A Change Of Venue

It’s fun, and sometimes a little daunting, to look at material one has written some years back to see if it still stands up, or simply falls down. Be it political commentary, fictional critique, wry observation or impassioned love letter, one rarely looks at old material through new eyes and comes away feeling the same way they did when it was originally written. That’s to be expected, I guess – we all change. For some of us that change is incremental, for others a paradigm shift occurs.

Almost three years ago to the day I wrote a piece about Michael Moore’s then new film Fahrenheit 9/11. While a fair amount of ‘black water’ has gone under the bridge since then, not to mention another ‘questionable’ election, I think my observations about the film and the ‘temper of the times’ in which it was released still hold true.

With the North American arrival of Michael’s new film, Sicko just a couple of weeks away, I thought it would be interesting to review my feelings about “F9/11”, and the resulting left versus right mindset that proliferated the media outlets three years ago. That mindset, I’m sure you’ll agree, not only hasn’t changed, it’s gotten louder and more polarized. The presidential election campaigns, only just now moving into high gear, the continuing debacle known as ‘Iraq’, and, ironically, the renewed and vociferous debate about American universal healthcare all are responsible for this ‘heightened alert’. As usual, at the eye of this hurricane there sits a burning Bush.

Controversy has a way of making people line-up in separate queues, metaphorically speaking. There’s the line that forms to the right and the line that forms to the left. Those finding themselves without a line, well… sit on the fence. “Fahrenheit 9/11” and it’s composer, Michael Moore, are responsible for the latest such queues, and there doesn’t appear to be a fence in sight.

If it’s possible to ever pinpoint the birth of any controversy — that moment in time when it all began – then surely the brouhaha surrounding George W. Bush’s ascension to the American throne is an easy one. And, as they frequently say in political circles, it’s a controversy argued down strict party lines. Innuendo and rumour rule the day. But where are the facts? Make no mistake about it – this is war!

Those on the left – let’s call them Democrats — might argue the following:

The 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, affectionately known as ‘Bubba’, is impeached for having “…sex with that woman… Miss Lewinski”, and lying about it under oath. For this, arguably one of the most effective world leaders of modern times gets an ‘asterisk’ next to his name in the history books.

The 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, affectionately known as ‘Dubya’, is still President even though, officially, he wasn’t elected, but appointed (anointed some might say) by the American Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote. Don’t let anyone tell you that one vote doesn’t matter - just ask Chad, the guy hanging out on the corner! He has consistently, nay constantly, deceived, bullied, obfuscated and lied — under oath and otherwise — all in the name of a fictitious war in a sovereign nation that held no threat to the security or populace of the USA resulting in the unnecessary deaths of over 600 American servicemen [Now over 3,500 – Ed.] and women and countless Iraqis. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

While those on the right – let’s call them Republicans – would probably counter with this:

Bill Clinton was a liar, a cheat, a thief, a womanizer, and an adulterer, and he got caught on every count! Besides, Clinton had eight years to get rid of Bin Laden when he had the chance and he failed. Good riddance!

George Bush, on the other hand, comes from fine presidential stock – a born leader. When America was attacked he fought back, in spades! He captured Saddam, liberated Iraq and made America safer into the bargain. All in less than one term. Four more years! Four more years!

But it’s never quite that simple, is it?

What’s past is prologue.

Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a truly amazing experience for someone like me who’s been involved in the making of television, film, theatre and radio for more than thirty years.

Whether Michael is a gifted filmmaker, a skilled documentarian or just a sly propagandist isn’t really the issue. His material in this film — containing approximately 90% OPF (other people’s footage) — is edited and constructed in a manner that leaves no doubt as to its content objectives: undermining Bush and his cronies in the upcoming American election. Yes, it’s filled with quotes, sound bites and news visuals taken out of context, and relies heavily on creative juxtaposition, careful editing and the omnipresent voiceover of Michael himself all in the name of espousing a particular point of view.

Slanted, biased, one-sided…? Most certainly. But isn’t that the basic tenet of the media of the 21st century? Isn’t that precisely what CBC, BBC, ABC, CNN, FOX (absolutely!) and the rest of the supper-hour acronyms do?

A sound bite, for instance, by definition, is a line of speech taken out of a longer conversation or interview to sum up that conversation or interview; to reduce the entire thought, theory or scenario into a single, simple-to-understand line that explains all, or at least attempts to. A rocky editorial road to be sure, but splice enough of these ‘segments’ together and in the hands of a skilled editor you have a complete thought, maybe even a story. But does it portray ‘reality’? Is it the ‘truth’? Does it really matter? If you can polarize an audience with the result, isn’t that enough?

So, this begs the question: Should documentary be ‘balanced’ and portray both sides of an argument? Shouldn’t the end result be one of ‘journalistic integrity’…?

Ask yourself this: when was the last time you saw a ‘balanced’ documentary on the Holocaust, or a miners’ strike, or a war… from either side? When did you last see a ‘balanced’ documentary on any subject? A documentary, by definition, is a montage of visuals and words conveying a single thought from a single perspective and designed to elicit a particular mood and feeling from its audience; it frequently results in a call to action.

