Jump to content

Fahrenheit 9/11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stw (talk | contribs) at 22:04, 14 August 2004 (→‎From the film). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fahrenheit 9/11 poster
Fahrenheit 9/11 poster

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary motion picture by American filmmaker Michael Moore, which had a general release in the United States and Canada on June 25, 2004. The film has since been released (or is about to be released) in 42 more countries (see link below). It presents a critical look at the administration of George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism. The Los Angeles Times described the film as "an alternate history of the last four years on the U.S. political scene." [1]

The film has been denounced by some critics as misleading propaganda, and praised by others as a valuable perspective on the Bush administration's response to 9/11. Moore himself has called it an "op-ed piece" while vehemently defending its factual accuracy.[2][3][4].

The film debuted at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival in the documentary film category and was awarded the Palme d'Or (Golden Palm), the festival's highest award, by an international jury (four Americans, four Europeans, and one Asian).

Content

Template:Spoiler

The film deals with the causes and aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and with the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. In the film, Moore also describes the links between the Bush family and associated persons, such as prominent Saudi Arabian families (including that of Osama bin Laden). The links form a relationship spanning three decades, worth $1.4 billion to the Bush family and its friends and associates. [5]

While these business links are not disputed, they are not widely known, and Moore has previously alleged that the Bush administration turned a blind eye to Saudi links to terrorist groups (most of the September 11 hijackers were Saudis). In this vein, he also examines the government-sponsored evacuation of relatives of Osama bin Laden after the attacks. One of his primary sources for these claims is the book House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger, which Moore also advertises on his website.

The film contains numerous, graphic footage of military and civilian casualties from the Iraq war, including dead and mutilated bodies. Another portion of the film shows US solders with amputations or nerve damage. One brief clip shows a public beheading filmed in Jidda, Saudi Arabia. By contrast, Moore refrained from using the familiar footage of the September 11 attacks, but instead had a blank screen with only the sounds of the incident, then cutting to the reaction of onlookers of the attacks.

In April 2004, Moore posted a note on his web site regarding the progress of the film. In it, he stated that he was obtaining footage directly from Iraq:

I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on. They Fed Ex the footage back to me each week. [6]

The film begins with George W. Bush's accession to power and alleges a 42 percent vacation rate before September 11, 2001. The figure comes from a Washington Post article that concludes Bush spent "a whopping 54 days at his Texas ranch, 38 days at the presidential retreat at Camp David and four more at his parents' place in Kennebunkport, Maine." Critics dispute this figure as misleading, remarking that it includes visits by foreign dignitaries as vacation time. [7]

The next scene is of Bush sitting in a Florida classroom, storybook in his lap, for seven minutes after being told there was a second airplane crash on the World Trade Center.

Moore shows a Vietnam-era document of George W. Bush's Air National Guard service record — first the censored copy produced by the White House, then an uncensored copy that Moore had obtained a few years earlier. The difference between the versions is that the White House blacked out the name of James R. Bath, a Guard friend of Bush's who went on to work as a financial agent for the Saudis and helped channel Saudi money to one of Bush's businesses. (The point has been raised that this may have been due to HIPAA restrictions on the release of medical data. Because Bath, like Bush, did not fulfill his obligation to take the examination, however, the document contained no examination results.) Moore contends that Bush's dry-hole oil well attempts were partially funded by the Saudis and, in fact, by bin Laden family money.

Moore obtained footage of the preparation for the televised announcement of the Iraq war, where Bush mugs for the camera, seconds before uttering "My fellow Americans,...".

A strong pro-war supporter, Lila Lipscomb, from Moore's home town Flint, Michigan with a daughter in the First Gulf War, and a son in Iraq, is made to look like an anguished anti-war mother upon the death of her son on April 2, 2003, in Karbala. Lipscomb later travels to Washington, DC where she confronts a woman near the White House who says that "this is all staged." Lipscomb asks her if her son's death was staged also.

