Fahrenheit 911
Saturday, August 20th, 2005 03:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinySo after this whole Kearsarge thing and the recent news coverage of slain soldiers' protesting mothers, I felt the urge to watch Fahrenheit 911 again. After all, it was my favorite movie of the summer of unemployment (aka the Summer of 2004). Of course, I remembered the movie was hours long and so it wasn't anything I could just sit down and watch whenever. But tonight seemed like a good night to watch it.
I think my favorite source from the movie was "I read somewhere that the Saudis have invested 1 trillion dollars in the US." Wow! I am blown away by the factual gravity that statement has. I just can't believe that "somewhere" has published that! It must be true. I'm sure at this point, you've caught on to my sarcasm.
I'm watching this movie and I remember what knowledge I had of the situation at the time: not a lot. Whatever I had skimmed from headlines or work conversations. And I'll admit that I don't flip through the headlines now. (Something I'm glad for since I would have seen the USS Kearsarge at the beginning of my day. I was scarred enough by it at the end of my work day.) But watching it now, I have the knowledge I gained through campaigning for Kerry.
One of the scenes I always thought was incredibly dramatic was the scene in the Senate. Those leaders who had petitions and letters just needed one signature from one Senator. Now who was in the Senate at the time? John Kerry? John Edwards? John McCain? And this whole war business. Wasn't there a vote? But complacency is one thing and spearheading a thing is another.
While I'm at it, I seem to recall in 1998 thinking "Why is Clinton STILL letting Saddam get away with this UN deal? He needs to do something about the inspectors." And I was reminded of this fact watching the news tonight. Sure Bush sat on the information about Bin Laden. But Clinton had the same information. I wonder if a regime change might have caused just the chaos needed for an attack.
I still think it has some really good emotional scenes. The black scene when the towers are being attacked. The emotionalism of a mother coping with the loss of a son and needing someone to blame. But watching this time around, I was very much struck with the whole lack of real evidence other than minced up newsreels.
A line that I had always thought funny: I like to dig for bugs and insects in the dirt. Wasn't saying that at all. It was cut strangely, but he was actually saying "Armadillos like to dig for bugs and insects in the dirt." Darn, my favorite line is gone.
I have to hand it to Michael Moore though. He knows how to make a movie and he knows how to use emotionalism. In the opening credits alone, he manages to make all of the Bush cabinet look silly and disrepectful simply by playing some serious music to some before the camera goes live footage of the cabinet members cutting up. It's so subtle, I really didn't even notice the first time. That happens a lot. I'm reminded of the format of "facts" (without real documentation, but I guess that's what the book is for?) then emotionalism then "facts" then emotionalism. And as I was famous for saying about the movie, "if you don't cry in this movie there's something wrong with you." Of course there is. It's meant to make you cry. Maybe if you can cry with the grieving mother, you too can cast blame on the White House. I understand where this logic comes. I had that logic myself. Heck! I tried to convince Marines coming home from Afghaniston freshly returning to Aberdeen of this logic. I remember their responses. I remember mine. I hope they come home from Iraq and Jordan so that we can have a barbeque and I can apologize for trying to make them feel used and abused. These guys might not have been the wealthiest guys, they might have been lied to be recruiters, but they weren't willing to put themselves in harm's way for oil. I fail to see how oil was even a point that Michael Moore was making. His point seemed to be that the Carlyle Group was about money. Through war, they could make money. Lots and lots of money at that. There was a natural gas pipeline mentioned, but still no oil was mentioned. I'm not reaping any benefits from oil either. I'm paying waaaay too much at the gas pump to even think we're getting oil benefits. Now if we want to argue that war = money, well I could see that you have a place to stand in that argument.
But honestly, I'm going to bed. It's been a stressful day and tomorrow is not my day of rest.
Screaming and yelling never convinced anyone of their misguided ways. A little understanding goes a long way.
~Bas
I think my favorite source from the movie was "I read somewhere that the Saudis have invested 1 trillion dollars in the US." Wow! I am blown away by the factual gravity that statement has. I just can't believe that "somewhere" has published that! It must be true. I'm sure at this point, you've caught on to my sarcasm.
I'm watching this movie and I remember what knowledge I had of the situation at the time: not a lot. Whatever I had skimmed from headlines or work conversations. And I'll admit that I don't flip through the headlines now. (Something I'm glad for since I would have seen the USS Kearsarge at the beginning of my day. I was scarred enough by it at the end of my work day.) But watching it now, I have the knowledge I gained through campaigning for Kerry.
One of the scenes I always thought was incredibly dramatic was the scene in the Senate. Those leaders who had petitions and letters just needed one signature from one Senator. Now who was in the Senate at the time? John Kerry? John Edwards? John McCain? And this whole war business. Wasn't there a vote? But complacency is one thing and spearheading a thing is another.
While I'm at it, I seem to recall in 1998 thinking "Why is Clinton STILL letting Saddam get away with this UN deal? He needs to do something about the inspectors." And I was reminded of this fact watching the news tonight. Sure Bush sat on the information about Bin Laden. But Clinton had the same information. I wonder if a regime change might have caused just the chaos needed for an attack.
I still think it has some really good emotional scenes. The black scene when the towers are being attacked. The emotionalism of a mother coping with the loss of a son and needing someone to blame. But watching this time around, I was very much struck with the whole lack of real evidence other than minced up newsreels.
A line that I had always thought funny: I like to dig for bugs and insects in the dirt. Wasn't saying that at all. It was cut strangely, but he was actually saying "Armadillos like to dig for bugs and insects in the dirt." Darn, my favorite line is gone.
I have to hand it to Michael Moore though. He knows how to make a movie and he knows how to use emotionalism. In the opening credits alone, he manages to make all of the Bush cabinet look silly and disrepectful simply by playing some serious music to some before the camera goes live footage of the cabinet members cutting up. It's so subtle, I really didn't even notice the first time. That happens a lot. I'm reminded of the format of "facts" (without real documentation, but I guess that's what the book is for?) then emotionalism then "facts" then emotionalism. And as I was famous for saying about the movie, "if you don't cry in this movie there's something wrong with you." Of course there is. It's meant to make you cry. Maybe if you can cry with the grieving mother, you too can cast blame on the White House. I understand where this logic comes. I had that logic myself. Heck! I tried to convince Marines coming home from Afghaniston freshly returning to Aberdeen of this logic. I remember their responses. I remember mine. I hope they come home from Iraq and Jordan so that we can have a barbeque and I can apologize for trying to make them feel used and abused. These guys might not have been the wealthiest guys, they might have been lied to be recruiters, but they weren't willing to put themselves in harm's way for oil. I fail to see how oil was even a point that Michael Moore was making. His point seemed to be that the Carlyle Group was about money. Through war, they could make money. Lots and lots of money at that. There was a natural gas pipeline mentioned, but still no oil was mentioned. I'm not reaping any benefits from oil either. I'm paying waaaay too much at the gas pump to even think we're getting oil benefits. Now if we want to argue that war = money, well I could see that you have a place to stand in that argument.
But honestly, I'm going to bed. It's been a stressful day and tomorrow is not my day of rest.
Screaming and yelling never convinced anyone of their misguided ways. A little understanding goes a long way.
~Bas
