Rohan Pearce
The June 26-27 opening weekend of Michael Moore's new documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, confirmed the nightmares of US President George Bush's supporters. Despite the right-wing's best efforts to derail the Fahrenheit juggernaut, in a single weekend it became the highest grossing documentary in US history. According to the June 28 New York Times, it beat White Chicks and Dodgeball, films showing on almost three times more screens than Fahrenheit. But even the documentary's record-breaking profits can't convey the impact that the film has already had on the US political landscape little more than four months before the presidential elections. A series of informal reports from premiere screenings around the US posted on Michael Moore's website (http://www.michaelmoore.com) give a taste. "E.G." from Montgomery, Alabama, wrote: "The theater was packed, and the filmed [sic] received an uninterrupted 5-minute standing ovation at its conclusion. What a phenomenal piece of work — Michael Moore is a genius who might finally save this country from itself." "S.W." from Dallas, Texas, reported: "I have good news from North Texas, the famed Bush country At the end of [the film], the entire audience gave a standing ovation for nearly five minutes. Applause actually broke out twice during the film, but the end simply blew the roof off the place." The huge success of the film is a slap in the face for those who have tried to prevent it being shown. The list of those who are terrified of Moore reads like a who's who of the right-wing establishment. The "pre-emptive" campaign against Moore began with Disney, which prevented its Miramax division from releasing the film (Disney finally allowed Miramax's Harvey and Bob Weinstein to personally buy the rights to the film). Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, told the May 5 New York Times that Disney CEO Michael Eisner had told him that the tax breaks Disney receives in Florida, where Bush's brother Jeb is governor, may be threatened if the film was released. The NY Times reported that Disney claimed it took the action "because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film could alienate many". "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle", an unnamed senior executive told the paper. But its unwillingness to be involved in a "partisan political battle" didn't prevent Disney teaming up with one of the right-wing groups that has been leading the anti-Fahrenheit charge, Move America Forward. On June 28, MAF organised an advance screening of Disney's America's Heart and Soul. According to MAF, Disney paid for the screening. A press release promoting the event stated: "Unlike the negative and misleading storyline of [Fahrenheit 9/11] Disney's America's Heart & Soul features a collection of upbeat storylines of real life Americans who pursue their passions in a way that underscores what makes America a great nation." The domain name of MAF's website was registered to Russo Marsh & Rogers, a PR firm with strong links to the Republican Party (shortly after the details were posted on the internet by activists, they were changed and all names were removed). MAF waged a campaign to stop cinemas screening Moore's film. In a June 17 statement, MAF chairperson Howard Kaloogian claimed, "This movie is about as popular as ice in Antarctica, and movie theatres are giving Michael Moore's 'bash America' flick a chilly reception". (Proving that you can have all the corporate funding in the world and still end up looking like an ignorant jerk.) Citizens United, another pro-Bush group, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on June 24. The group claims that because Moore wanted the film to contribute to unseating Bush at the election, the film violates the Federal Election Campaign Act. But all the efforts of right-wingers, which included the Motion Picture Association of America's ratings board giving the film an "R" classification, just served to stoke people's interest in the film. The appeal of the film is not hard to understand: since Washington launched its "war on terror", significant dissent to the Bush regime's plans has been almost totally absent from the corporate media. Moore's film presents people with answers that they haven't been able to find from Fox News or CNN. And this film is a blistering critique of the war o Iraq, and perhaps more importantly, the occupation that followed it. Not even the staunchest believer that Iraq has been "liberated" could watch this film and support the occupation. Of particular threat to the warmongers of both the Democratic and Republican variety is that Moore draws out the common interest that US working-class people, including soldiers, and most Iraqis have in ending the occupation. In one of Fahrenheit's most moving scenes, Lila Lipscomb, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, explains how angry she used to be at anti-war protesters — and now she's one of them. She reads her son's last letter from Iraq: "What in the world is wrong with George? Trying to be like his dad, Bush. He got us out here for nothing. I'm so furious right now Mamma. I really hope they do not re-elect that fool, honestly." Her heart-wrenching grief is so similar to that shown in Moore's footage of Iraqi women whose families were obliterated during the invasion. While Fahrenheit reveals US soldiers to be, like the Iraqis they kill, victims of the invasion and occupation, he doesn't gloss over the brutality they inflict. "There was a lot of innocent civilians that were killed", admits a soldier. "And I think that is because the US army <193> we came in and we knew it wasn't going to be easy and pretty much at first shot anything that moved." Another tells Moore that going into combat is "the ultimate rush". One soldier recounts how he and his comrades listened to the Bloodhound Gang's "The Roof is on Fire" while they took part in the assault on Baghdad. Grinning, he sings to the camera: "The roof is on fire/We don't need no water/Let the motherfucker burn/Burn motherfucker, burn". Footage of Pentagon claims about US "smart bombs" is contrasted with gruesome footage of Iraqi victims of bombings raids. Moore also managed to film US troops abusing hooded Iraqi prisoners. The film not only challenges racist US foreign policy, which, although Moore seems in denial, the Democrats and Republicans hold 90% in common, he also connects the "war on terror" abroad to the war on working people within the US. Returning to his hometown of Flint, Michigan, Moore looks at the economic conscription of soldiers from poor families, particularly of African Americans and Latinos. A young man tells Moore that the images of destroyed buildings in Iraq remind him of the devastation of whole streets in Flint, wrought not by bombs and tanks but by the capitalist economy. Moore's film also dissects the US government's response to 9/11, clearly proving that terrorism was never the motivation for invading either Afghanistan or Iraq. In particular, he documents the connections between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi Arabian ruling class, including Osama bin Laden. This material is interesting, and rarely mentioned by the corporate media in the US, so for many it will be a revelation. It's a pity, then, that Moore isn't entirely clear about the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. Fahrenheit implies "undue influence" by Saudi Arabia on Bush and US politics. Although the survival of the Saudi Arabian regime is of interest to important sections of the US elite, it is because of the Saudi monarchy's role as the US central client regime in the Middle East. Without the backing of the US, the rule of the house of Saud may have been ended long ago. Moore doesn't explore the fact that the Carlyle Group, a finance company examined in Fahrenheit that has links to Bush and his father, was once the owner of Vinnell Corp. Vinnell, in addition to frequently being used by the CIA to provide cover to its overseas operations, trains the Saudi Arabian National Guard, the monarchy's key tool for internal repression against opponents. It's also a pity that Moore backs the "anyone but Bush" campaign widely supported by the US liberal left. This campaign argues that the key to ending US military aggression overseas and attacks on the working class in the US is making sure a Democrat takes Bush's place in the White House in the November presidential election. Although the Democrats don't get off scot-free, they don't get the panning their complicity in the "war on terror" deserves. But while the film's success will comfort many Democrats, its politics are far better than that of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry doesn't oppose the occupation of Iraq. Kerry's official policy is to get more support from other imperialist nations including making "Iraq a part of NATO's global mission". He has criticised Labor leader Mark Latham for promising to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq if the ALP wins the election. There is a contradiction between Moore's support for Kerry and his opposition to the "war on terror". These criticisms aside, more so than Moore's past films, Fahrenheit 9/11 has been made as a tool of political change, giving it a focus lacked in his (still excellent) last film Bowling for Columbine. The film clearly takes back the moral high ground seized by apologists for US imperialism after the horror of the mass murder of September 11, 2001, and is an indictment of using 9/11 to justify the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fahrenheit is a challenge to the warmongering, corporate-friendly politics of the Republocrats.
From Green Left Weekly, July 7, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.