Moore
Controversy: One Rambling Critic Tackles Another
When it came to the handling
of Michael Moore’s acerbic documentary, Fahrenheit 911,
the conservative powers at Disney weren’t too astute. If they
were trying to snuff it from distribution, then why did they sell
it (back) to Harvey and Bob Weinstein? You knew the co-founders
of Miramax would find a distributor (and they did through a venture
with Lion’s Gate). Plus by creating a maelstrom of controversy
when they said they wouldn’t release the Bush bashing polemic,
Disney forever conjoined itself to the film
(if they were looking to distance themselves from the controversy,
they got backlashed) and all but assured it of box-office success.
In its opening week alone, Fahrenheit 911 was the number
one grossing film, raking in over twenty million dollars, making
it the first documentary to score the top spot (which it did on
800 plus screens, the next runner up was available for viewing on
more than double that number of screens). That same week, Disney
released the slight, feel-good documentary America’s Heart
and Soul. Whatever they’d hoped to gain by the gesture,
it’s clear that the lessons from the Mel Gibson and The
Passion of the Christ brouhaha hadn’t fully sunk in at
Mickey and Co.
The
marriage between Miramax and Disney (which purchased Miramax in
the late-mid 90s) has always been an odd duck. From a business perspective,
it makes perfect sense; a Kill Bill movie costs about half
of what it takes to cook a Jerry Bruckheimer produced film (take
Gone in 60 Seconds or Enemy of the State) and
yet nets as much, if not more. Not to mention that since 1994, when
Pulp Fiction crashed the Oscar party, Miramax has been
a perennial force at the annual Hollywood awards pageant, if not
dynasty (Chicago, Shakespeare in Love and so on). Conceptually
however, Miramax staples like hit man Vincent Vega or Billy Bob
Thorton’s Bad Santa don't quite fit in with the image
of clean family fun that Mickey and Donald have come to represent,
though Disney is no stranger to odd ties; one of its tentacles owns
the radio channel that controversial right-wing talkmeister Rush
Limbaugh employs as a bully pulpit. And while I’m not certain
where Disney, head Michael Eisner’s political allegiances
lie, it is intriguing to note that the mega conglomerate’s
big dollar theme park is located in Florida, home of Jeb Bush, Governor
and brother of Moore’s target. Ironically (or poetically depending
on what side you come down on) much of Moore’s pot-stirring
spectacle, which took top honors at this year’s Cannes Film
Festival, keeps winding it’s way back to the Sunshine State.
It opens there with a quick recap of Election 2000, deriding Jeb
and the Republican Party for hijacking the presidency (it always
comes back to those dang hanging chads!) and then later, hangs on
a bewildered Dubya as he’s informed of the attacks on the
World Trade Towers while visiting a Florida elementary school.
Moore’s
never been the meticulous doucementarian that D.A. Pennebaker, Federick
Wiseman or Errol Morris are, he’s more of cinematic pundit
who employs shock and droll wit to hammer home his points. He doesn’t
make his case by laying out facts in a stepwise fashion, but instead
launches a salvo of incendiary imagery, carefully juxtaposed to
evoke on a guttural level. Take Bush sitting stupefied and inept
as he learns of the attacks, then lounging slovenly in a golf cart
and most damming, as he smugly addresses an audience of affluence
as his “base.” They all hit their mark with biting accuracy,
but is Moore a shameless manipulator exploiting the Bush blooper
reel or is he an ingenious stalwart of leftwing liberalism? Truth
be told, he’s a pinch of both, but he’s got to be careful;
at times he’s pedagogical and worse, self-aggrandizing. By
pursuing Bush with such pit-bull virulence he subverts journalistic
objectivity and threatens the overall credibility of the film. And
then there are the cheap shots. There’s the guitar riff from
Eric Clapton’s “Cocaine” when listing Bush as
a presidential candidate and during the “seven minutes”
at the elementary school Moore adds an unnecessary voice-over as
if he’s the voice of Dubya. “Who screwed me?”
he says in his scruffy, everyman’s twang. The point he’s
trying to make is abstruse and worse, it’s cavil and nearly
as smug as Bush as he hangs at the fete’s podium, basking
in glow of his “base.”
9/11's
most poignant moments come when Moore yields the screen to others.
