Filmmaker Michael Moore is a larger-than-life rabble-rouser, a guy who’s unafraid to take on the establishment and stick it to "the man." He’s the kind of guy you want in your corner in a fight, not the other guy’s. But if he approaches you on the street with a camera, you better run the other way. Many have already fallen victim to Moore’s guerrilla-journalistic ways.

Moore’s first film, Roger & Me, took us along on Moore's quest to get an interview with General Motors CEO Roger Smith. The company closed a plant in Moore’s hometown of Flint, Michigan, crippling the town through the resulting unemployment. Moore wanted to find out why GM closed the Flint plant and ended up making a movie about it all. His 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, explored the reasons for gun violence in the United States. It won him an Oscar, as well as many more fans, and enemies -- in the latter case, probably any member of the NRA or admirer of Charlton Heston. His latest film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is undoubtedly his most controversial yet. With Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore sets his sights squarely on George W. Bush’s presidency, from his election in 2000 to the September 11, 2002 terrorist attacks to the present-day war in Iraq.

Culled mostly from television footage and peppered with some of Moore’s own film footage, Fahrenheit 9/11 paints a portrait of a president who was elected amidst controversy, was seemingly ineffective at the beginning of his term, and then, following the terrorist attacks in the US in 2001, became the head conspirator in leading the US into war with Iraq for what Moore feels were dubious reasons. Is the plot believable? Well, Moore's footage is hard to dispute. But it’s also important to remember that Moore hand-picked the footage in order to deliver his message -- a thought-provoking message, but his message nevertheless.

One thing is certain: this film doesn’t make George W. Bush look good. The first 20 minutes of the film will have many audience members who aren’t already familiar with some of the material Moore presents shaking their heads in disbelief. The last half-hour or so, though, is where the film’s power resides. In particular, there is a moving segment in which a patriotic mother travels to the White House to vent her anger after her son is killed. There are also images of the casualties on the other side, particularly Iraqi children and the families of those Iraqi men who were killed or severely injured. The media, at least on this side of the ocean -- hardly symbols of objectivity themselves -- don’t often show such things, nor do they often convey the realities and impact of war.

Undoubtedly, Fahrenheit 9/11 leaves itself open for attack from those who will say that it’s one-sided. Someone criticizing it for that, though, doesn’t know what Moore’s about. Such criticism is like inviting Howard Stern over for dinner and being surprised he swears. Moore’s films are all about having a point of view -- his point of view. They're about one side -- Moore’s. A more relevant criticism of Moore -- my criticism -- is that sometimes he reaches too far, and oftentimes he guides viewers too much. Everyone knows that Moore has an agenda, but he keeps reminding them of it. In contrast to Moore is someone like Errol Morris, who made the riveting and eye-opening The Fog of War. Morris does a better job of letting his subjects remain the focus of the story, and oftentimes be the masters of their own demise.

Fahrenheit 9/11 isn’t about objectivity, nor does it pretend to be. Moore the rabble-rouser has set out to give his opinion on the most relevant topic of the day and one of the most powerful men in the world. Is that a bad thing? Hardly. Freedom is the mantra of so many people today, and therefore it’s Moore’s right to make a feature film like Fahrenheit 9/11 and release it for public consumption. It’s your choice to see it or not, and up to you whether you agree with its message.

• Go Back