Well, for one thing, it might make some people mad

Mark Steyn: FAHRENHEIT 9/11

Robert at Expat Yank points this out:

Moore used the planes hitting the towers for a cheap punchline in Bowling For Columbine. So this time he doesn’t show us anything: The screen is black, we hear only sounds, screams, thuds, chaos, and then the darkness clears to show us the aftermath. Critics were very appreciative. “Moore exercises admirable forbearance,” wrote Ann Hornaday in The Washington Post, “and creates one of the most moving sequences in recent cinema.”

But, when a director who’s not exactly known for admirable forbearance suddenly starts exercising it, you can’t help wondering why. Later in the movie, the old forbearance goes out the window – naked corpses of dead Iraqi children, shattered bodies, etc. The grief of a bereaved mother from Flint, Michigan is dwelt on at exploitative length and Moore is in no hurry to exercise his recently acquired forbearance: if it feels good, milk it. Much of Fahrenheit is comprised of unused TV footage: the make-up montage is from the minute or two before the interview begins, when the camera’s rolling and they’re adjusting the lighting, etc. Well, there’s plenty of unused footage from 9/11 – the TV cameras zoomed in on bodies falling from the towers, ordinary Americans choosing to die by taking one last gulp of air and plunging to earth rather than burn up in the heat and hell inside.

The networks took a decision not to show that – it was too real, too intrusive. But how strange that Michael Moore lingers on the brutal horror of Iraq, yet when it comes to 9/11 he exercises his now famous forbearance and blacks it out, a model of restraint.

It’s almost like he wants people to get a particular idea, or something.


  1. Just got back from Hell (Karbala) thirteen fucking months My sister convinced me to see F 9/11 in Boise You bet. It’s great I will not vote for chimp

  2. OK Murdoc, We’ve got SGTRyker’s take on the movie and President George W. Bush from someone whose been around on the ground. Care to reply?

  3. Well, I certainly haven’t been on the ground over there, so I can’t speak to that. I thank and commend SGTRyker for his service to his country (and therefore to me and my family) but I doubt that carries much weight with him. I doubt it would carry much weight with me if our roles were reversed. Thirteen months? I think that if we’re going to pursue the strategy that we’ve said we are going to pursue, we need more troops. The current troops are stretched too thinly and under-compensated. The Guard and Reserves, in particular, are way over-involved, especially in the length-of-deployment category. They are doing admirable work, and they are serving in the role that the Guard and Reserve is designed to serve, but the long-term damage to the institutions will be nearly impossible to repair. We need a larger active Army, and we need it soon. If SGTRyker plans to vote against Bush based upon his personal experiences or based upon F9/11, that is certainly his prerogative. In fact, voting his conscience is his DUTY as an American citizen. It leaves unanswered, though, questions about the accuracy and veracity of F9/11. It doesn’t really appear that we can take Michael Moore at face value, and I hope that voters realize that they need more than the words and pictures of a partisan propagandist to make a good decision.

  4. Didn’t you hear him? He said it was great. A ‘great’ documentary does not have inaccuracies or slimy attempt at factual manipulation, so I believe your question has been answered. This movie would not be great if it had that sort of thing in it. Then it would be (as I believe Variety magazine put it) a cheap campaign pamphlet for the Democrats. I have not seen the film, so I do not know if it contains lies, intentionally misleads, or ignores important issues on the ‘other side’. I would like to think it doesn’t, as that would be an unpleasant trick to pull on the American public.