Many years ago I heard a film professor say two things during a lecture on historical documentary filmmaking that struck me then and have stuck with me all this time:

1. Accepted past history is today’s propaganda and tomorrow’s call to arms.

2. Documentary film is lies, twenty-four times a second.

He certainly had his opinions, which is why his lectures were always standing room only.

Maybe the truth, or what passes for the truth on any given day, lies somewhere in between - on a fence, let’s say.

The television news media, in any country you care to choose, has become THE tool of information delivery to an increasingly ADHD-afflicted audience. It’s a malaise borne of continually receiving news and information ONLY from television that knows no border, race or religion. Their collective mission statement is based on delivering short, sharp hits of information (“World comes to an end - film at 11.”) followed by an ad agency selling erectile dysfunction cures.

Michael Moore is no different and takes this concept to its natural (perhaps UN-natural) conclusion. He borrows one hundred and twenty-two minutes of your life to condense the last three and a half years of history into a sort of evangelical Gospel According to Michael - The Passion of the Moore, if you will. Can you say ‘Burning Bush’…?!

There has been a lot of criticism about this film, mostly from the queue that forms to the right. They like Bush and his policies – they voted for him after all — and don’t like seeing ‘their’ president walked on. I’ve heard many so-called new conservatives invoke the popularized War of Independence flag from 1776 with “Don’t Tread On Me” emblazoned upon it, not only as a statement, but also a warning. Perhaps these ‘neocons’ haven’t grasped the irony that the animal portrayed on that flag under the slogan is a snake in the grass!

The problem with criticizing this film is that you have to go back to the ‘accepted’ historical record to argue and counter the comments, concepts, acts, and policies of the Bush administration as they are depicted in this film. And once you do that you realize fairly quickly that, well, Michael may have gotten it right.

The Washington Post, the New York Times and a host of other reputable news organizations have said that, regardless of the film as a delivery system, or what you might think of Moore personally, the basic arguments he asserts are essentially based in solid research.

He poses questions more than answers and does so in a skillful, thought-provoking manner. But like it or not, as the credits roll and Neil Young plays out with “Keep On Rockin’ In The Free World”, you’re left with a feeling of having been duped by a con man. Whether that con man is Bush or Moore, I can’t truly say, but I certainly lean toward the former.

I pride myself on having been a news junkie for most of my life. I read, listen and watch as much as possible from all manner of sources and contemplate many viewpoints. But there was material in this film that I have never seen or heard of before. Unimpeachable connections between the Bush family, affluent oil interests and the House of Saud are made. And those interests are illustrated as having a long history - a history that continues to this day regardless of the implied 9/11 association.

There’s more, of course. And there’s ‘Moore’, of course; too much information to dissect here. But there’s one thing about this movie that may end up being more controversial than any other. I heard a rumour at the Banff TV Festival this past June.

Michael’s last film, the Academy Award-winning Bowling For Columbine, and both his TV series, The Awful Truth and TV Nation, were funded in part, and produced by a Canadian production company. Michael has always been effusive in his praise for Canadians and the end credits of “F9/11” continue this tradition.

Michael himself appeared at the Banff Festival a few years ago, and so it was no surprise to overhear several conversations about him so near to the launch of his latest film. But one conversation in particular got me thinking about the true nature of the political impact this documentary may finally achieve.

The subject of this conversation I eavesdropped on surrounds an apparently persistent rumour about the acquisition of TV rights to “F9/11”.

A wealthy American financier, so the story goes, has offered to fully fund Michael Moore’s next documentary, a film called “Sicko”, about the American healthcare system. In return, he wants the right to offer the film to a national American broadcaster provided that the broadcaster airs the documentary uncut and without commercial interruption in primetime on Monday November 1, 2004 - the day before the American presidential election. To sweeten the pot, he (apparently it’s a he - Andrew Soros perhaps?!) is offering a further $10 million to the broadcaster as incentive. [This ‘rumour’ turned out to be true. - Ed.] If you thought “F9/11” was controversial now, imagine the impact of that. And this move is not without precedent. Non-affiliated groups and political action committees (PACs) frequently buy TV air time in support of one candidate or another around election time.

Should we be surprised by all this… in a world where ‘pop’ culture has BECOME culture…? In a time where incisive political commentary is just as likely to be found coming from the mouths of comedians such as Jon Stewart, Dennis Miller, or Bill Maher, as opposed to the once sacrosanct televised pulpits of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw…?

For as long as there has been language, there has been a way of not only telling a story, but twisting it; not only of conveying a thought, but of manipulating it; not only of gauging public opinion, but swaying it. Maybe this is the 21st century version of ‘all’s fair in love and war’.

Regardless, the movie is out there and playing to sold-out, and mostly cheering audiences. “F9/11” has now gone ‘wide’, as they say - multiple screens in multiple countries. It’s already done more than US$25 million since its release - more than “Columbine” during its entire run - more than any feature documentary in history.

Will “F9/11” become a history lesson for future generations, accurate or not? Is this the way Dubya will be remembered? Will some near-future population accept this as the defacto ‘historical record’ of George W. Bush as some did, and continue to do, with Oliver Stone’s “JFK” for that president? Or is it just a movie?

If the first casualty of war is truth, then the second is memory.

Maybe “Fahrenheit 9/11” will become George W. Bush’s asterisk.