I'm going to go against the grain a little and say I was a little disappointed in the film. I'm usually a fan of Moore's work (Bowling for Columbine was one of the most interesting films I'd seen in years), and i'm very much aware Moore's work tends to be extremely one sided and I was read for that. But, I think this one is a little *too* one sided for me. I felt like I was in a trial - listening to the prosecution with all of the spin - and I desperately wanted the cross examiniation.
I read about some of the inaccuracies in the film, and I've listened to one of the Senators who was irritated at Moore because he made it look like the Senator brushed him off and walked away when in fact - the Senator agreed to take his literature back to all the Congressmen who voted for the war (and talked about his own nephew leaving for Iraq the following week. Of course, that part was cut. When I saw the movie, as the Senator walked away the crowd laughed with a kind of "Ha - he got you there now didn't he" kind of laugh. No doubt the reaction Moore wanted. Although I'm sure most of the people in the theater didn't realize that's not how the scene played out. I know Moore is a film maker, and his purpose wasn't to include footage that didn't furthur his goal, but that kind of thing makes me start to question other things. It's too bad. There are some issues Moore raises that would be interesting to think about and are valid -- but because he loses credibility with me on so many other levels, it's hard to listen to anything he has to say in this particular movie objectively.
My brother and I started breaking down the issues raised - and we both kept saying to ourselves, "ok -- so?" The whole movie is a pile of insinuations and implications (with some valid points that get buried in the propoganda) - and even if you believe a lot of what he says, I found myself saying "and your point?" a little too much. He spent so much time on things that seemed so irrelevent. Unfortunately I feel like a lot of people are going to watch the film and take it all as absolute truth and not really break it down and think about some of the connections Michael is trying to draw that don't amount to much. I'm not going to go into all of the areas of the film that I felt should have been questioned. I'll just say I'm not a Bush supporter - and even I had this kind of reaction to the film.
I read a post online from someone who was at a talk back screening of the movie, and Michael Moore answered his question. The guy asked Moore if he felt that the powers that be could have avoided the attack on 9/11, but pretty much let it happen because of what would be gained in the long run. Michael answered YES. He said he thought they let it happen and purposely avoided the warnings, but maybe didn't realize the extent of how many people would be killed (or something along those lines.) So. Moore honestly thinks Bush let 9/11 happen so that Cheney's defense company could profit from the sale of war supplies, and that Bush would finally be able to create a reason to go into Iraq? That says it all regarding what he's trying to accomplish with this movie. I'm not saying I believe 100% or even most of what our government has fed us re: this war. But I didn't find myself cheering Moore either.
I'm not saying that there aren't some important things in the film, and I certainly learned a lot. I only hope people don't leave there pretending everything that was fed to them was indisputable fact.
***Edited to say that my brother is a Marine - and he was *disgusted* at the way the military men were portrayed. Not that what was captured on film wasn't happening - but it was a very skewed look at what they are doing over there.
Updated On: 6/29/04 at 02:25 PM
