Farhenheit 9/11, the film by Michael Moore
Fahrenheit 9/11
July 14, 2004
I saw Michael Moore's film here, in a preview in my village of Pertuis, with subtitles. The theater was full. There were quite a few Americans, on vacation in the area. The film is well made, direct, without any heaviness. What comes across is the complete incompetence of the character of Bush (and his entourage). There is a shocking sequence. When the planes hit the twin towers, Bush is in a school with young children. Twice his assistants warn him, the second message being "Mr. President, the Nation is under attack." Bush remains unresponsive for several minutes, seven or eight, I think. He is filmed in close-up. After this second message, he seems to not know what to do, bites his lips and picks up the textbook he was consulting a few minutes earlier. It looks like a sullen child, upset. He especially resembles an actor who has been given no script and is waiting for someone to compose one for him.
According to what I understand, all of Bush's speeches are written for him. He is above all an actor who knows how to pose his gaze, care for his expressions, his silences, but he is also a puppet. When he improvises, it is simply catastrophic. These are not just mistakes, they are confessions. When he speaks to the richest families in the USA, he tells them: "you are my base."
Moore has highlighted a small number of themes with great talent. He did not feel it necessary to show the impacts on the twin towers or images showing people committing suicide by jumping out of windows rather than burning alive. Only the faces of people, touching. We see a young woman showing a photo of her husband, father of two children: "has anyone seen my husband?" The horror of the event appears in these few shots, the whole being treated with a lot of sobriety, with dignity.
At the same time, the meeting of the Carlyle group is mentioned, the day before the event, and Bush's dinner with the ambassador of Saudi Arabia. We learn that Saudi money represents 6 to 7 percent of investments in the USA and that the withdrawal of these sums would put the American economy in difficulty.
Moore does not plead, but lets the images, people, and facts speak. We see Marine recruiters in action in poor neighborhoods: "the army, buddy, will allow you to travel, pay for your studies." Everything goes. These two guys, with white caps, strapped into their uniforms, hunt for cannon fodder, talking like two men in pursuit of game. Another sequence, in contrast, Moore takes on the role of the recruiter and stops one of the 325 members of Congress as he leaves a screening, asking if it would be conceivable for one of their sons to join the Iraqi conflict. They all evade, embarrassed. We learn that among these 325 members of Congress, only one has a son engaged in this conflict.
Sequence on the neighborhoods of the deprived.
- To be able to offer us the university, the Army is the only solution, it's sad but that's how it is, says a young person of coffee color.
This is where our recruiters operate, playing on all registers.
- You like jazz. But do you know that in the army we have very nice groups...
The strongest sequence, Moore gets by following the fate of a woman from these neighborhoods. At the beginning of the film, she says that there are many soldiers in her family and that she is extremely proud of it. Her son, her nephews, brothers, her parents are soldiers. Her daughter, too, who was present during the first conflict, the Gulf War. But "thanks to God, she is now healthy."
We see this woman hang, as every morning, her starry flag at the window of her house. She adds, "we are the backbone of America."
And then everything turns upside down. Her 20-year-old son is killed when Iraqi partisans shoot down a helicopter above Baghdad. Her world suddenly collapses. It is probably the first death in this family that counts a dozen soldiers and it turns out that this dead man is her son, who had just sent her a last letter, which she reads, and in which the boy confesses his distress: "we don't understand what we are doing there. I can't wait to go back home." This mother will go to Washington where one can see the White House surrounded by a high wall to prevent a shooter from simply taking position behind bars. At some distance, an old woman is camping on an empty square under a makeshift shelter, a simple plastic sheet that protects her from the rain. She has also lost a son and is surrounded by cardboard signs. A young woman attacks her, like the one Moore followed on his journey. The latter says to her, "I have lost a son... it's true... do you understand? He died there..." And the other, not knowing what to reply, finally lets out in anger as she walks away: "He's not the only one!"
