FAHRENHEIT 9-11
If you're ever bored and want some cheap thrills, just go to an Internet movie fansite like Ain't It Cool, get on the message boards and bring up Michael Moore. Then, sit back and watch the hilarity ensue as movie geeks from all over get themselves worked into a lather of either love or hatred at the mere mention of his name. Everybody seems to have a strong opinion on Moore, centering largely on political orientation. Polite liberals tend to support his work, yet are somewhat chagrined by his obnoxious personality, much as I would like to think polite conservatives feel about right-wing blowhards like Rush Limbaugh. I used to count myself among those ranks, but after watching the country sit complacently as first its Presidency was decided under (at the very least) dubious circumstances, and was then led into an unjustified war and occupation under blatantly false pretenses, I have decided that a muckraking gadfly propagandist is just what we need right now. Moore has been up-front about his hope that this film will influence voting in November. But will his film reach the key swing voters that can make the difference in a race that will likely be decided by 2% or fewer votes?

Perhaps cognizant of the stakes, Moore injects less of himself into this film than in previous efforts. He still provides the sarcastic narrative voice, but there are fewer of his trademark attention grabbing stunts. The exceptions are a pointless scene in which Moore drives around Capitol Hill in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot Act over the loudspeaker, and a slightly more effective scene where Moore pesters Congressmen to sign their children up for the army. Neither of these works as well as in previous Moore efforts, perhaps because we're used to his antics. But after his much-maligned verbal ambush of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, it seems like he's giving us a more restrained Moore--and it probably doesn't hurt his case.

Moore's greatest strength is his ability to move from hilarity to pathos in the blink of an eye without losing the audience. There are a lot of downright hilarious moments in Fahrenheit, such as a clip of John Ashcroft belting out his unintentionally funny song "Let the Eagle Soar," and the indelibly creepy sight of Paul Wolfowitz slobbering on a comb to plaster down his hair before a television appearance. When the tone turns serious, as when Moore shows footage of maimed Iraqi children or interviews the grieving mother of a slain soldier, it doesn't feel forced or exploitative. It's a great gift, the ability to make us laugh and cry in the space of a few moments.

Not so Moore's reliance on hoary tricks like cueing up the hick banjo music when he's making the point that W is an idiot. Yes, it's funny, but does it help your rhetorical aims to portray the man as both a moron and the head of a cadre bent on world domination (he does advance the notion that Daddy's pulling the strings, but doesn't go very far with it). Even worse is his tendency to undercut his own credibility by using obvious editing tricks to illustrate his points. Not content with an actual soundbite of Bush claiming a relationship between Iraq and Al Quaeda, he follows it with chopped-up footage of Bush saying the words "Iraq" and "Al Quaeda." Does Moore think this is bolstering his argument?

Moore's meandering style doesn't lend itself to a cogent argument, but then again that's not really the point. He's a propagandist, and he's about angrying up your blood. Which it does in spades, if you have even the slightest inclination that Bush & Co. haven't exactly been on the level these past four years. I hate to break it to the people out there crying foul because of Moore's obvious liberal bias--there has never been a completely objective documentary produced in the history of motion pictures. Period. Documentaries, just like all films, are scripted, filmed, and edited by people. People with biases that, more often than not, go into a project with some idea of the point they're trying to get across. I'd argue that Moore, who wears his biases on his XXL sleeve, is much less dangerous than a documentarian that operates under the guise of objectivity.

If you're a conservative, go see the film as a skeptic. Listen to Moore's claims, then, instead of dismissing them out of hand, check the facts for yourself (I'd recommend something more objective than Fox News or that "Michael Moore Hates America" website). A good place to start might be Christopher Hitchens' much-quoted anti-Moore diatribe on Slate.com (most of which is in my opinion hogwash, but he's at least done some research). If you're a liberal, you should also see the film with a skeptical eye. And then you can rejoice in the knowledge that, between Moore and Al Franken, being a liberal no longer means taking the polite higher ground when we're assailed by the multifarious lies and slanders foisted upon the public by the right-wing loudmouths that dominate the supposedly "Liberal Media." Maybe, just maybe, being a liberal might once again be fun.

Rating: 4 out of 5