Review by Michael Jacobson
Director: Alan Peterson
Audio: Dolby Stereo
Video: Widescreen 1.78:1
Studio: Savage Pictures
Length: 75 Minutes
Release Date: October 5, 2004
is no terrorist threat. THERE…IS…NO…TERRORIST…THREAT.
This is a lie. This is the
biggest lie we’ve been told.” – Michael Moore
said to us, ‘You make too much of these deaths.’ I said to him, ‘3,000 people were murdered – how can you
SAY THIS?!’” – Former
New York City Mayor Ed Koch, Democrat
every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, even if you’re Michael
Moore. He crafted Fahrenheit
9/11 in an attempt to bully, browbeat and bend the American people to his
will. He made millions of dollars
from his cult-like devotees, but made almost as many enemies out of those who
saw past his lies, distortions and propaganda and who dedicated themselves to
making sure America and the world knew the truth about this deceitful,
hypocritical egomaniac. With the
film FahrenHYPE 9/11, they have boldly sought redress for some serious
bound to be dismissed by Moore and those who will never bother to see it as some
Republican opinion machine, but they will have missed the number of Democrats
who voiced their outrage. Democrats
like activist Ron Silver, who believes that putting politics ahead of national
security is a recipe for destruction, or Georgia Senator Zell Miller, who openly
thanks God that Bush was President on that fateful day, and not his fellow party
member who narrowly missed the White House.
Former NYC mayor Ed Koch was “horrified” (his own words) to be on a
panel discussion with Moore and to hear him say too much was being made of the
attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon.
fact, the film opens with a Democrat speaking.
Gwen Tose-Rigell might not be as well known as the other aforementioned
members of her party, but her words are just as eloquent and her place in 9/11
history particularly striking. She
was the principal of the second grade class who read to President Bush on the
morning of the attack. And ever
since then, but particularly in the wake of Moore’s film, she has striven to
set the record straight about the President’s actions of that morning.
Moore tried to portray a befuddled, helpless buffoon, she saw a dignified man
who didn’t react rashly, who took a moment to collect his thoughts and gather
himself (actually 5 minutes, not the 7 Moore claims, but that’s small pickings
compared to some of his other distortions), and didn’t panic a roomful of
children or leave a scared school teacher to try and explain the inexplicable to
them. It's a matter of two
different interpretations, to be sure. But she was really there, she
states…Moore was not. And though
she voted for Al Gore, the actions of George W. Bush on that day convinced her
he was the right man at the right time for the job.
film is easy to pick apart…he knew those who followed him would accept his
untruths and keep him rich, and didn’t care about those who wouldn’t.
It’s therefore kind of hard to give this movie full props; not a lot of
work had to be done to blow Moore’s houses of cards over.
The Afghan pipeline theory (actually Bill Clinton’s pet, not Bush’s,
but long abandoned in either case), the 2000 Florida vote, the fake headline of
an actual newspaper The Pantagraph…it’s like watching the New England
Patriots playing an elementary school football team…it’s such an easy
slaughter, it seems almost cruel to enjoy it.
like former advisor to President Clinton Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Dave Kopel
and others weigh in, not just against Moore, but in favor of the war on terror,
and why the Iraqi invasion was essential to the security of the world.
Ron Silver, who both narrates and appears on camera, makes a comparison
of the Moore crowd of today with the Charles Lindbergh crowd of the 30s, who
rallied Americans to join them in opposing U.S. intervention in Nazi Germany in
1937. Had we entered the war then
instead of 1945, how much destruction could have been averted and how many
millions of lives might have been saved? Though
a Gore campaigner and outspoken Democrat, Silver believes Bush’s actions are
equivocal to entering the war in 1937 instead of waiting until 1945.
film concludes with a striking segment that both angers and saddens, and
features people who will be familiar to those who watched Moore’s movie.
They are the Americans who appeared in Fahrenheit 9/11 and who
never gave their consent to be in it. There
is a soldier who lost his arms in Iraq, who was interviewed by someone other
than Moore (he never had the courage to show up there and do his own dirty work)
about his phantom pains, and was later surprised to see himself in a segment of
the movie declaring how bitter and hopeless the soldiers felt.
He’s very adamant that he felt nor feels neither.
woman was shown in Moore’s film grieving over the coffin of her nephew and
used to depict how awful it was that he died for no good reason.
She’s glad to set the record straight…her nephew loved his country,
believed in the action, and did NOT sacrifice himself in vain.
Another family cries openly at how hurt they were that Moore used the
loss of their loved one for his own propagation, and how they feel a patriotic
hero’s memory has been forever besmirched by a man who never even had the
courtesy to ask “do you want to be in my film?”
has always been willing to exploit the hardships of others to make his fame and
fortune, and has gotten away with it for years. I doubt FahrenHYPE 9/11 will achieve anywhere near the
same level of success that his movie did, if for no other reason than the rabid
media and Hollywood elitists won’t throw their weight, their money, or their
film prizes its way. But just the
fact that it exists is comforting. The
mightiest tapestries can be unwoven…pulling a single thread is the start.
standard documentary stuff…a mix of film clips from various sources and video.
Nothing particularly striking about the quality either way.
pretty much an all dialogue movie, so the only question is, are the spoken words
clean and clear? Yes.
Perfectly suitable, nothing more or less.