June 25, 2004 -- “Fahrenheit 9/11” is like a newspaper editorial against the Iraq war, only it is done in the movie documentary-style format. It isn't really a documentary in the traditional sense, though, because it is more of a polemic than most documentaries, which at least try to give an appearance of objectivity. The film makes a strong case and backs it up with facts. In many cases it misstates or ignores facts which don't fit its message. A few of the facts are in dispute, but much of what is in this movie is common knowledge to news junkies like me. The information is out there for those who seek it somewhere else than the Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly shows, Fox News or other unofficial Republican Party spokesmen. This movie is more than just a recitation of facts, however. Parts of it are very moving. A mother's heartbreak from the death of her son in Iraq, the dead and mutilated soldiers, the shattered bodies and minds of those who survived the war. I had to turn my head away from the screen at times. It was too painful to watch. This is a very powerful film.

The Academy Award-winning (for “Bowling for Columbine”) Michael Moore starts his film by revisiting the 2000 Presidential election, arguing that Gore won the election, but Bush won the court battle for the presidency because of his family connections. Actually, a recount of votes commissioned by a group of newspapers, including the New York Times, indicates Bush really would likely have won the election, had all the votes been counted. There are some scenarios where Gore would have won, but those were unlikely outcomes. All this is before the film's opening credits roll. Then we get to 9/11. Bush sits reading to children in a Florida classroom while New York burns. It takes him about seven minutes before he gets going. Some accounts (this is not in the film) indicate that Vice President Cheney gave the order to shoot down the renegade airliners on his own.

The camera lingers on Bush during this September 11, 2001 photo opportunity. Bush has a glassy-eyed stare like a deer caught in headlights. Moore's voice-over says Bush doesn't know what to do, because nobody is telling him what to do. It is pretty obvious that Moore doesn't like Bush. He shows Bush playing golf in the months leading up to 9/11, saying he spent over 40 percent of that time at his Texas ranch. After 9/11 Moore criticizes Bush for not devoting enough people and resources to round up Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the most deadly terrorist attacks in U.S. History. He opted instead to pull money and people out of the Afghanistan war (illegally) and put them into Iraq. Moore argues that the reasons for going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq were phony. Moore argues the real reason for going to war with Afghanistan was part of a conspiracy to pave the way for a natural gas pipeline through that nation. The pipeline was approved by the new government (headed by a former employee of the main company which will profit from the project). The real reason for the war with Iraq was a conspiracy to control oil, Moore argues. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and oil-related businesses in the U.S. are now making a lot of money in Iraq, including, of course, Cheney's former company, Halliburton.

Moore fails to really nail down these arguments, but he provides a lot of information about the Bush family ties to the governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and to the powerful Bin Laden family. Moore makes an argument that it was these ties that greased the way for the Bin Laden family to leave the U.S. shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In a voice-over, Moore says the Bin Laden family and a number of Saudis were allowed to fly out of the U.S. after September 13, 2001. At the same time, the camera pans over a document which clearly shows the scheduled date of departure for the flights as September 13. So which was it, 9/13 or sometime after 9/13? Some have argued the 9/11 commission report says the people on those aircraft were questioned by the FBI prior to their departure, and that they left after aircraft were no longer grounded. Moore's documentary clearly implies the Saudi flights left the country during the time when most other aircraft were grounded, and that the members of the Bin Laden family and others were not questioned thoroughly. Even if the flights did leave on 9/13, some airports had already opened by then, but service was very slow, with many delays and frequent airport closures due to security scares. According to a June 19 article in the Wichita Eagle, “A report earlier this year by the Sept. 11 commission said only 30 of the 142 passengers (Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family) who left on the flights between September 14 and 24 were interviewed before leaving. The FBI subsequently concluded that none of the passengers were tied to terrorism, according to the report.”

Conservatives have latched onto the Saudi-Bin Laden flights as one of the largest factual errors in the film. That's pretty thin. The fact that only 30 of the 142 passengers on those flights were questioned by the FBI is highly suspicious. If such a screw-up happened under the Clinton Administration, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and every other conservative in the country would be all over Clinton like ugly on an ape. They'd all be yelling that Clinton was soft on terrorism. The reason conservatives are so quiet about the Bush-Cheney Saudi-Bin Laden connection is that it scares them to death. This connection is definitely smoking and there is probably fire there, too. The other reason the conservative demagogues like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are so mad about Moore is that he is just as good at demagoguery as they are. They have had the field to themselves so long, they're having a hard time adjusting to this new kid on the block. They'd better get used to him. Conservatives are so mad about Moore, they've skipped logical arguments and gone straight to name calling. They've called Moore “racist” for his depictions of Arabs as villains, and, of course, “traitor,” since Moore doesn't agree with conservatives about Bush, or the war. They've also characterized his film as propaganda, since that has a more negative connotation than the word documentary. This is so funny. Conservative demagogues can dish it out, but they sure can't take a punch.