In the beginning of the movie, Moore focuses on the 2000 election with footage of a hypothetical Gore victory and in the process states his opinion that the public was fooled. The film ends with a clip of George W. Bush stumbling through the saying: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. You fool me you can't get fooled again." He was presumably trying to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." What he came up with combined part of that maxim with the title of The Who song "Won't Get Fooled Again." In the context of the film, Moore is tying the clip back to the beginning of the film to imply Moore's hope that the American public will not be "fooled again."

The movie is dedicated to Moore's friend who was killed in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001, and to those servicemen and women from Flint, Michigan, who have been killed in Iraq.

At the Cannes Film Festival

In April 2004 the film was selected to compete for the Palme d'Or at the 57th Cannes Film Festival. After its first showing in Cannes in May of 2004, the film received a 20-minute standing ovation, which Cannes artistic director Thierry Frémaux declared "the longest standing ovation in the history of the festival." (According to French news the standing ovation was over 23 minutes long).

On May 22, 2004, the film was awarded the Palme d'Or. It was the first documentary to win that award since Jacques Cousteau and Louis Malle's The Silent World in 1956. Just like his much publicized Oscar acceptance speech, Moore's speech in Cannes included some opinionated statements:

I can't begin to express my appreciation and my gratitude to the jury, the Festival, to Gilles Jacob, Thierry Frémaux, Bob and Harvey at Miramax, to all of the crew who worked on the film. [...] I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done here and the response from everyone at the festival, you will assure that the American people will see this film. I can't thank you enough for that. You've put a huge light on this and many people want the truth and many want to put it in the closet, just walk away. There was a great Republican president who once said, if you just give the people the truth, the Republicans, the Americans will be saved. [...] I dedicate this Palme d'Or to my daughter, to the children of Americans and to Iraq and to all those in the world who suffer from our actions.

Some conservatives in the United States, such as Jon Alvarez of Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood (PABAAH), commented [8] that such an award could be expected from "the French" (see Anti-Americanism, Anti-French sentiment in the United States); Moore responded: "There was only one French citizen on the jury. Four out of nine were American. [...] This is not a French award, it was given by an international jury dominated by Americans."

He also responded to claims that the award was political: "Quentin [Tarantino] whispered in my ear, 'we want you to know that it was not the politics of your film that won you this award. We are not here to give a political award. Some of us have no politics. We awarded the art of cinema, that is what won you this award and we wanted you to know that as a fellow filmmaker.'"

Quotes from the jury's press conference

The following comments were made at the Palme d'Or jury press conference. [9]

On the politics of the film:

  • Quentin Tarantino: "Judging a film by its politics is a bad thing. If it wasn't some of the best filmmaking, then I would not have chosen it. [...] You can't strangle this movie with the title 'documentary'. Michael Moore is fucking with the format to bring us a movie-documentary-critical essay."
  • Tilda Swinton: "One of the reasons it is radical in its politics is because of its relation to the media. It starts and ends with a question. It is sophisticated cinema. It wouldn't have served its political end if it wasn't a good piece of filmmaking. He has matured as a filmmaker since Bowling for Columbine. [...] It is not a film about Bush, nor Iraq but rather the system. In the words of Godard, "'we spend so much time looking for the key to the problem; we need to begin looking for the lock.'"
  • Benoît Poelvoorde: "We had long and passionate debates. We put the politics aside so as to talk film. We are not here to give a morality lesson. Personally, I think that the Festival is very politically correct; on the other hand, it is hard to not be. [...] At the same time, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a political tract. His unique viewpoint is not a problem for me since we have the possibility to inform ourselves elsewhere and also listen to other opinions."

On awarding the prize to a documentary:

  • Kathleen Turner: "We felt it was more than a documentary. We believe this film creates its own category and that's why it stands apart."
  • Tilda Swinton: "The things Michael Moore says cannot be said on the media of TV. What he has to say has to be seen at the cinema. Who would have thought that cinema could get stretched this far."
  • Jerry Schatzberg: "I had to get over the mix of genres, to open my mind to animations, documentaries alongside fiction. [...] Michael Moore has given us a film that makes you think in different ways."
  • Edwidge Danticat: '"What struck me most was that I was laughing one minute, sobbing the next. I was taken to emotional heights. It let the voices speak for themselves, voices that are otherwise silent."