Moore's film is full of fantastic scenes, like this one. The writing is sober and evokes that of a Chris Marker. I understand that they gave the Golden Palm to this film, purely from a cinematographic point of view. What is crazy are the contrasts. In the credits, quite long, we see Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, in makeup. At one moment we see a person wetting his comb with his saliva several times to better comb his hair. Who is this man, of such disarmingly vulgar manner? It is none other than Paul Wolfowitz, second in command at the Pentagon, chief strategist for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The viewer thinks, "Are these really the people who are in charge of the world?"
In Iraq: first, young recruits, after entering the city, say: "before the battle we put on some music in our ears, turn the sound up loud, and we shoot at anything that moves." We are struck by the young age of these soldiers. We find another mother, Iraqi this time, who has lost her family as a result of a bombing. Same distress but a different God. The American says, "My God, why have you taken my son?" This one screams, "But Allah, what are you doing?"
Close-ups of Rumsfeld reassuring Americans: "our strikes are precise, we spare as many civilian lives as possible." Peremptory declarations about the possession of weapons of mass destruction.
- The Iraqis are working to acquire the nuclear weapon. We have the evidence that they possess weapons of mass destruction, with which they are capable of striking American territory.
Statements contradicting those of Condoleezza Rice a short time earlier, saying, "The Iraqi industrial potential has been weakened by the Gulf War to the point that the country is unable to represent a threat for us."
The overall impression is that these people are saying anything, lying. All of this resembles a bad dream, a bad play. In the film, this meeting at Carlyle is mentioned, the empire that will greatly profit from arms sales, which the half-brother of Osama bin Laden attended the day before September 11. On the 12th, an armada of planes (and not just one!) takes all the important Saudi nationals out of the American territory, including members of the bin Laden family residing in the United States, thanks to a special authorization. These are the only aircraft allowed to take off. All others are grounded, including official aircraft belonging to high-profile political figures and assigned to domestic flights.
The kaleidoscope continues to turn. While Bush proudly announces that the coalition has won in Iraq, in a scene where he poses in a very martial attitude, in flight gear, after landing on an aircraft carrier, we see the attacks develop. A brief view of Iraqis displaying the burned and unrecognizable bodies of American soldiers killed in an attack. Another view of young soldiers saying, "we came to liberate them, we were told. Why do they hate us? What are we doing here? We don't understand anymore..." A veteran, with twenty years in the army, says:
- I've done a lot of campaigns, not a few. But here... (long silence) ... I don't understand anymore what we came here for.
In the United States, Bush speaks at a meeting of investors, of... profiteers of war, as they used to say. In the USA everything is done, it is said without any gloves. An orator declares, with a knowing wink:
- There will be a lot of money to be made, believe me, and it's only the beginning.
Regarding the ban, the film mentions the "Patriot Act," a law that removes many essential freedoms dear to Americans. A senator confesses:
- If we had read this law before voting on it? I would have to admit that we didn't. Sit down, young man. We practically don't read any laws, we don't have time, otherwise the judicial machinery wouldn't function anymore (...).
Never have the United States been in the hands of such a band of irresponsible people. It is really right to be afraid. All the characters presented resemble puppets, without exception. None has the slightest "political depth," the slightest composure.
We are really living in an era of all dangers, to a point we would never even suspect.
You will see, you will judge. I thought Moore's film would be banned in the USA, but one of my readers told me that it is already being shown there. In fact:
http://matin.qc.ca/Showbizz_Cinema.php?article=20040615221133
--- **** **** --- ** **** ** **** **** **** ** ** **
http://www.lexpansion.com/art/2486.76844.0.html**
Michael Moore received a standing ovation at the presentation at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York of the premiere of his film Fahrenheit 9/11, an anti-Bush diatribe awarded the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival.
The premiere attracted a prestigious audience in which one recognized the actors Richard Gere, Leonardo Di Caprio, Richard Dreyfus or Glenn Close, the singer Tony Bennet or the artist Yoko Ono.
Michael Moore notably stated that he would be "very happy" if his film led even one American to vote in the November 2004 presidential election. While half of the American voters never go to the polls, the director expressed the hope that those who usually abstain "will not give up and decide to go to the polls rather than remain spectators".
"I love this country," added Michael Moore. "Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm optimistic and I believe that our country will return to our hands in the near future".
