Fahrenheit 9/11

Well, my students have admonished me for quite some time for not seeing Fahrenheit 9/11; but two weekends ago, my wife and I finally got around to seeing the film. Interestingly enough, we chose the period of George W. Bush's re-election as President of the United States.

Many viewers of the film suggest that this documentary is not nearly as good as Bowling for Columbine due to its blatant partisanship. I agree that the film is far more specifically vitriolic and condemnatory in its narrative. However, it would be difficult for Moore to present such a film without that perspective.

Moore's central thesis in his documentary is that the rich elite who control government and national policy somehow reinforce and construct a system that ensures the poor will be placed under control through a simultaneous system of fear and employment. In order to substantiate this thesis, Moore must point out both the rich elite and the evidence that supports this thesis. Therefore, Moore becomes partisan by pointing out George W. Bush and the evidence around him that supports Moore's thesis.

Personally, I do not disagree with such an approach. Moore strongly believes that his thesis is a very real situation in the United States. If he attempted to present this thesis any other way, it might seem weak and unfounded. Everyone would know who he's talking about, but without naming that person, his argument would lose much of its strength.

Here's some of my other thoughts on the film:

Moore's facts are very well-founded and well-researched. Much of his information and visuals come from a multitude of informational sources. Much of it comes directly from the people who he accuses.

People are mostly concerned with his conjecture; moreso than his facts. It is certainly not a nice situation to think that the leader of the most powerful country in the world is expressly attempting to enforce an unjust system (because we've never had that situation in history) ;)

Perhaps Moore's approach and information would have received a better reception if instead of implying direct and express intent to enforce the current military state system, Moore had suggested that unknowingly, George W. Bush enforces the current system.

Personally, I also believe this to be the case. I believe that generally George W. Bush is actually a nice man who genuinely believes that he does what is best for America. The difficulty is that he is unable to see the truth behind what he does because he is constrained to a particular rhetorical way of viewing the world (namely the position of a wealthy white man).

For me, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a penetrating, refreshing, and insightful look into much of what America faces in the aftermath of the first George W. Bush administration and the events of 9/11. I only pray that if it cannot bring a new man (or dare I say woman?) into the American federal presidency, it will at least cause people to think a bit more in the future.