed with your knowledge of film.

What may be frustrating to Anduril (and to the academic mindset) here is that they want to center this debate about Fahr9/11 in the context of the traditional oral and written argument. Our society, however, is just as dependent on the power of the visual image as on the written argument in formulating our opinions. In not seeing the film in this context, Anduril is failing to understand why this film has a legitimate appeal to so many people.

[Johann]

TOUCHE, JustaFied!

anduril and I have passion- him for Christ, me for films.

I invited him to FilmWurld to discuss Gibson's film, and it would be two-faced of me to say that he was authoritarian. I knew what he was capable of in terms of "discussing" the film. The knowledge you gained was expected and encouraged by me.

The political intensity of this thread is also my fault- anduril wouldn't have appeared unless I stated his refusal to see the film.
(MY BAD!)

[Chris Knipp]

I apologize for misinterpreting or misremembering Anduril's lengthy explications of biblical matters as showing a liking for Mel's Passion, if he didn't like it. But my point still stands that it took us away from the movies, our true subject, as has his discussion of the Iraq war without seeing Michael Moore's movie.
JustaFied wrote, "What may be frustrating to Anduril (and to the academic mindset) here is that they want to center this debate about Fahr9/11 in the context of the traditional oral and written argument. " Clearly that was true. But Farenheit 9/11 is a movie, and this is a movie website. I'm repeating myself, and pointiing out the obvious. This whole discussion is beginning to seem irrelevant, which is a shame. It's really an important movie about important matters.

When Johann said, "If you notice, he spoke about Gibson's film from an authoritarian position," I suspect he meant "authoratative" rather than "authoritarian." He cited authorities. But after a short while, he forgot we were talking about Mel Gibson's movie. Johann also helpfully explained, "It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. " Well, I did feel that knowledge was being wheeled out, but to what end, I was not so sure. Johann goes on: "You won't see him "talking movies" here in any great detail. Jesus is priority #1." But that hasn't been true of Anduril in this thread. I guess Bush replaced Jesus? Or is it just that Jesus is on Bush's side?

[pmw]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
But that hasn't been true of Anduril in this thread. I guess Bush replaced Jesus? Or is it just that Jesus is on Bush's side?

I think it's odd how willing people are to link Jesus and Bush together in one breath. As if one might be doing the other's will (whatever that would be...). It's a clever strategy on the part of the Bush team.

Moore's interview with the mother from Flynt documents an interesting shift in faith that we might see more of as things going wrong in Iraq. The link between god and country by way of Bush's war/will doesn't hold up when your child comes home in a body bag for a war that doesn't really seem to have a point.
A very touching moment in the film.
P

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Johann also helpfully explained, "It was a golden opportunity for him to wheel out his knowledge. " Well, I did feel that knowledge was being wheeled out. But to what end, I was not so sure.

I think what Anduril was doing in the "Passion of the Christ" discussion was helping to put the story in the "context" of biblical interpretation. That's the key word here, "context". Without some understanding of the Bible, how are we supposed to analyze Gibson's film, how are we supposed to respond to charges of the film's anti-semitism? In what context are we to view the film? By the look, or feel of the film, or some other equally amorphous criteria? When that Mickey Moose guys says simply that the film is not anti-semitic, is biblically accurate, and that we shouldn't criticize it because Gibson has the "right" to make the film, how should we respond?

I believe we should take a similar approach to "Fahrenheit 9/11". One should analyze the film in the context of information gleaned from many sources. Don't just take Moore at his word. Sure, it's a film, and this is a message board to discuss film, but we need to seek to understand the broader context of the film's subject matter, and that may involve moving beyond the comfortable borders set by the film itself. That's responsible analysis of an "important" film.

Again, what's so striking (and important) to me about this film is the images we don't get from other mainstream sources. That's where the medium of film can be most important in helping to educate society. It reminds me in a way of The Revolution will not be Televised; we see the images and we hear different interpretations of what happened. We're left with the difficult task of thinking for ourselves and formulating our own opinions.

[pmw]

I agree with you there Justafied. Films, art, music whatever ultimately have a context that extends beyond the body of work. And an important look at the other elements of a particular context is...important.

P