In all honesty, I would prefer to forget that I ever paid to see Michael Moore’s “documentary” film, but the media keeps publishing stories about it and for some reason I keep reading them. I don’t really expect anyone to look at this in its entirety, but here is a list of 59 deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 by Dave Kopel. I have yet to read much of it at all (though I plan to read as much as I can), but just from the intro I can see that the writer goes about his critique in a way that mirrors my mindset as I sat and watched (fought off sleep?) his film. This paragraph from his report sums up my thoughts rather nicely:

Quite obviously, there are many patriotic Americans who oppose George Bush and who think the Iraq War was a mistake. But Moore’s deceitful movie offers nothing constructive to help people form their opinions. To use lies and frauds to manipulate people is contrary to the very essence of democracy, which requires people to make rational decisions based on truthful information. It’s wrong when a President lies. It’s wrong when a talk radio host lies. And it’s wrong when a film-maker lies.

I’m not saying that I knew as I was sitting in the theater that specific bits of information of the movie were deceitful or downright false. Still, a part of me was realizing that Michael Moore has his own agenda as much as President Bush or anyone else, and why wouldn’t he stretch the truth or twist things around to show people what he wants them to see? It boggles my mind how many people sat through the movie and took every word of it as “fact” simply because it was labeled by some as a documentary, a word almost synonymous with facts and truth. I’m not saying that good points weren’t made or that he didn’t bring interesting things to light, but the way in which he went about it really bothered me. Thoughts from Boston University Law Professor Randy Barnett:

…I was struck by the sheer cunningness of Moore’s film. When you read Kopel, try to detach yourself from any revulsion you may feel at a work of literal propaganda receiving such wide-spread accolades from mainstream politicos, as well as attendance by your friends and neighbors.

Instead, notice the film’s meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) “true” or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression. In this way, Kopel’s care in describing Moore’s “deceits” is much more interesting than other critiques I have read, including that of Christopher Hitchens. Kopel’s lawyerly description of Moore’s claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)–a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false–and this leads in turn to another thought.

If this much cleverness was required to create the inchoate “conspiracy” (whatever it may be, as it is never really specified by Moore), it suggests there was no such conspiracy. With this much care and effort invested in uncovering and massaging the data, if there really was a conspiracy of the kind Moore suggests, the evidence would line up more neatly behind it, rather than being made to do cartwheels so as to be “true” but oh-so-misleading. If the facts don’t fit, shouldn’t we acquit?

Hopefully this will be the last from me on Michael Moore (unless it’s more stuff of the cartoon variety), but I make no promises. Frankly I’m tired of hearing about it, but if I happen to spot other interesting stuff, I’ll probably put it on here. Don’t stop reading over it. I highly recommend clicking that Christopher Hitchens link up there. It’s also worth reading or at least skimming. Plus he made one comment that made me laugh out loud: I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. I’m starting to like this guy more and more, hehe.

Some more interesting news later after I watch a comedy that should require little or no thought of anything political or otherwise 🙂

Currently Playing Watching: 50 First Dates