The movie does feature a lot of “guilt by association” shots of Bush and other members of his administration shaking hands with Hussein and various Saudi people dressed in robes. There is a very cozy relationship between the Saudi royal family and the United States. This relationship goes back many years before Bush took office, but the relationship exists, nonetheless. While Moore's conclusions don't necessarily follow from his premises, the Bush family has business dealings which link it inextricably to the Saudis. While Bush has had a tough time proving any substantial link between Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government and terrorists, there is plenty of evidence that Saudi money is being funnelled to terrorist organizations through a variety of means, including various Islamic charities. There are enough links between the Bush family and the Saudis to raise suspicions about the true motives Bush had for his particular brand of war on terrorism, particularly the “hands off” policy toward the Saudis.

There is an interesting bit in the film about an FBI investigation of a man who said things critical of Bush at a health club. There is a similar bit about a small California peace organization that was infiltrated by local police. There were similar investigations of peace groups during the Vietnam war. Another bit shows how you can board a commercial airliner with matches and cigarette lighters, but not nail clippers or breast milk. Another bit shows how some 400 miles of Oregon coast is guarded by one state patrolman, working part time. A psychologist argues the various terrorism alert level announcements could be used to affect elections (yet another conspiracy). The psychologist argues the alert level will never be at its lowest level. I think that is a very good guess. Moore argues that most homeland security measures are just for show.

The most effective part of the movie, however, are interviews with a woman from Flint, Mich. (Moore's hometown) before, and after her son is killed while serving in the armed forces in Iraq. The woman's anguish over the loss of her son is as palpable as her disillusionment with the conduct of the war. This woman's terrible sorrow, along with the pain of the disabled veterans coming back from the war is very intense. The movie also shows graphic footage of wounded and mutilated Americans and Iraqis. There is also footage of a beheading in Saudi Arabia. Some have argued this movie should not be rated “R,” but I think the rating is justified because of these graphic images. This is a more disturbing movie than “The Passion of the Christ” because the death, mutilation, pain and suffering in it are real, not faked. Americans are too seldom reminded of the true costs of war. This film does that very effectively.

The film explores a number of viewpoints of the war by combatants. There are the young soldiers who think war is exciting. There are older soldiers who know that war is a dangerous, dirty, deadly, messy business where innocent people get killed as a matter of course. There are soldiers who are totally disillusioned with the war, and feel that it is pointless. It is here that Moore inserts one of his stunts made famous in his movies and his TV show, “TV Nation.” He tries to persuade Congressmen on Capitol Hill to recruit their own children to fight in the Iraq war. As in any modern war fought with an all-volunteer force, very few sons and daughters of the upper classes die. Moore also follows two Marine Corps recruiters working in Flint. The recruiters know that high unemployment areas like Flint are prime recruiting territories. They work the dreams of the area young men and women with skill. Moore argues that while the war is fought to profit the wealthy, it is the poor who are more likely to pay the price for it on the battlefield.

Moore also hits the Patriot Act with one of his stunts. He drives around Washington D.C. with sound truck, reading the provisions of the act. Apparently, nobody in Congress read the act before passing it. Moore argues the Patriot Act was merely a move to seize more power for the government and weaken the constitution. For the most part, though, Moore keeps himself off the screen, even though he dominates the film's soundtrack. Moore also shows restraint in depicting the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The screen is blank. We hear the sound of the attacks, then we see people's reaction to it later.

Some have called this Moore's best film. To me, it is more of the same. It is very similar to his earlier films like “Bowling for Columbine” and “Roger and Me.” It is less inventive than “Bowling for Columbine” and it isn't as funny as “Roger and Me.” There are fewer attack interviews, fewer stunts, less egotistical grandstanding, but a lot more factual material and a lot more conspiracy theories. The trouble with conspiracy theories, like the Kennedy assassination conspiracies, is that you can't disprove them and you can't really prove them either (especially if they're not true). You can only assert them or deny them, so I don't see the point of doing either. I think Moore throws out conspiracy theories because they are entertaining and they taint Bush. Moore's restraint, his passion to oust Bush, and his ability to put the war in a personal perspective, and to try to connect some unlikely dots in an entertaining way, makes this a very powerful film. This film rates a B.

It should also be noted that in its first few days of release, this film set all kinds of box office records. It became the first documentary film to become a number one hit at the box office (none of the others even made it to the top five). It will make more money by far than any other documentary. It will be distributed to more theaters than any other documentary, too. This film could change all the rules about how documentary films are marketed and distributed. This film is nothing but good news for the independent film industry, too. It shows once again (as did “The Passion of the Christ” and “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”) that you don't have to spend tons of money on development, production and marketing to have a successful film. This was a very low-budget film by Hollywood standards. Its profit margin will be huge. In Hollywood, nothing talks like money. This film also has serious implications for journalism. It represents another step in the process of blurring the lines between news and entertainment, and between journalism and advocacy. While most journalists are liberal, conservatives have dominated the news media in recent years. This movie signals a new escalation of that age-old battle.

For more information on this film, including about the movie, O.K., I've seen the movie, what do I do now?, how can I help the soldiers?, Cannes, video clips, premieres, poster, stills, click on this link to the official home page of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Copyright © 2004 Robert Roten. All rights reserved.
Reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder.

Robert Roten can be reached via e-mail at .