Here are a couple of movie-related links:
LET YOU ENTERTAIN ME on Michelle Malkin’s excellent new blog notes Hollywood’s current portrayals of war, and opens comments so readers can note some of their favorite WW2 films. Go check it out.
Also, Unfairenheit 9/11:The lies of Michael Moore by Christopher Hitchens on Slate is worth a look.
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.
We are introduced to Iraq, “a sovereign nation.” (In fact, Iraq’s “sovereignty” was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore’s flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism.
Do I want to go see FAHRENHEIT 9/11?
I might. Not because I am really interested in Moore’s take on things, but because after listening to the unabridged DUDE, WHERE’S MY COUNTRY? I’m morbidly curious about what crackheadpot stuff we’re going to see in this film.
(This reminds me of the time someone told me not to go see BATTLEFIELD EARTH. “You’ll be tempted to go because you’ll think there’s no way something is as bad as people say this movie is,” he told me. “You’re wrong.”
He was right.)
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is going to make a lot of money. Tons of money. Piles and piles and piles of money. There’s nothing I can do about that. If every Conservative-leaning person who was considering going to the movie decided against it, it would still make piles and piles of money. So personal hesitation to help fund this sort of banality doesn’t really enter into the equation.
But it’s not really fair for me to call the film banal if I haven’t seen it, either. I’m certainly in no danger of being “brainwashed” or “converted” to Moore’s cause. Even though I’d certainly enter the theater with prejudices firmly in place, I’m perfectly willing to let the film speak for itself.