( Source :
Fahrenheit 9/11", the film by Michael Moore, climbed to the top of the North American chart this weekend with $23.9 million in revenue for the first three days of its release in the United States and Canada. It even surpasses the record set for a documentary film, a record already held by Michael Moore with "Bowling for Columbine".
According to distributors, "Fahrenheit 09/11" is well received by the public in both small and large cities in North America, in states known to be democratic as well as in those that are republican.
Fahrenheit 9/11 starts with a bang
Michael Moore can be satisfied. After almost not being released in the United States, his film attracts both spectators and comments. In other words, it is unavoidable.
What a contrast! When "Bowling for Columbine" (Michael Moore's previous documentary, later awarded an Oscar) was released in mid-October 2002, it was only shown in eight U.S. theaters and earned $210,000 in the first weekend. The arrival of Fahrenheit 9/11 is clearly less confidential. The film was preceded by a controversial reputation and multiple controversies (non-distribution by Miramax, the Disney subsidiary that produced it; prohibition for those under 17 without an adult; campaigns by conservative movements to block its distribution); it was awarded the Golden Palm at Cannes. 67% of Americans have heard about it, according to Nielsen. Result: 868 theaters are showing it starting from this Friday 25th throughout the country.
The previews organized since Wednesday in two trendy cinemas in New York (one in the East Village, an anti-Bush stronghold; the other at the very bourgeois Lincoln Plaza) were a hit: in two days, nearly $85,000 in tickets were sold. 48% of the orders addressed nationally in the past week to the main online ticket booking site, Fandango, concern "the" Moore. It could earn between $10.5 and $13 million by Sunday night, according to experts.
The first spectators to rush into the theaters are naturally politically engaged city dwellers, hostile to the current administration. Thus, as early as Wednesday afternoon, the Loew's in the East Village was stormed by students with ostentatious badges (like "No to the Patriot Act," these exceptional laws voted after September 11), elderly intellectuals with full beards, and desperate grandmothers due to the war in Iraq. A few hundred people per screening, who hiss and insult Bush and applaud Moore as soon as he appears on the screen. At the exit, collections are organized for the Democratic Party and sales of anti-Fox t-shirts (the ultra-conservative television network).
The enthusiasm of this militant public does not predict the success of the documentary in the American heartland, but it contributes to making it the "must-see" of the summer, a period of high cinema attendance in North America. Fahrenheit 9/11 will not have trouble doing better than the $58 million in total revenue earned by Bowling for Columbine in the United States and abroad…
Isabelle Lesniak, in New York
Source :
There is a Chinese proverb that says "one man can defeat an entire army"
July 15, 2004: A personal note at the end.
The first time I went to the USA, it was in 1961, on the ship Mauretania. All that Moore denounces, I had perceived, felt as soon as I set foot on this land of the "New World". I believe it was Einstein who said that "the Americans have passed directly from barbarism to decadence". It is the land of all excesses, the homeland of the J.R. Ewings. It is also that of Lincoln. I believe the world does not suspect the horror that is hidden beneath what has been developing in the USA for the past three years. Even Moore has not been able to attack the problem head-on. The events of that day are briefly mentioned at the beginning of the film, which then focuses on the war against Iraq. How can one summarize Moore's message in one sentence:
A bunch of clowns, fools, and liars, in the service of large oil and arms companies (Halliburton and Carlyle), sends our kids to die in a war that will become a new Vietnam.
But things are even worse, and Moore, in a very perceptive way, has understood that one could not approach the problem head-on. It is not impossible that the events of September 11th were not directed, at least deliberately manipulated. It was said that Roosevelt was warned about the attack on Pearl Harbor and did not move, knowing that this would precipitate the USA into a war against Hitler, which he considered desirable (and he was right). But Pearl Harbor had the character of a military target. Could Americans imagine that their leaders (but who are they really?) would allow a terrible attack to happen, right in the heart of the country, hitting civilians, to legitimize Bush's election and justify a war against Iraq, whose goals are other than "the war against terrorism". Saddam Hussein indeed tried to acquire "weapons of mass destruction" before the Gulf War. He dreamed of equipping Arab countries with nuclear weapons and "vectors". But this Gulf War with its massive bombing of industrial installations has put the country economically in ruins, unable to continue these projects, not even industrially. The goals of the operation to seize Iraqi oil could have been double: to have an effective lever to fix prices, especially in relation to Saudi Arabia, which is also a way of fighting the spread of Wahabism, the Saudi regime remaining fragile. Second objective: to prevent the Chinese from getting supplies from Iraq. The problem is that it was relatively easy to defeat "the Iraqi army" with an expeditionary force of 100,000 men, but the country is totally unmanageable, not least because of the technique of suicide attacks and the massacre of hostages. In the field of horror, the enemy is in a position of strength, being able to lead Americans to commit atrocities and to become increasingly hated. Politically, it is a failure, like the war in Vietnam.
