A Weapon of Mass Destruction?
By Jerry Saravia
A Weapon of Mass Destruction?
By Jerry Saravia
The Saudi Arabian Royal Family has decried the American filmmaker. Former President George H. W. Bush has complete disdain for him. Rudolph Guiliani has said that the man in question has no idea what happened on that tragic day known as 9/11. British author and journalist Christopher Hitchens has called his latest film a series of lies. Many refer to this guy as the master of propaganda, that his only intention is to be nothing more than a Bush hate-mongerer. Some also call him a leftist, as if that was a crime. Who is this man referred to as the most dangerous man alive, the one who supposedly mixes fact with fiction in his documentaries? Why none other than Michael Moore, the left-wing, radical rabble-rouser of politics - the man that the White House wished would just shut up. I don't think many government officials are happy that he read the entire Patriot Act in an ice-cream'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">ice-cream'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">ice-cream truck around the nation's capital when they wouldn't read it themselves.
When I heard that Michael Moore was focusing his lens on none other than the President of the United States, I knew he was going to face more controversy than anyone ever could in Hollywood or in politics. Let's face it: the last time anyone faced such a heated debate in entertainment and politics was film director Oliver Stone, best known for his mixology of facts and fiction in J.F.K. Afterwards, Stone was pegged as nothing more than a leftist paranoid with delusions far beyond any reasonable truth. Time will tell if Michael Moore will face such stiff criticism. Still, after more than two months of its release in the U.S., not to mention winning the prestigious Golden Palm award at Cannes and big U.S. box-office, Fahrenheit 9/11 has become not just a film or a documentary - it is a political phenomenon. It is media-blitzed propaganda but for a good purpose (not a sinister one like the infamous Triumph of the Will), to make sure no one ever makes a mistake again in the voting booths on Election Day. In other words, the purpose of the film, as stated by Moore, is to be sure that current President George W. Bush is not reelected. Who can blame him? President Bush has appeared as a laughable buffoon, changing his facts weekly as his defense for the war in Iraq grows weaker (of course, this is also true of John Kerry). We criticize a man that wears a baseball cap'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">baseball cap'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">baseball cap, glasses, dresses in normal, workaday clothes for questioning this leader's purpose in the administration, yet we can't bear such scrutiny on the leader himself. Who is more important, Michael Moore or the President?
Michael Moore may have been a troublemaker from the start. Springing from Flint, Michigan, the site of the General Motors shutdown, Moore focused on the need for attention to such a crisis. Thousands of people were laid off and jobs were nonexistent, yet the story barely got much attention outside of Michigan. Moore, who once ran his own paper, made a film to justify the attention needed, to understand that people were being forced out of their homes for nonpayment of rent. But what can someone do for a career if the only available job is at McDonald's? 1989 brought this subject to the surface in the highly popular Roger and Me, Moore's first film that garnered critical hosannas and some decent box-office. Ostensibly a comedy at times, it is also deadly serious and morose about its subject. Shortly thereafter came the relatively unfunny Canadian Bacon, his only fictional feature film (unless you consider his body of work to be fiction). But then Moore bounced back with The Big One, a truly fascinating documentary that details how Americans were steadily losing jobs, working for almost less than the minimum wage. Many telemarketer jobs were going to jailed prisoners, and Nike was delivering manual labor jobs to Mexico for 80 cents an hour. Outside of stints on television that included The Awful Truth and T.V. Nation, not to mention a few bestsellers like Stupid White Men, Michael Moore finally entered the mainstream with his comical (some say purely fictional) documentary called Bowling For Columbine, a biting, provocative essay on gun-control in America, the media's desire to instill fear in all of us, our own nation's history with guns, the NRA and, last but not least, the tragedy of Columbine. The film won Best Documentary at the Oscars, inspiring Michael Moore to lambast Bush and the Iraq War in his acceptance speech (his speech was cutoff almost immediately). He spoke out against the war as it had just started, something no one dared to do except for anti-war protesters. If nothing else, Moore came to the forefront of the mainstream. He is possibly the first documentarian to be lambasted by critics and politicians for embellishing the truth, maybe even lying and making up facts. All this from a Flint, Michigan native who represents the working class. A millionaire representing the working class? Well, sure, I mean, we have a Republican leader who is also a millionaire and says he represents everyone in the country, including the working class.