Release controversy

Alternate Fahrenheit 9/11 poster
Alternate Fahrenheit 9/11 poster

Originally planned for distribution by Mel Gibson's Icon Productions, Fahrenheit 9/11 was later picked up by Miramax after Icon released claims to the movie in May 2003, citing image conflicts while claiming the decision to be apolitical. Miramax had earlier distributed another film for Moore, The Big One, in 1997.

In May 2004, Moore announced that Disney (the parent company of Miramax) was blocking the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11 in North America, citing a contractual clause expressly permitting it to do so in such cases as a prohibitive budget or explicit movie rating. However, Miramax executives indicated this was not the case. Disney stated that both Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, and Miramax were advised in May 2003 that Miramax would not be permitted to distribute the film. Disney representatives claim that Disney has the right to veto any Miramax film if it appears that their distribution would be counterproductive to the interests of the company.

An unnamed Disney executive said that the film is against Disney's interests not because of government business dealings, but because releasing it would risk being "dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle" and alienating customers. Emanuel stated that Disney chief executive Michael Eisner requested he back out of the Miramax deal, expressing concerns about political fallout from conservative politicians, especially regarding tax breaks given to Disney properties in Florida (e.g., Walt Disney World), where Jeb Bush is governor. Moore acknowledged in a later CNN interview that Disney had told him they did not want the film the previous year. Despite that, Disney continued to fund Fahrenheit 9/11 throughout the remaining year of production.

Due to these difficulties, distribution for the film was first secured in numerous countries other than the U.S. On May 28 2004, after more than a week of talks, Disney announced that Miramax film studio founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein had personally acquired the rights to the documentary from Walt Disney Co., after Disney declined to distribute it. The film was released under the newly-formed company Fellowship Adventure Group, which will take care of its home video distribution. Furthermore, a settlement was reached so that any profits from the film's distribution that go to Miramax or Disney will be donated to charity. The Weinsteins repaid their parent company for all costs of the film to date, estimated at around $6 million. They will also be responsible for all costs to finish the film and all marketing costs not paid by any third-party film distributors. Moore called the deal a "fair and equitable solution" and added that he was "grateful to them now that everyone who wants to see it will now have the chance to do so."

After being informed that the film had been rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America, Moore appealed the decision, hoping to obtain a PG-13 rating for the movie instead (the R rating requires anyone under the age of 17 to be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, otherwise they will not be admitted). The appeal was denied on June 22, 2004, but some theaters chose to defy the MPAA and allow unchaperoned teenagers to attend anyway. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office For Film And Broadcasting gave the film its A-III rating, meaning that it is, in their judgment, "morally unobjectionable for adults" (this is the mildest rating typically given by the organization to motion pictures that are rated R by the MPAA).

Eventually, in June 2004, U.S. distribution of the film was secured as well, jointly arranged by Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group, a company set up by the Weinstein brothers who personally financed and controlled distribution and marketing. The U.S. thus still became the first country to see the film's actual theatrical release, despite the fact that the arrangements for international distribution were finalized earlier.

Opening weekend and subsequent box office

On its opening weekend of June 25-June 27, this film generated a box office revenue of $23.9 million in the U.S. and Canada, the top grossing film of that weekend, despite having been screened in only 868 theaters (many of the weekend's other top movies played on over 2,500 screens). In that weekend it earned more than any other feature-length documentary (including Moore's previous film, Bowling for Columbine) did in its entire U.S. theatrical run. The film was released in France on July 7, 2004 and in the UK on July 9, 2004.

During the weekend of July 24, 2004, the film passed the $100 million mark in box office receipts, again an unprecedented amount for a feature length political documentary.

Moore credited in part the efforts of conservative groups to convince theaters to not run the film, conjecturing that these efforts backfired by creating publicity. There were also efforts by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org to encourage attendance in order to defy their political opponents' contrary efforts.

Partly because of this success, it is widely debated what effect this film will have on George W. Bush's reelection chances.