Moore focused on the problem in Iraq. It was not possible to go upstream, to mention questions... unthinkable: the real background of the events of September 11th.
Still, this America astonishes us, both in the horror of its policy, the cynicism of its military-industrial lobby (whose danger had been warned by Eisenhower in his last speech) and by the courage and intelligence of some individuals. Moore recalls the courage of the Watergate journalists, directly attacking the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, for a simple matter of wiretapping. A single man, or a very small number of determined and intelligent men, can thwart the plans of a machine functioning with billions of dollars. Moore's film is an "information operation," with a ridiculous budget. On the other side, the team planning Bush's re-election had experts, a huge, unlimited funding. One can imagine them in a brainstorming session, saying "and now, what are we going to do?" The image of the president is incredibly degraded by Moore's film. In the current world, everything works with images, with slogans. Sagala sold Mitterrand with a red rose and a slogan "The quiet strength." But Mitterrand was completely hollow, like those who followed him. Brochant wrote a book "Son of Advertising," a title of incredible cynicism. The creed of men like Sagala is "if you give me so much, I will make you elected whoever you want." Look at the recent election of Schwarzenegger. Medially, it was a shocking clown show. But the Schwarzy team bought airtime accordingly and the man was elected solely on an image. He had absolutely nothing to offer or to say and took the wrong turn in the face of any question with a minimum of content.
Moore launched his film like a ball in a bowling game. It is an extraordinary incendiary. It proves that determined people, with relatively weak means, and few in number, can ... influence history. When people want to position themselves as opponents, they can, at least in some countries, demonstrate, go on strike. This requires them to be active and these movements can have a significant impact on their budget and on the economic activity of the country. With the Moore affair, "demonstrating" consists of ... going to the cinema. It does not disturb economic activity, does not create disorder (in the streets, but in the minds, it's another matter). We are in the middle of an information war. I heard that Moore, having largely covered the cost of his film, wishes that it be digitized, copied, pirated. And if that is the case, then the Internet will take over. The Moore missile is unstoppable. It could not be banned. Indeed, this film only makes people speak who Moore wants to discredit. It is not propaganda, it is a simple documentary. If things go that way, tens of millions of Americans will see these images.
Seen in the Sunday Herald of July 4:
"I oppose copyright laws and it does not bother me that people download and share my film as long as they do not make a profit from it," said Michael Moore, the director of Fahrenheit 9/11, an anti-Bush indictment. He adds that he is happy that as many people as possible can see this film because it was made to convey a message.
As I hear, if the film's distribution is important, it would not shake the polls much. Moore must touch not the opponents of Bush, already convinced, but ... his supporters, located in the American heartland. I imagine that for some of them, going into a cinema to see Fahrenheit 9/11 is like going to see a pornographic film. They will fear being seen by their neighbors. If these people can download the film and watch it discreetly, then it will reach a lot more people.
**
The Global Peasants' Revolt**
July 28, 2004
The wheel of history continues to turn. Moore's film may have an important impact, in which case it will show that the action of a single, determined man, at least in the United States, can influence the course of history of his country and thus the history of the world. But what will it lead to? At any time, people look for culprits, scapegoats. Bush had shining eyes when he spoke of "Saddam," who eventually was captured. They could imprison, hang, shoot, cut him into pieces, would that solve all the problems? Nothing is less certain, especially since during a somewhat too public trial, he would certainly not hesitate to say a lot of inappropriate and embarrassing things for everyone. Remember, when he had money, before the Gulf War, there were few countries that did not supply him with all kinds of weapons in abundance. I personally knew the man who was entrusted by de Gaulle to "market" nuclear energy in Iraq, Iran, and other places. It is said that money has no smell. Nuclear energy probably has none either.