Granted, Michael Moore has an agenda and will do anything to fulfill it. Case in point is "Fahrenheit 9/11," possibly the most controversial documentary ever made, which has already caused more debate and debacle than even Oliver Stone on a good day. There is already debate over the facts in "Fahrenheit," especially the fact that 142 Saudis were allowed to leave the U.S. when the airspace was reopened after the September 11th attacks. According to Moore, one flight did leave before the airspace was open, even if it didn't include all 142 Saudis. But was it really Richard Clarke who allowed them to leave, or the White House? The naysayers say it was the White House. Well, didn't Clarke formerly work for the White House?
Michael Moore has faced major criticism of his facts before. In Pauline Kael's unfavorable review of "Roger and Me," she stated that Moore did his share of shifting the time sequence of events. For example, she states that the film shows President Reagan visited the unemployed workers in Flint, Michigan in 1980 at a restaurant, telling them to find work in Texas and other states. The problem is that Reagan was not President yet, only a presidential candidate. After viewing the sequence myself, Moore never says in the voice-over narration that Reagan is President - he refers to him only as Ronald Reagan. The other fact misinterpreted is the cash register'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">cash register'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">cash register that was taken out of the restaurant - does it matter if it was taken prior to Reagan arriving or after? The fact remains it was taken! What Kael should've discussed was what Reagan was telling the unemployed workers - to move out and find work elsewhere. This is cause for ridicule, as an unemployed mother states in the film that she has kids and can't just pack up and leave, not without any money! The truth is that the late Pauline Kael, a wonderful film critic and probably the most influential, took her facts from Harlan Jacobson's article in a late 1989 issue of "Film Comment" magazine. Moore has said the following in response: "Film Comment is a publication of the Film Society of Lincoln Center. Lincoln Center had received a $5 million gift from GM just prior to publishing the piece trashing 'Roger and Me.' Coincidence? Or just five big ones well spent?" You be the judge.
The criticisms over misuse and misrepresentation of facts didn't end with "Roger and Me." The more recent accusation is actually a visual, probably not lasting on screen for more than a few seconds in "Fahrenheit 9/11," of an Illinois newspaper, the Pantagraph, showing a headline that reads: "Latest Florida recount shows Al Gore won election." The headline existed but not on the front cover page of the newspaper. Rather it appeared as a headline over an editorial! Still, one can surmise that such a headline existed anyway - whether it was the front cover of the newspaper or not is not nearly as important as the fact itself. So did Moore doctor the image? Time will tell since he is being sued for a million dollars. Looking at the headline itself, I can't say for sure that it looks like the front cover page of any newspaper. I will give credit to the member of the Pantagraph staff that took the time to analyze every frame of this visual, but suing Moore for an alleged copy-and-paste job is simply ridiculous.
Scott Simon from the Wall Street Journal had this to say about Moore: "Mr. Moore ignores or misrepresents the truth, prefers innuendo to fact, edits with poetic license rather than accuracy, and strips existing news footage of its context to make events and real people say what he wants, even if they don't." Now, correct me if I am wrong but isn't that what ABC, CBS and NBC news does all the time? How about CNN? Do we really believe we are hearing the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the evening news? Can we honestly say that their news segments are sometimes not taken out of context? It is news but it is also a business, and editing is one of the most useful tools of any news format. We know accuracy is never 100 percent - witness the New York Post's front cover page declaring Richard Gephardt as Kerry's vice-presidential nominee - is the Post taking poetic license based on an untruth?
As for editing, the only news shows that do not edit would be live news, such as Lou Dobbs or Crossfire (though "Lou Dobbs" features taped interviews with guests). In fact, not long ago, 60 Minutes was known for editing comments from journalist Christopher Ruddy, who strongly believed that Vincent Foster, Bill Clinton's former White House Deputy Council, was a homicide not a suicide. "60 Minutes" journalist Mike Wallace, who has been known for lies and untruths in the past, had purposely edited the interview to make the journalist seem like a threat to the Clinton administration. The purpose was to belie the truth, insisting that Foster had committed suicide (when, in fact, no blood was found at the crime scene and no bullet). Having said that, you can't edit what a person says to make them say what you want. What can you do, with some fine tuning, is to take certain lines out of context, but you can't change the words. A good example is Charlton Heston's speech to the NRA in Colorado days after the Columbine incident in "Bowling For Columbine." Heston is seen saying the line, "From my cold dead hands!" Then Moore cuts to a billboard advertising Heston's upcoming rally. Then he shows Heston saying they are not wanted in town, using free speech as an excuse (gee, I suppose only Republicans are entitled to that freedom). So what is the problem with this scene? Nothing except that Moore used Heston's opening mantra from another rally. But that shot is introductory, considering the cut to the next shot of the billboard. It doesn't mean that Heston said it at that particular rally nor was Moore suggesting as such.
More errors have been reported, or rather errors in judgment in Michael Moore's work. For example, in "Fahrenheit 9/11," President Bush is shown playing golf while discussing his plan to "get those terrorist killers." Apparently, Bush was referring to Hamas, responsible for a suicide attack in Israel only hours before. No matter. What does the phrase "terrorist killers" exactly mean? Isn't the word terrorist enough to strike fear in anyone, particularly in this post-9/11 climate? Was Carlos the Jackal known as a terrorist killer? Saddam Hussein? Bin Laden? Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime? Moore's detractors spend more time criticizing the use of footage as opposed to the footage itself - Bush's comments seem like rehearsed words to be used as a soundbite.
Another key scene in "Fahrenheit" revolves not around an error but an omission. In the scene where Michael Moore attempts to get congressmen to sign their sons and daughters up for the War in iraq, he comes across one congressman, Minnesota Representative Mark Kennedy, who looks at him quizzically. What is omitted from this moment is what follows: Kennedy admitted to having two nephews in the service already, neither one was in Iraq though one was already in Afghanistan. I would have liked that scene to be intact, at least to show that someone who had voted for the war had a relative already in the service, whether you agree with the actual war or not. And there is only one member of Congress, South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, who has a son on active duty in Iraq. Somebody may dispute this after all, but it seems to be an acknowledged fact.
"Bowling For Columbine" has faced the most staunch criticisms. My favorite has to do with the famous opening sequence at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan's Traverse City where Moore was able to receive a rifle after opening a CD account. The bank is a licensed firearms dealer, and the woman clearly states that 500 firearms can be found in their vault. Moore applies for the account, receives a rifle and walks out of the bank. There is a background check and you apparently need to open an account with no less than $5,000 dollars. But this is Michael Moore, a well-known figure in Michigan, and perhaps the whole thing was arranged so that he could get his gun and give a little publicity to the bank (a gun rack'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">gun rack'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">gun rack can be seen displayed in the walls, which would already give me pause. Ironically, I do believe that the bank teller gave him a gun from the rack). You can bet that no other customer would get away with that unless they were celebrities.
I am not making a case to support this disgruntled, angry filmmaker and his search for the truth. You'll never hear me say the following: "Either you are with Michael Moore or you are against us!" The fact is I admire him more for taking a stand, for choosing to explore an issue, even if it isn't 100% factually accurate. Michael Moore is no different than any other journalist on any news program. He is being attacked, left and right, for making accusations and pointing fingers, perhaps stretching the truth to bring forth more debate and speculation. Or possibly the real reason he is being attacked is because the guy is so darn successful - he is about as well-known as Spider-Man and that can raise holy hell for the Republican Party. If the U.S. is making this man a success, what does it mean for President Bush in regards to the average voter come Election Day? Who knows what the President was really thinking when he sat in the classroom for 7 minutes after being told that America was under attack. Michael Moore doesn't know either, he only suggests (as he did in his book Dude, Where's My Country?) And like many of his films, his suggestions spring with humor and emotion - as he said in a recent Entertainment Weekly interview, he interprets the facts. Michael Moore wants the country to be the America he remembers. He'll take on anyone, right or wrong, and isn't that what people used to take pride in - the concept of freedom of speech?
Footnote: The newest misinterpreted fact has arisen from Michael Moore's true birthplace - he is actually from Davison, Michigan. This is a little affluent suburb in Flint, so I suppose he is still from Flint, isn't he?
A look at the films of Martin Scorsese
Tarantino: the rise and slight dip of a rock n' roll director
ROGER EBERT: OUR BELOVED CRITIC
INDIANA JONES AND THE WEB OF GOLD outline