Michael Moore: Bully with a Heart of Gold

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 has been dismissed as a propaganda documentary by many film critics and the political right. But can this really be considered “propaganda” if it represents a minority stance against the government and is made with no government funding? Moore does present a completely biased vision, but what is a public critique if it has no firm voice and independent thought? It is mostly Moore’s approach and filmic techniques that bring his documentary under scrutiny, and, unfortunately, his sarcastic and mocking approach does dampen the effects that this powerful documentary could have amongst non-believers.

Moore presents disturbing facts and backs them up with professional interviews, such as the former federal agent who demands to know why the Bin Laden family was escorted out of the U.S. without being interrogated about their knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts. However, Moore undermines his own authority and believability when he uses goofy music, mockery, and misleading editing (e.g. repeating footage to make it appear longer, as in the case of Bush in the kindergarten classroom) to poke fun and demonize the Bush administration. With his confrontational and antagonistic style of filmmaking, Moore becomes a bully instead of a relatable voice of reason. And no one likes a bully, even when he is fighting for the underdog. Moore doesn’t allow room for people in other camps of thought to agree with the points that he is trying to make. By antagonizing his viewers that do not already share his beliefs, he simply alienates them. This could have been what spurred Christopher Hitchens’ opinion of the film. But, ironically, the journalist attacks Moore with the same techniques that drove the film.

In his Slate.com article, “The Lies of Michael Moore: Unfairenheit 9/11,” Hitchens claims that Moore contradicts himself and demands that concrete lines be drawn in Moore’s arguments. He dismisses Moore as a liar and a hypocrite who can’t make up his mind about whether the Saudis run U.S. policy or not and whether the Bush administration wrongly sent in troops or whether they sent too few. In his bias- and rage-clouded reaction to the film, he takes an aggressively oppositional stance to everything in it and wages a personal attack against the filmmaker. But being an accomplished journalist himself, it is surprising that he wants to view the world in black and white. There is nothing simple in modern government or war. The Saudis do not have to control every aspect of the U.S. government in order to have a considerably heavy influence over the political decisions of its leaders. And it is perfectly appropriate for Moore to demand that A) U.S. troops not be sent to war in the Middle East, and B) If it does happen, that the U.S. send enough troops to give them half a chance at success and safety.

Yes, Moore uses sarcasm and irony to get his points across, as Hitchens complains. But isn’t it interesting that Hitchens himself has a reputation for being an outspoken and stubborn radical? His reactions to Moore’s film (and his general tone) are as unilateral and aggressive as Moore’s filmmaking, especially in his essay’s unsubstantiated attacks on organizations like MoveOn.org. He goes so far as to outwardly challenge Moore. “Any time, Michael my boy, “ he says. “Let’s redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let’s see what you’re made of.” Well, guess what Hitchens? This isn't about you. Hitchens is as biased, unfair, and hysterical as he accuses Moore of being.

Let us not forget that this piece of political critique is, indeed, a movie (albeit made to inform). Bearing this in mind, I explored what the critics have said. The FILM critics, that is...

In his film review, Paul Clinton of CNN declares that “The question isn’t whether “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a fair and balanced look at its subject matter. Of course it isn’t. Rather, is it good filmmaking? The answer is yes.”

And an even greater question: Did the movie meet its goals? To James Berardinelli of Reelreviews.net, “The primary goal of Fahrenheit 9/11 is obvious: Offer evidence that President George W. Bush is an incompetent moron and that his administration is corrupt.” But let’s not be glib. As a documentarian, Michael Moore set out to reveal truth (or in this matter, untruth) and to get a large audience to pay attention to his assertions. However melodramatic, sarcastic, or snarky he may have been, he did, in fact, get the world to notice, think, critique, and discuss the issues that he believed were, as Aufderheide defines as a documentary, “important to understand.” Unlike Bush’s Iraq invasion, this film is a mission accomplished.