Moore's film points to other scapegoats: the Bush clan, both war leaders and war profiteers. The United States could change its foreign policy. Will Iraq manage to emerge from chaos? Today's struggle is not between such and such a regime, but against human stupidity, from all sides. Sometimes, in the Middle Ages, popular movements were called jacqueries. Suffering from hunger, crushed in all sorts of ways, the peasants (the workers, at that time, did not yet exist) seized their sickles, their knives and rushed to the castles, setting everything on fire and blood. Forty years ago, I wrote an article, starting from the problems of "growth," the nutritional and energy needs, predicting that one day would come the "Great Global Jacquerie." What is developing today resembles it. Among the rich as well as the poor, the means of expression remains violence. There is little intelligence to be seen. The press, all the presses, lie more and more. Scientists are obediently serving all powers, devoting the essence of their imagination to serving the military and the lobbies. Each side has its Pangloss. On one side, one preaches the best possible savage capitalism, on the other the best possible Islamism. This earth is ours, we are important, not you. To us the best things. The leaders' discourse: continue to endure so that "we" can get out of the tunnel. But obviously, not everyone lives in a tunnel.... Political choices? Remember the phrase from 68:
- God is dead, Marx is dead, and I myself do not feel very well....
What to do? Try to find positive things to do. Distribute knowledge, take care of health. For scientists, put some neurons into the research of non-polluting energy. And God knows there are plenty. We are not swimming in problems, we are swimming in solutions.
People talk about solar energy. There are a thousand ways to exploit it. If I were the minister of research and technology, I would have Fresnel mirrors studied, ultra-thin. You have all seen Fresnel lenses: these are the ones that equip our headlights. One day someone thought of making Fresnel lenses in transparent plastic, ultra-thin. These are the ones that, in supermarkets, allow the saleswomen to check the contents of your shopping cart, to see if you forgot something or, in your car, by sticking this lens, a micrometer thick, to see the edge of the sidewalk you are heading for, in reverse.
These are "biconvex" lenses. One can conceive of "concave" mirrors, flat. One can even arrange for these mirrors to be both "cylindrical and flat," so that the focus is located along a segment on which one can place a pipe, black to collect the heat (a kilowatt four per square meter, on a sunny day). You start to see the idea? By producing these mirrors in series, one could equip the portions of roofs exposed to the sun, add a clockwork movement that makes the tubular segment move throughout the hours to remain fixed on the focus. A discreet, effective system, allowing to collect and focus the entire solar energy falling on a roof. It adds up quickly and is something other than these few unsightly and expensive square meters, placed here and there.
Not only are we swimming in solutions, but we are also swimming in ideas. The only ones who don't have any are managers and decision-makers, the ministers who parade, like figures at a fair, accompanied by a group of "project managers".
What are we waiting for to develop quiet, three-bladed wind turbines, which are not noisy, do not generate ... infrasounds. A friend of mine told me he went to spend some time at the Glénans, which recently installed three-bladed wind turbines: "At a distance, at night, you can't sleep!" Would there be a "lobby of the three-bladed wind turbine?" Very likely.
One could install quiet, compact three-bladed wind turbines within the architecture of our buildings, equipped with "venturis". It would be enough to protect the entrance and exit with a simple mesh. By the Good Mother, how many megawatts are lost on days of Mistral, in my region!
I will write a book one day, gathering all these ideas, which are everywhere and can only bring good. Things would certainly go much better if people said "what can I do to make things better?" instead of saying "what can I do to have the biggest, the thing that goes the highest, the fastest, which ensures to my country 'security' that is to say which allows it to dominate all others. What can I invent to better enslave my neighbor, to get him to buy and consume what I produce?"
This is all I see, as a scientist, in this nebulous and dangerous future. Our researchers could produce things, if they were mobilized otherwise, lost in internal wars, underpaid, mobilized on the "silly profitable" things and represented by astronauts recycled in talk.
Number of views since July 14, 2004: