Interesting left-wing critique of Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11

[0rganism]

Proof that no film can be everything to everyone...

I think Svesnik makes a good case that Moore skipped or skimmed over a lot of important material, but it's not like there wasn't a lot covered in the movie anyway. And he repeats Cohen's tired complaint about the portrayal of Saddam's Iraq as one in which children got haircuts and flew kites -- in my view, the weakest possible criticism. Also, Moore's "nuanced" view of fighting against terrorists seems to escape Mr. Svesnik, who doesn't understand how Moore could both decry the invasion of Iraq and support additional troop strength in Afghanistan. His point about anti-Saudi-ism is worth considering, at the very least.

MANUFACTURING DISSENT

Think Before You Cheer--Michael Moore is Making a Noose for the Left's Neck
by Shlomo Svesnik

Who can resist the urge to cheer?

George W Bush has gotten away with stealing an election, waging an illegal war of aggression, and redesigning the entire federal security and intelligence apparatus, expanding its powers on a level not seen since the dawn of the Cold War. A sniveling mediocrity who achieved the pinnacle of global power entirely through family connections, he is leading the world into a state of permanent war, turning the planet's lone superpower into a despised and isolated pariah. All decent, thinking people want to see him soundly trounced in November, and Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9-11 is the most effective piece of anti-Bush propaganda to hit the American mainstream, by a mile.

It's far more effective than any rhetoric to issue forth from the Democrats precisely because it calls out the Dems for capitulating to big chunks of the Bush agenda--beginning with the 2000 power-grab. The viewer's blood starts to boil right from the C-SPAN footage near the opening sequence, when members of the Black Congressional Caucus, one after another, petition to challenge Bush's pending inauguration as illegitimate, and no senator--not Kerry, not Kennedy, not Edwards--will add the needed signature. Gore, presiding over the Senate in one of his final acts as vice president, condescendingly interrupts and dismisses them. It is, of course, all downhill from there. By the time you leave the theater, you are bursting with righteous anger at the betrayal of the country.

But in the inevitable effluence of enthusiasm--its been a long time since I've seen an audience clap so loudly and resolutely for a film--few seem to notice Fahrenheit 9-11's uneasy contradictions...

more: http://ww3report.com/shlomo2.html

[Cha]

1. Sorry...anybody on the left who feels it necessary to

tear apart F9/11 is just something I don't feel like reading.

I've seen all those argurments you mentioned and I've seen Michael Moore on various shows repudiate them. Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. And I already didn't think they had any validity ..just from my own experience of seeing the film and paying attention the last four years.

[0rganism]

4. Really? I think it's helpful, actually

For one thing, you'll find rightwingers who insist that "everyone on the left loves F9-11" or "the left takes its marching orders from Moore" or some shit like that, so this -- along with Cohen's flawed review -- becomes an instant counterexample.

[Spiffarino]

2. I felt uncomfortable about many of these things

Yes, the movie is flawed. It is imperfect. It misses important points and skims over its own contradictions. And yet, if only half of it is correct, it is a big freakin' deal and this country is in deep, deep trouble.

[0rganism]

11. Yep. It's impossible to dismiss the film, despite any oversights

The author attempts to show Moore's position as one of self-contradiction, and I can see the duality he's pointing out, but either of the "sides" of this duality represent utter condemnation of bush foreign policy.

[union_maid]

3. Just because it's the left doesn't mean it's making sense.

It's a movie. It's got a little time to make as much impact in portraying the vision that the moviemaker intended. It's not going to cover everything. Michael Moore has figured out to get a lot of Americans to at least pay attention to what he's saying. Can the author of that article say the same?

[0rganism]

7. Hey, I agree, but read the article

> Michael Moore has figured out to get a lot of Americans to at least
> pay attention to what he's saying.

This is a key issue, and the editorial addresses it. Mr. Sveskin apparently believes that Moore presumed the only way to get Americans to pay attention was to primarily report from the white American POV. It's a critique of an inherent American bias. However, I would disagree with his assessment of the film, esp. regarding Lila Lipscomb, who represents a typical war supporter who changes her mind in tragic circumstances.

[Spangle]

5. Then.. Make a Documentary!

MM just made a documentary using the research he had. This guy could do the same, no problem.

I don't mind the reports of "what could have been added" and "I disagree with this point", etc. What it points out that OTHER documentarys should be made. There is MORE out "there." Setting back whining because someone had the incentive to get up and report their finding as they know them.. is just childish.

Instead of whining, they should get busy and make another one pointing out their research on the subject.

Seriously, how many documantrys are out there on a single subjects that don't match up exactly, side by side??? Hmmmm..... Tons! Each one was an attempt at researching the subject.

[0rganism]

10. How many researchers could realistically do that?

Sadly, for every filmmaker capable of organizing and filming a viewable documentary, there are millions of less talented people who cannot hold a camera steady, let alone edit a voiceover.

[Suspicious]

6. Yes, nuance is quite lost on this author, apparently.

The point he tries to make with regard to "anti-Saudi-ism" is, in my opinion, baseless. The author appears to be confused by Moore's pointing out of the incredible irony (not to mention probable criminality) behind the Saudi-Bush love affair and what happened in this country on September 11, and after.

Moore protests that hundreds of Saudis were allowed to leave the US in the aftermath of 9-11.

Moore pointed out that members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the U.S. after September 11. Maybe I missed something?

This author stops just short of openly accusing Michael Moore of racism, and that just bothers me, because I have never seen anything from Moore that indicates such.

The only part I agreed with, on some level, was his criticism of the "Coalition of the Willing" scenes...I thought that part of the film did come across as insensitive and unnecessary.

[0rganism]

13. Moore said 140 Saudis left after 9-11-2001, IIRC

~30 of them, presumably those closely tied to OBL, did have cursory interviews with the FBI on their way out the door. I have to agree with the author that if Moore had, at that point in the film, contrasted (even verbally, for 10 seconds) that with the roundups of thousands of Arab-Americans in the following months, it would have helped F9-11.

I agree with you that the author seems to have missed the boat on the linkage between the bushes and the Saudis.

[jdj]

14. I read an islamic writer recently who said for non-muslims

not to be swayed or silenced by accusations of racisms when it comes to confronting the misuse of islam for violence and human rights violations.

[mandyky]

8. Shlomo Svesnik, is that am American name?

A liberal from another country might not totally grasp the urgency of our situation. I am more interested in how normal Americans (liberal and moderate) are seeing this movie.

The point of the movie is that shrub is a rotten president, and due to his laziness or lack of curiousity (or worse for LIHOPs and MIHOPs)- we were attacked on 9-11-01, and shrub has used it to misuse his powers, keep secrets and start us down the road of endless wars, for HIS dereliction of duty.

So, MM may not have made a perfect documentary, nor does he take on the mantle of "fair and balanced" - he is sort of sharing his way of thinking about all this, with media clips and personal stories to back up his thesis...

[jdj]

15. I wanted to hate this Shlomo, but alas, look at this for contrast

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF MEL GIBSON

A Look Behind the Headlines Reveals "The Passion of Christ" as Propaganda for a Fascistic Cult

by Shlomo Svesnik

The debate around Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" has gone on too long. Not only is the film bad history that even deviates sharply from the gospels (contrary to all the empty hoopla about its supposed accuracy), not only is it a transparent exercise in "blood-libel" Jew-hatred, not only does it indulge in extended pornographic sadism that makes a mockery of the very "Christian" values it is supposedly promoting--but a dispassionate look at the facts reveals it as a piece of propaganda for a reactionary religious cult that intersects with the new networks of European fascism while literally claiming to be more Catholic than the Pope."

.
http://worldwar3report.com/passion.html
Wow, I couldn't have said it better, and no one has said it more succinctly
It is stupid to pick apart Moore, though, but that is THE key difference between liberals and conservative. We'll gladly eat our own in the name of objectivity, whereas they never do this. And we forgive our liberal transgressors, whereas the right crucifies theirs.

[ajacobson]

9. Let a thousand critiques bloom

but lets not lose sight of the fact that this movie is having exactly the impact that Moore intended to have, which is an often neglected element of most left critiques.

How many left analyses (however flawed) have warranted a national Gallup poll? How many left analyses scope of impact is measured in percentage of the U.S. adult population! I am hard-pressed to think of anything (from the political rather than cultural left) in the last 25 years to create this much national impact.

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12379

[geek tragedy]

12. "The Left" isn't running for President--John Kerry and Bush are

As someone who has a generally low opinion of Moore, I also recognize that most efforts to discredit the film are done out of apologism for aWol.

The best criticism to make of the film is that it left the really scary stuff about Bush out.