The interview snippets of soldiers in Iraq initially illustrate
young, naïve instruments of the Bush administration, but later,
some older, more grizzled combatants express their disillusionment
with their mission and the reasons for being in Iraq. Moore also
scores some comical and wholly affecting moments when he corners
several U. S. Congressmen and Senators and solicits them to send
their children to the war (Moore previously informs us that the
troop base, much like Vietnam, is comprised of those from the lower
rungs of the socio-economic ladder and that only one U. S. Legislator
has an offspring in the war). And then there’s Lila Lipscomb,
mother of a G.I. killed in action, as she emotionally reads her
son’s final letter imploring his family to do whatever possible
to get Bush out of the Whitehouse. No mater how much Moore leans
on Lipscomb to propel his own agenda, her anguish and anger is genuine
enough in its own right. Moore obviously sought out Lipscomb because
she’s a resident of Flint, Michigan, Moore’s hometown
and a stopping point in nearly all films (his first film, Roger
& Me, was about Flint’s economic decimation due to
the General Motors shutdowns in the 80s). In developing his cinema
verité, Moore’s also taken to interjecting celebrity
sound bites to provide offbeat comic relief in his films. In Bowling
for Columbine goth rocker, Marylin Manson provided some surprisingly
lucid observations about rock lyrics and gun control and in 9/11
a ditzy Britney Spears blindly throws her blondeness behind the
president.
9/11
isn’t Moore’s most tightly focused work, it’s
more akin to the director’s penned works (Stupid White
Men and Dude Where’s My Country) than Columbine
or Roger & Me, which pretty much amounts to a sloppy,
yet amiable rant against the establishment; and 9/11 plays
any angle it can to take Bush’s knees out from under him,
be it the Election 2000 controversy, the dubious oil ties between
the Saudis and Bush family, Dubya’s inaction during the World
Trade Tower attacks or the war in Iraq. Moore simply wants Bush
out of the Whitehouse and he vehemently asserts his will on the
screen. It’s not the curmudgeonly filmmaker sharpest film,
but it is his most provocative.
The
big question however, is: will 9/11 have any sway on the
2004 Presidential Election? Obviously Moore and the Weinsteins felt
strongly enough to make sure it got into theaters before hand over
of Iraq and with time enough to sink in before the election, but
if Moore really wanted to incite Bush’s ejection from the
Whitehouse, he needed to come up with a smoking gun (the liberal
equivalent of WMD) or at least endorse the Bush’s opponent
in waiting; yet in the film, neither event occurs. Much of what’s
rendered is a regurgitation of what’s known and long been
conjectured (the findings by the 9/11 Commission and Senate panel
are far more sobering and illuminating) and as far as supporting
Bush’s opposition goes, Moore had thrown his support behind
General Wesley Clark, the late Democrat entry who disappeared from
the field fasted than water on a hot griddle (thankfully Moore’s
not liberal, or impractical enough to jump on the Nader train, not
yet any way).
Come
November, 9/11 won’t tilt the vote to John Kerry,
but it has served as smelling salts to the political consciousness
of the American public. Conservatives have become cemented in their
defense of Bush, the pulse of liberals has quickened (outside my
local movie theater in Cambridge, Massachusetts throngs of activists
have been peppering 9/11 film goers with various calls
to action) and those hung in the middle now have plenty more to
chew on. Perhaps the heightened sense will yield a greater voter
turnout vote? And when Moore disengages from his quest to demonizing
Bush, he raises some salient questions about the weight of an average
voter’s voice, the manner in which the state of affairs are
executed and ponders if we really live in a democracy, or have become
mired in hegemony? In short 9/11 raises a myriad of questions
and provides few answers, but when all is said and done, two things
will be certain; the film will go on to become most profitable documentary
on record and Moore’s whirlwind success, will incite a sudden
outbreak of people seizing up their video cameras, digging through
archival footage and emblazoning their socio-political passions
on celluloid -- Morgan Spurlock’s already got his hands on
a hit with Supersize Me. And don’t feel too bad for
the folks at Disney, nor assume a trove for Moore and the Weinsteins;
Disney when they sold the film, stipulated that 60% of the profits
had to be earmarked for a charity of Disney’s picking. Those
charities have yet to be selected, so let’s just hope that
the people at Mickey and Co. do the right thing and send the cash
to the families of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks and died
on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The
What They Were Thinking Addendum
Actress
Natalie Portman (the upcoming Garden State and Star
Wars movies) recently offered up a shred of socio-political
criticism regarding her alma matter’s diversity policy. In
her vent she accused Harvard of not truly embracing diversity because
of where the minority students “vacationed.” The implication
being that Harvard only admits minorities from privileged backgrounds.
Maybe so, but I’m curious to know how Portman arrived at such
a deduction. Did she collect logistical data about students racial
and socio-economic backgrounds from the admissions office, or, and
more likely so, diud she make an off the cuff statement based on
her perceived experience at Harvard? Let’s be frank, Portman
was a Hollywood actress on a campus that has a Hollywood status
of its own and her social circles when partying after hours probably
did not include many financial aide students who were probably too
busy scrubbing down the mess hall. Harvard offers one a great educational
opportunity to all its students and is one of the hardest universities
to get into. Ms. Portman should pause and count her blessing, because
if she were not Ms. Portman the actress and celebrity, would she
have gained access to the Ivy League institution?
--
Tom Meek
|