I was never a fan of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Agitprop serves a certain purpose, but when it comes down to it, if the information presented is already out there and understood and the main thesis of the film is not adding anything new to the equation, what is the point? Moore doesn’t make any real attempt to investigate the reality behind 9/11, nor the political ramifications. He simply says “What if?” a great deal. Which, as I said, has a role in a lower level of discussion. But, ultimately, the facts within such a film premise are woefully open to attack (as we saw) simply because the level of factual reporting was so poor.
You won’t, for example, see the right-wing going after the Frontline producers of The Man Who Knew, which is infinitely more condemning of the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and the entire American system, than Moore’s effort. Why? Because the Frontline show is about the facts and about historical accuracy. It’s also about cause and affect. It’s about why things work the way they do.
Of course, Fahrenheit 9/11, like all of Moore’s films, was constructed as a baseline confrontation of a disconected man in power, in this case George W. Bush. And, unfortunately, in discussions about Fahrenheit 9/11 that element became the point, rather than the (admittedly) limited facts brought forth within the film. That is to say, the film became the point, rather than what the film was discussing. That alone speaks volumes. And, when Michael Moore became the point, that speaks volumes about the many right-wing pundits who spent so much time and energy attacking him, rather than the facts, or lack of them, in the film. Because there is much to discuss regarding the causes behind 9/11 and also, what happened after…
To this point, a documentary by the Media Education Foundation, Hijacking Catastrophe endeavors to explore how the tragedy of September 11, 2001 has been used and abused by those in power to solidify power for the long term.
It is highly recommended.