Other countries

The film has been banned in Kuwait. In Lebanon, some student members of the terrorist group Hezbollah have asked if there was any way they could support the film. Gianluca Chacra, the managing director of Front Row Entertainment, the Middle East distributor for Fahrenheit 9/11, has stated, “We can't go against these organizations, as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria. Having the support of such an entity in Lebanon is quite significant for that market and not at all controversial. I think it's quite natural."

In Cuba bootlegged versions of the movie were shown at 120 theaters, later followed by a prime-time television showing by the leading state-run network. It had been widely reported that this might affect its Oscar eligibility. However, soon after that story had been published, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences issued a statement denying this, saying, "If it was pirated or stolen or unauthorized we would not blame the producer or distributor for that,"(E! Online, 8/3/2004). In addition, Wild Bunch, the film's overseas distributor for Cuba, issued a statement denying a television deal had been struck with Cuban Television.

Ray Bradbury's title dispute

The title of the film refers to Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 and the September 11 attacks of 2001. The Fahrenheit 451 reference is emphasized by the film's tagline "The temperature where freedom burns" (compare with Fahrenheit 451's tagline, "The temperature at which books burn"). Moore has stated that the title came from the subject of an e-mail he received shortly after September 11th.

Ray Bradbury was upset by what he considered the appropriation of his title, saying of Moore, "he stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission", and calling Moore a "horrible human being" (both quotes occurred in an interview with the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. [10]). He also reportedly is demanding an apology from Moore and wants the film renamed [11]. However, since Bradbury has not trademarked the title, legal action is unlikely.

When Dagens Nyheter asked him about his own political position, Bradbury replied: "That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title; that is what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions." It is not unusual for titles to allude to or quote familiar works of literature. Several of Bradbury's own titles are quotations, although from dead authors: "Something Wicked This Way Comes" (Shakespeare); "I Sing the Body Electric!" (Whitman) and "Golden Apples of the Sun" (Yeats).

Attacks on the film

Move America Forward's letter-writing campaign

The group Move America Forward, which has ties to Sacramento PR firm Russo, Marsh and Rogers, the campaign to prevent CBS from showing The Reagans, and the campaign to unseat California Governor Gray Davis, mounted a letter-writing campaign to ask theaters not to show the film, which it compared to "an al Qaeda training video" [12]. "We've been causing them [the cinemas] an enormous amount of aggravation." said talk radio host Melanie Morgan. [13] However, no theaters reported cancelling their showings.

Citizens United's FEC challenge

Citizens United, a group run by David Bossie, a critic of Bill Clinton, has filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission charging that ads for the film constitute political advertising and thus may not be aired 60 days before an election or 30 days before a party convention. On August 5th, the FEC unanimously dismissed the complaint finding no evidence that the movie's ads had broken the law. [14]

Controversy about the film's content

Some critics contend that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruth. Some say that the movie is "propaganda." In response, Moore has published both an extensive list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document establishing agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the September 11 Commission. Both can be found on his personal website as well as several others.

U.S. presidential election, 2000

The introduction to the movie includes a collage of video footage depicting the events surrounding the U.S. 2000 presidential election, particularly those involving the contested Florida recount. This fragment of the movie is presented to convey the illegitimacy of Bush as a president. It includes a newspaper headline reporting that Gore actually received more votes in Florida than Bush did and a quote by Michael Moore expressing his opinion that Gore would have won if the Supreme Court had not interfered with the recount process. This assertion has been criticized because there are differing views of what would have happened. The movie shows a clip of CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin stating that "if there was a state-wide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election." A comprehensive six-month study commissioned by a consortium of media organizations including CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post concluded that Gore would have won if there had been a statewide recount of all disputed ballots. The study also concluded that Bush would have won the election under the recount system in place at the time the US Supreme Court intervened to halt the recount, and that Bush would have won under a partial-recount scheme suggested by Gore. For more information, refer to the Florida Ballot Project recounts.

