Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11 ist Moores bisher erfolgreichster und damit einflussreichster Film. Er hat sich voll und ganz der Sache verschrieben. Er wurde geschaffen, um den amerikanischen Durchschnittsverbraucher anzusprechen. Daher wiederholt er nicht den ausgeklügelten Ansatz seines Vorgängers, anders als Bowling for Columbine ist er kein sich langsam zusammensetzendes Mosaik von Fakten und Geschichten, die eine sehr beeindruckende Idee ergeben. Er ist eine Veranschaulichung der ursprünglichen These. Demagogie und Propaganda. Natürlich - zugegeben. Sie stellt ein Gegengewicht zur offiziellen medialen Darstellung der Person und der Politik von George W. Bush dar und bedient sich daher weitgehend der Waffen der offiziellen Propaganda. Kurz gesagt, eine Flut von Fakten, eine einseitige Sichtweise. Berührende Geschichten. Tränen. Emotionen. Pathos. Zuerst bekommt man eine verallgemeinerte Idee auf dem Silbertablett serviert, die dann mit einem treffenden und emotional erpressenden Beispiel illustriert wird. Zum Glück gibt es noch Michael Moore, einen Mann mit Humor und einem fast Hašek´schen Gespür für die Absurdität einer Situation, die man nicht auf die Spitze treiben, sondern zu einem Ende bringen muss. Ein Mann mit einem Gespür für die groteske Wirkung von Musik, Glanz und sogar unkommentiertem Filmmaterial. Ein Unruhestifter und Anarchist, der zwar am extrem entgegengesetzten Ende des Spektrums steht, aber dennoch ein notwendiger Glossator (und Manipulator) für das heutige Amerika ist. Zum Glück gibt es George W. Bush, einen Idioten und natürlichen Clown, ganz im Sinne von Schwejks Aussage: "Ich liebe es, wenn Leute herumblödeln." Leider ist sein Herumblödeln einerseits lustig, andererseits gefährlich, denn in seinen Grundsätzen kommt er dem Konzept der Angst und des ewigen Krieges aus Orwells "1984" erstaunlich nahe... Fahrenheit 9/11 ist definitiv kein so guter Dokumentarfilm wie Bowling for Columbine, ihm mangelt es an Komplexität und Intelligenz. Es ist einfach ein beharrliches Bemühen, die geschwärzten Stellen in den Dokumenten der Geschichte aufzudecken. Ich werde es brauchen. (22.09.2004)

I read an apt observation somewhere that conspiracy theories are like fairytales for adults, with a simple theory and an attempt to find a shortcut to explain complex things. Moore is such a storyteller, engaging and entertaining, but unfortunately he uses exactly the weapons he accuses Bush of using: demagoguery and simplification. An example is his view of the Iraq problem. In a suggestive voice, he declares that Iraq never attacked the US, all to the accompaniment of images of smiling Iraqi women and a small Iraqi boy flying a kite. It gives the impression that Iraq was a happy country before it was invaded and that its invasion was a criminal act. Nice, unfortunately Mr. Moore omitted, surely quite deliberately, a few essential facts: Saddam's dictatorship launched several wars in the Middle East region, invaded Iran, plundered Kuwait, gassed and otherwise slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Kurds, tortured and executed political opponents with the help of the secret police of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, who were synonymous with fear for ordinary Iraqis, ignored the call of the UN Security Council some 40 times, etc. The last drop fell, and the US took the initiative, with the embarrassing acquiescence of the traditionally uncooperative UN and EU, to play the role of World Police. Thanks God for that, assholes need to be stopped (Milosevic is a good example). Economic interests are then a logical concomitant, I will always be a hundred times happier to have oil in the hands of democratic states than dictators like Hussein. Another example is Moore's somewhat unfair play on emotions in his portrayal of an American patriot who has lost her son and gives vent to her emotions, full of remorse and tears, in front of the White House. Sure, the death of a loved one is always painful, I felt very sorry for the woman, but to tie that sad fact to the name Bush is kind of beside the point. After all, anyone who volunteers for the army inevitably bears the highest risk, this is simply a reality, sad and cruel, but necessary and valid for armies all over the world. Moore is smart and knows this, of course, but why not be as effective as possible in the political anti-Bush fight, right. I appreciate Moore's lifelong commitment to righting the public wrong, which is why I really liked his Bowling for Columbine, but I don't like being taken for a ride. However, the supporters of the now popular and embarrassingly herd "anti-American" attitude in Europe, the crazy conspiracy theories (the popular opinion that the US government, the CIA, maybe even UFOs were behind the WTC attacks) will be in heaven. Well, to each their own. PS: I'm not much of a fan of conservative Catholic George Bush and his "hawkish" clan with names like Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz, he doesn't seem to have much intelligence and I can imagine plenty of more competent candidates in his place, but that doesn't change my view of the necessary "platoon" role of the US in the world. (12.09.2006)

If Bowling for Columbine was not a documentary but a bunch of Michael Moore's personal opinions, then what is Fahrenheit 9/11? Moore's objectivity can be successfully doubted about as surely as his political affiliation can be determined. The 250-pound likable guy, who wears a clearly visible label of Leftist, is the main guarantee of success for his films. But whereas in Bowling for Columbine, he went out, inquired, debated, and presented a lot of objective information, Fahrenheit 9/11 feels more like Moore sat in front of the television, recorded news from all sorts of TV stations, and then edited them according to his taste to create a certain narrative. The first half, which is a pure criticism of the Bush family, is downright lazy work by Moore. He bombards the audience with piles of unnecessary information, from which we can see that George W. Bush is an even bigger scoundrel than he seems, but they don't fit into the context of the movie at all. His reputation is subsequently redeemed thanks to the criticism of the Iraq War, but it has one catch. Everything that Moore states as fact, any reasonable person would have put together a long time ago. Why is Bush attacking Iraq? I've known for a long time that it's about oil and the money from it. How do the soldiers themselves see the war in Iraq? Look at the introduction to the movie Black Hawk Down, that thinking hasn't changed. Whoever is interested in the opinion of the Iraqis themselves should watch the film Control Room by the Qatari TV station Al-Jazeera. However, it cannot be denied that Moore has enthusiasm, passion, and above all, a sense of humor with which he presents everything. If I were to rate Fahrenheit 9/11 as a documentary, I'd go higher, but as an independent (my political affiliation is still unclear) who pays attention to the situation (about which Moore meanders for a long two hours), I'll stick with the middle after all. (15.06.2005)

I'm biased, but I can't help it. Michael Moore points out the facts that no one really wants to look at. He's even more biased, not objective, cherry-picking what suits him, but he creates an overall image that is believable, which is the saddest thing about him. Don't you then feel that you influence very little in your life? I guess we're just lucky we're not Americans. (14.10.2016)