Dot in the Sky (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dotinthesky) wrote2005-01-28 01:08 pm
dotinthesky) wrote2005-01-28 01:08 pm
A Very Late Review of FAHRENHEIT 9/11
I'm a sucker for documentaries on America. The latest one I fell in love with was Brat Camp, about 6 British teenagers who are sent to hell Utah and get two months worth of torture discipline on the hands of soft-spoken "counsellors". Yesterday promised more funtastic times as Sissy Jennifer and I made some tea and sat in the living room to watch FAHRENHEIT 9/11.
You can't go wrong with a documentary on Bush Jr. Even Andy Warhol, if still alive, would have tried to film George W. Bush - only in his case, I bet he'd have a camera following the president's every move, every breath. It's obvious that Mr. Bush Junior is a fascinating subject, an idiot savant shaped like the dark side of Warhol's own personality. Sadly, for Michael Moore, he has proved a tougher adversary than previously expected. Moore tried every punch in the book to belittle, bemoan and decry the Texan arriviste. But Moore's mistake was to lampoon and cartoon a guy that should be taken seriously. The kind of dumb, belligerent business mentality that Bush represents is not an exception in America, but the norm. I wanted to learn more about those shady connections, or at least what really drives Bush and his horsemen of the apocalypse. Like Bowling for Columbine, the documentary seemed to raise question after question but never really pursued anything in depth.
I like Michael Moore. I think he's funny, irritating and annoying in the right times, and to the right people. There were some good laughs through out the documentary, like the midwest town which thinks it's a target for terrorists. Moore chews the news like a big bear before feeding the mouths of his hungry cubs (us). But the documentary didn't teach me anything new - perhaps because I live in Britain and the media isn't as heavily biast and censored over here (though why the hell is Tony Blair still Prime Minister??!?)
I remember when the documentary came out in America and how I wondered what was the general public's reaction. Were they shocked? Or perhaps they saw Moore as behaving like a traitor? Moore's documentaries fall nicely into the grand tradition of yellow journalism/whistle blower exposes (the kind of stuff that's just up my alley.) On the other hand, there was a certain hypocrisy in the documentary that didn't sit well with me. The camera, for example, goes black for the destruction of the twin towers - out of respect and mourning. But, when the soldier's mother breaksdown, the camera is there, lowering to the ground with her, shoved into her face, collecting every tear that runs down her face. Why didn't the camera turn away from her as well, out of respect? The point that was made with the twin towers' destruction seems lost by the end.
I'm sure Moore will go on making documentaries that push everyone off the fence. That is, until a right-wing nutter puts a bullet in his gullet (Ann Coulter perhaps?)
Next stop: Brat Camp 2, starting on Channel 4 next Tuesday. Can't wait!!!
You can't go wrong with a documentary on Bush Jr. Even Andy Warhol, if still alive, would have tried to film George W. Bush - only in his case, I bet he'd have a camera following the president's every move, every breath. It's obvious that Mr. Bush Junior is a fascinating subject, an idiot savant shaped like the dark side of Warhol's own personality. Sadly, for Michael Moore, he has proved a tougher adversary than previously expected. Moore tried every punch in the book to belittle, bemoan and decry the Texan arriviste. But Moore's mistake was to lampoon and cartoon a guy that should be taken seriously. The kind of dumb, belligerent business mentality that Bush represents is not an exception in America, but the norm. I wanted to learn more about those shady connections, or at least what really drives Bush and his horsemen of the apocalypse. Like Bowling for Columbine, the documentary seemed to raise question after question but never really pursued anything in depth.
I like Michael Moore. I think he's funny, irritating and annoying in the right times, and to the right people. There were some good laughs through out the documentary, like the midwest town which thinks it's a target for terrorists. Moore chews the news like a big bear before feeding the mouths of his hungry cubs (us). But the documentary didn't teach me anything new - perhaps because I live in Britain and the media isn't as heavily biast and censored over here (though why the hell is Tony Blair still Prime Minister??!?)
I remember when the documentary came out in America and how I wondered what was the general public's reaction. Were they shocked? Or perhaps they saw Moore as behaving like a traitor? Moore's documentaries fall nicely into the grand tradition of yellow journalism/whistle blower exposes (the kind of stuff that's just up my alley.) On the other hand, there was a certain hypocrisy in the documentary that didn't sit well with me. The camera, for example, goes black for the destruction of the twin towers - out of respect and mourning. But, when the soldier's mother breaksdown, the camera is there, lowering to the ground with her, shoved into her face, collecting every tear that runs down her face. Why didn't the camera turn away from her as well, out of respect? The point that was made with the twin towers' destruction seems lost by the end.
I'm sure Moore will go on making documentaries that push everyone off the fence. That is, until a right-wing nutter puts a bullet in his gullet (Ann Coulter perhaps?)
Next stop: Brat Camp 2, starting on Channel 4 next Tuesday. Can't wait!!!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject