MPU 1: Michael Moore's Law
Louis Menand has an excellent piece about the "objectivity" and the documentary in relation to Fahrenheit 9-11.
I am surprised there has been less criticism of Moore on two fronts. First, by concentrating on the Saudi-Bush connection, he leaves out a much lengthier association between the armanent and contracting industry and the Bush-Walker clan--as well as many sainted Democrats. The Saudis make more colorful villains, but, if Kevin Philips in American Dynasty is correct, the true clients of Bush are various industries that stand to profit in times of war and through oil production. Philips' claims thus portray more systematic and not simply individual pattern of rewarding friends through government--hence "Dynasty". And the dynasty is far more effective in industry and far less obvious in rewarding its clients than the current heir. Phillips' book may be an exaggerated (this from a man who believed that the Democrats had gone too far in the 60s in "social engineering" (excuse me, Kevin, but aren't the railroads and the highways much more concrete versions of "engineering" than social security and didn't they happen under Republican presidents)). I would especially want to track Democratic dynasticism's role in these industries, since the left/marxist analyses usually claim that the entire system is rigged, not rigged in oligarchic ways. But Dynasty does provide the platform for a systematic, rather than individualized critique of current power relations. Which leads to my other point.
Instead Moore chose a book about the personal relationship between Bushes and Saudi Arabia. Now, I have no way to judge the validity but my immediate assumption is that the author doesn't like Arabs much period. Furthermore, by making the hidden villain of the piece the rather frightened Saudi royals, Moore stokes rather than disputes american fears of Islam and the Arab World. The film is virtually silent about the "profiling" of Arab Americans and others after 9-11. In Seattle, I know of several cases of such profiling, which was extended to Muslims in general. An Ethiopian grocery was hassled almost out of business, while a Turkish man who was on a problematic visa had to close down a sandwich business. It is to Moore's shame that nothing in the film address people truly impacted by the change in the climate, rather than people pretty incompetently snooped on. To make fun of the measures created by the Patriot Act is to trivialize their seriousness.
There isn't much else to be said about this, because I am sure Moore was aware of the impacts of post 9-11 on citizens of Arab descent or Muslim faith. He might have brushed aside as "political correctness" and "That's why I left Mother Jones," but he probably is aware. I think rather it was a compositional decision. "Hey, Mike, use the Saudi angle. We've got better footage." It shows also that he participates in the same Hollywood mythos that always lays responsibility, for praise or blame, on individuals. And that is why his documentaries are financial sucesses in ways that neither D.A. Pennebaker or Errol Morris can really dream of, but
history will tell us whether he really helps explain the way we live now or if he is simply another instance of noise which will have to be filtered out.
*The fact that Hollywood almost always use the hero-villain structure, however much they may be linked or undermined, is really odd when you think about the difference between film as a narrative device and a novel as a narrative device. There really is no getting away from a personal point of view in a novel. Somebody--even if this is a readerly fiction--is doing the writing. And the success of Gertrude Stein, even among her admirers, shows that doing away with a centered point of view is pretty hard and pretty pointless. A film is exactly the opposite: a point of view has to imposed, sometimes quite crudely with voice-overs or character-perspective shots. There is no reason for this.
I am surprised there has been less criticism of Moore on two fronts. First, by concentrating on the Saudi-Bush connection, he leaves out a much lengthier association between the armanent and contracting industry and the Bush-Walker clan--as well as many sainted Democrats. The Saudis make more colorful villains, but, if Kevin Philips in American Dynasty is correct, the true clients of Bush are various industries that stand to profit in times of war and through oil production. Philips' claims thus portray more systematic and not simply individual pattern of rewarding friends through government--hence "Dynasty". And the dynasty is far more effective in industry and far less obvious in rewarding its clients than the current heir. Phillips' book may be an exaggerated (this from a man who believed that the Democrats had gone too far in the 60s in "social engineering" (excuse me, Kevin, but aren't the railroads and the highways much more concrete versions of "engineering" than social security and didn't they happen under Republican presidents)). I would especially want to track Democratic dynasticism's role in these industries, since the left/marxist analyses usually claim that the entire system is rigged, not rigged in oligarchic ways. But Dynasty does provide the platform for a systematic, rather than individualized critique of current power relations. Which leads to my other point.
Instead Moore chose a book about the personal relationship between Bushes and Saudi Arabia. Now, I have no way to judge the validity but my immediate assumption is that the author doesn't like Arabs much period. Furthermore, by making the hidden villain of the piece the rather frightened Saudi royals, Moore stokes rather than disputes american fears of Islam and the Arab World. The film is virtually silent about the "profiling" of Arab Americans and others after 9-11. In Seattle, I know of several cases of such profiling, which was extended to Muslims in general. An Ethiopian grocery was hassled almost out of business, while a Turkish man who was on a problematic visa had to close down a sandwich business. It is to Moore's shame that nothing in the film address people truly impacted by the change in the climate, rather than people pretty incompetently snooped on. To make fun of the measures created by the Patriot Act is to trivialize their seriousness.
There isn't much else to be said about this, because I am sure Moore was aware of the impacts of post 9-11 on citizens of Arab descent or Muslim faith. He might have brushed aside as "political correctness" and "That's why I left Mother Jones," but he probably is aware. I think rather it was a compositional decision. "Hey, Mike, use the Saudi angle. We've got better footage." It shows also that he participates in the same Hollywood mythos that always lays responsibility, for praise or blame, on individuals. And that is why his documentaries are financial sucesses in ways that neither D.A. Pennebaker or Errol Morris can really dream of, but
history will tell us whether he really helps explain the way we live now or if he is simply another instance of noise which will have to be filtered out.
*The fact that Hollywood almost always use the hero-villain structure, however much they may be linked or undermined, is really odd when you think about the difference between film as a narrative device and a novel as a narrative device. There really is no getting away from a personal point of view in a novel. Somebody--even if this is a readerly fiction--is doing the writing. And the success of Gertrude Stein, even among her admirers, shows that doing away with a centered point of view is pretty hard and pretty pointless. A film is exactly the opposite: a point of view has to imposed, sometimes quite crudely with voice-overs or character-perspective shots. There is no reason for this.
posted by RobCrowe at 5:02 PM
0 comments