Moore's description of media reports of the poll results has also been criticized. He attributes the retractions of the call that Gore won Florida to FOX News, saying “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy.... All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’" However, FOX had called Florida for Gore at 7:52 pm EST, just like the other networks, and did not retract this call until 2 am, whereas CNN and CBS had both retracted their claims at 10 pm, four hours before FOX. FOX was the first network to call the state for Bush, at 2:16 am, and all other networks had done so within four minutes. To imply, as Moore does, that this retraction was because of FOX has been disputed, as all networks were receiving the same data from the Voter News Service at about the same time. By that time, most networks were not relying primarily on VNS, due to known malfunctions in the service. All the networks later retracted the call for Bush between 3:59 am and 4:07 am.

Saudi flights

The Bush White House is implicated by Moore in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States beginning September 13th. In his narration in the movie, Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th" In making the implication that the Saudis were preferentially allowed to leave the country early, at no point deos the movie does mention that September 13th was the date that all outbound international flights were allowed to resume.

Richard Clarke's various statements regarding the approval of the flights

Critics point to various statements and testimony by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, which they contend indicates that Clarke had the initial responsibility which he then passed off to Dale Watson who was the agent in charge of investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks at the FBI.

However, Clarke's statements about the flights and how they were approved have varied over time. The following is a chronological summary:

  • September 3, 2003: In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Clarke said: "It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House."
  • March 24, 2004 [15]: In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Clarke indicated that the request was not abnormal, "The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans." He goes on to explain that the FBI eventually approved the flights and he describes conversations in which the FBI has said that there was no one who left on those flights who the FBI now wants to interview.
However, under questioning by Commission member Tim Roemer, Clarke appeared to suggest that the White House may have had a role in originating the request for approval: "I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two -- since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know."
  • May 25, 2004: In an interview with The Hill newspaper, published the following day [16], Clarke said "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again." He went on to say that "It didn’t get any higher than me... On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."

Critics of Moore have, on the basis of Clarke's statements about the flights, attacked the fact that Moore does not mention Clarke's testimony or the FBI's role in the approval of the flights. Moore's supporters contend that Clarke's statements on the matter have been inconsistent, and that his statement in March that the "request for approval" may have originated in the White House may have been an executive decision passed down for approval by inferiors.

The FBI's denial that it had a role in approving the flights

On May 18, 2004, Washington newspaper The Hill quoted FBI spokesman on counterterrorism John Iannarelli as denying that the FBI had any "role in facilitating these flights one way or another." [17]

The FBI's denial of involvement was repeated to The Hill by another spokesperson, Donna Spiser, in the May 26, 2004 article. She is quoted as saying "We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights." [18] She states that the FBI's involvement was limited to interviewing those people on the flight it thought were of interest: "We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to".

Statements by Commission members regarding the flights

The May 18 article in The Hill, which was published prior to Clarke's May 25 claim of full responsibility, quoted 9/11 Commission vice-chair Lee Hamilton as saying: "We don't know who authorized [the flights]. We’ve asked that question 50 times."

The May 26 article in The Hill quotes another Commission member, Tim Roemer, as being unconvinced by Clarke's claim of sole responsibility for approving the flights: "It doesn't seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it... I just don't think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper... Clarke sure didn't seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers." [19]

Since leaving his White House position, Clarke has become a prominent critic of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and is interviewed in the movie.

Alleged lack of cooperation from the White House over Saudi flights investigation

Allegations concerning the Bush administration's refusal to provide information to the 9/11 Commission about the Saudi flights are disputed. The May 18th 2004 article in The Hill [20] says that Democratic Commission member Lee Hamilton "disclosed the administration’s refusal to answer questions on the sensitive subject during a recent closed-door meeting with a group of Democratic senators, according to several Democratic sources." However it also says that Republican Commission member John Lehman "said... that he told the senators the White House has been fully cooperative."

Moore's claim about inadequate interviewing of bin Laden relatives

Moore also claims that the bin Laden relatives were not seriously interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave. However, the September 11 Commission has found that 22 of the 26 people on the "bin Laden" flight were interviewed before being allowed to leave the country with many being asked "detailed questions". [21] (section The Saudi Flights p. 12)

Taliban visit

Members of the Taliban are shown visiting Texas during George W. Bush's term as governor. Critics allege that Moore mentions this in order to imply that Bush invited the Taliban. They counter that the Taliban contingent was hosted by oil company Unocal, and their visit to the US was authorized by the Clinton administration, which also met with Taliban members [22] (although the Clinton administration later imposed economic sanctions against the Taliban [23]), and that the Bush governorship did not meet with the Taliban during that time. In the United States, state governors have no authority with respect to the hosting of foreigners in their state.

Moore also links the Bush Presidential Administration with the Taliban by reporting that this Administration met with Taliban representatives in the United States in early 2001. The Bush administration contends that its primary goal in these meetings was to encourage the Taliban to extradite Osama bin Laden.

War on Iraq

The film presents the war on Iraq as an attack on a sovereign nation that has never murdered a single American citizen. The film makes a case against components of the Bush Doctrine, specifically against the concepts of pre-emptive war combined with American unilateralism. The film also contends that the focus of the United States should have been directed elsewhere - that the primary aim of United States' military and foreign policy should have continued undistracted on its efforts to find, capture and destroy Al-Qaida, their leader Osama bin Laden, their close allies and influential sympathizers, rather than attacking, invading and occupying Iraq.

Critics point out that the film does not mention the history of repression, aggression, and alleged war crimes under the rule of Saddam Hussein, nor Iraq's reported noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions ([24]). On the other hand, Moore has frequently stated his opinion that Hussein was a "bad man" and a tyrant, though this opinion is not mentioned in the film. Moore has stated that noting Saddam's crimes was unnecessary considering that mainstream media have continually pressed this point themselves, making it public knowledge

Bush, Unocal, and the war in Afghanistan

Moore alleges connections between George W. Bush's decision to begin the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Unocal's desire to build a gas pipeline in the country. Moore asks: "Was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas. In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney. Halliburton." Moore goes on to say that "When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai ... Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former adviser to Unocal."

However, when Bush took office in 2000, Unocal had already withdrawn plans for the proposed pipeline in Afghanistan. Unocal formally withdrew its support from the project after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998 [25], reiterated its position in 1999 [26] after several inaccurate media reports, and reiterated its position again in 2002. The United States Energy Information Administration reports that no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline plan [27]. However, in 2002 Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to revive plans of a trans-Afghan gas pipeline; Alim Razim, Afghanistan's minister for Mines and Industries, described UNOCAL as the "lead company" in the revived plans, although they continue to deny renewed involvement.

Furthermore, both Unocal and Karzai have denied through spokesmen that they ever had a business relationship of any kind; this claim appears to have originated in the French newspaper Le Monde and resurfaced in the American Christian Science Monitor. The allegations have also been widely repeated in European newspapers, although UNOCAL has consistently denied them.

Secret Service guarding Saudi embassy

During a scene filmed outside of the Saudi Embassy in which Moore is discussing the level of Saudi investment in the U.S. economy with Craig Unger, they are approached by uniformed Secret Service officer Steve Kimbell. Kimbell explains that he is just ascertaining information, and asks Moore if he is doing a documentary regarding the Saudi Arabian embassy. In voiceover narration, Moore notes that "Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi Embassy." Moore responds to the officer by saying, "I didn't realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies," to which the officer replies, "Uh, not usually. No, sir." Moore continues in voiceover: "It turns out that Saudi Prince Bandar is perhaps the best protected ambassador in the U.S. The U.S. State Department provides him with a six man security detail."

Critics contend that the movie leaves viewers with an inaccurate impression that the Secret Service plays no role in protecting any other embassy. That statement is not made in the movie, but the critics claim that Officer Kimbell's comment, which is an explicit part of the movie, is wrong and should have been corrected by Moore.

Under Public Law 91-217 section 202, passed in 1970, the uniformed division of the Secret Service plays a role in protecting "foreign diplomatic missions located in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia" (among other things) [28], [29]. However, this does not mean that all embassies receive full-time on-site Secret Service protection (as opposed to area patrols), nor that all the embassies so protected receive the same number of personnel. Neither side has offered a conclusive comparison of the level of security attention given to the different embassies to shed light on Officer Kimbell's statement (that other embassies are "not usually" treated this way) or on Moore's speculation that Prince Bandar might be the best-protected ambassador in the United States.

Quotes

From the film

  • Gordon Bobbit, Marketing Manager, Kalmar Inc (equipment supplier to US Army): "There's no other single area of the world today with the opportunity for business, new business, similar to the opportunity that's available today in Iraq."
  • Blaine Ober, President, High Protection Company (Atlanta-based Armored Vehicles): "Unfortunately, at least for the near term, we think it's going to be a good situation. Err, a dangerous situation. Good for business, bad for the people."
  • Michael Moore: "Governor Bush. It's Michael Moore." George W. Bush (in response): "Behave yourself, will you? Go find real work."
  • George W. Bush, while playing golf: "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive."
  • George W. Bush, at a fundraising dinner: "This is an impressive crowd. The haves, and the have-mores. [laughter] Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base. [laughter]"
  • Rep. John Conyers, when asked how Congress could allegedly pass the USA PATRIOT Act without reading it: "Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the bills."
  • Unidentified Congressman, when Moore tries to stop him for an interview in the street: "Hell no!"
  • Youssef Sheimi(?), Iraq Initiative, Harris Corporation, at the "Rebuilding Iraq" conference: "Once that oil starts flowing, it's gonna be lots of money. Whatever it costs, the government will pay you."
  • Narrator: "George Orwell once wrote that it's not a matter 'if the war is not real, or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.' ... 'A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society in tact.'" (a quote from Nineteen Eighty-Four)

From Moore

  • On the rising popularity of documentaries: "Audiences love a good story, whether through fiction or nonfiction. I don't start out making a documentary but rather a good movie. Nonfiction is taking itself out of the ghetto and documentary filmmakers are finding new and inventive ways to tell their story. I'm pleased and I hope it continues."
  • On giving credit where credit is due: "The film begins with them putting their makeup on. I consider them as actors. In fact, I forgot to thank my actors, thank you George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz..."
  • On the film's objectivity: "It is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush Administration and that is what I call it. I am not trying to pretend that this is some sort of fair and balanced work of journalism."[30]
  • On the film's factual accuracy:
Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered. [31]

From fans

  • Madonna: "I don't think I've ever cried so hard at a movie in my life. And I'm sure I still have a lot to learn from it. Not only is it inspiring and educating, but it's proof that people can make a difference, that we can make a difference."

From critics

  • Ty Burr, The Boston Globe: "Should be seen because it takes off the gloves and wades into the fray, because it synthesizes the anti-Bush argument like no other work before it, and because it forces you to decide for yourself exactly where passion starts to warp point of view."
  • Mary Corliss, Time magazine: "A brisk and entertaining indictment of the Bush Administration’s middle East policies before and after September 11, 2001."
  • Roger Ebert: "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's Bowling for Columbine, that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of Columbine; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites."
  • Christopher Hitchens, Slate: "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting"' bravery."
  • Anne Hornaday, The Washington Post: "The best thing about 9/11 is that viewers can disagree with the filmmaker's own assessment that the war was fought for money and power but still emerge with some healthy questions of their own."
  • Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: "Moore makes a persuasive and unrelenting case that there is another way to look at things beyond the version we've been given."
  • George Monbiot, The Guardian: "When starving people find food, they don't worry too much about the ingredients. Michael Moore's film is crude and sometimes patronising. He puts words into people's mouths. He finishes their sentences for them. At times he is funny and moving, at others clumsy and incoherent. But I was shaken by it, and I applauded at the end. For Fahrenheit 9/11 asks the questions that should have been asked every day for the past four years."

DVD release

Fahrenheit 9/11 will be released to DVD on October 5, 2004. It's possible "Fahrenheit" will still be in theaters when the DVD arrives, however according to Variety, that isn't likely to deter Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment from unleashing the DVD on the masses. [32]

In addition, Moore has made it clear that he wanted the DVD released about that time to maximize its influence on the voters for the US Presidential election in November.

Articles about the film content and accuracy

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fahrenheit_9/11&oldid=5210796"