Register - WIN a $10,000 Safari | Login

Four-star lefties swallow Moore's popcorn

July 27, 2004

The ABC's cineastes didn't look too hard at errors and omissions in Fahrenheit 9/11, writes Gerard Henderson.

The words "exciting" and "excited" are among the most over-used utterances of our time. So it came as no surprise when the ABC announced recently that Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton had quit SBS to present At the Movies on the public broadcaster. Pomeranz spoke about her "excitement" at the "exciting challenge". Stratton said he was "excited". Meanwhile, Sandra Levy (the director of ABC TV) was merely "thrilled" compared with her offsider Courtney Gibson who was both "thrilled" and "excited". All this in a single media release of just over a page.

Last Thursday's At the Movies reviewed Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which has already had some preview screenings in Australia and has its official release on Thursday. Alas, there was nothing exciting or thrilling about the Pomeranz/Stratton assessment. Rather, it was what would be expected when two middle-aged Sydney-based fashionable leftists examine a film by an American leftist criticising George Bush and the coalition of the willing in Iraq. In short, Stratton agreed with Pomeranz that Fahrenheit 9/11 deserved four stars out of a possible five.

Advertisement Advertisement

What was surprising, however, was the inability of either presenter of At the Movies to do any evident research - despite the fact that much has been written (in newspapers and on the internet) and said about Fahrenheit 9/11. Pomeranz opined that viewers of the film "get all of the facts", while Stratton declared that Moore (who wrote, directed and produced Fahrenheit 9/11) "marshalls the facts so lucidly". This analysis completely overlooked Moore's errors of commission and omission.

According to Pomeranz, Fahrenheit 9/11 provides proof of the assertion that "corporate America has its own agenda for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" and that the Bush Administration's foreign policy is a mere "conduit" for "corporate greed". The evidence? Well, she accepted unquestioningly the film's thesis that the Bush Administration's war against terrorism in Afghanistan was motivated by the desire of the Unocal company to build a pipeline to carry natural gas from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.

Certainly, for a time, Unocal was interested in such a project. But such consideration took place during Bill Clinton's presidency. Unocal junked the concept in 1998 and it was not revived after Bush came to office in January 2001. In other words, Bush's decision to wage war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan - following al-Qaeda's suicide/homicide attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 - had nothing whatsoever to do with any desired pipeline. The facts have been analysed by many commentators including Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball.

Then there are the errors of commission. Stratton acknowledged that Australia was not mentioned in Moore's film as being part of the coalition of the willing. However, this is only part of the story.

Four nations were involved in the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime: the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Three other nations gave strong diplomatic support in the lead-up to the invasion - Spain, Portugal and Italy.

Yet Fahrenheit 9/11 cites only one of these nations when listing the coalition of the willing, the US. The rest are not mentioned. Instead, viewers are told that the coalition consisted of Palau (laughter please), Costa Rica (more laughter), Iceland, Romania, Morocco, the Netherlands and Afghanistan. The reference to each nation is accompanied by an onscreen caricature and, subliminally, the audience is invited to mock this collection of foreigners.

Some Australians supported John Howard's position on Iraq; others opposed. Whatever the extent of his domestic support, the Prime Minister played an important role in the lead-up to the actual decision to go to war. This is made clear in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack (Simon & Schuster, 2004). Once the hostilities started, the Australian Defence Force had a significant role in the conflict.

For all that, it is quite likely that Bush would have gone to war without Australia's diplomatic and military support. However, it is not clear that Bush would have decided to overthrow Saddam's regime without the diplomatic and military backing of Tony Blair's Labour Government. Any analysis of the coalition of the willing that fails to mention the crucial role played by Britain is manifestly inadequate at best - and grossly dishonest, at worst. Yet neither Britain nor Blair gets a guernsey in Fahrenheit 9/11.

The reason is evident enough. Moore's aim is to depict Bush as a liar and a fool. There are quite a few Brits and Australians who (unfairly) believe that Blair and Howard are liars. But very few would regard either prime minister as a fool. Since one aim of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to demonstrate, in Pomeranz's interpretation, that the US President is a "hedonistic buffoon", then the case is more readily made if the evidently non-foolish Blair and Howard are omitted from Moore's story.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a clever film and Moore is a gifted and, at times, amusing storyteller. Yet, many of the film's conspiracy theories have been discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee report and the 9/11 Commission Report. For example, Bush was not directly involved in allowing members of the bin Laden family to leave the US soon after the September 11 attacks. That decision was actually taken by Richard Clarke who, as his book Against All Enemies (Free Press, 2004) demonstrates, is one of Bush's severest critics.

Other issues involve opinion only. For example, it was Moore's decision to devote some two hours to attacking Bush without making even one sustained criticism of Saddam's murderous regime. To the presenters of At the Movies, this does not warrant a criticism. Others may take a different view.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is designed to have an impact on the US presidential election. Certainly it will appeal to Bush-haters. But it could be counter-productive.

Moore's blunt message, told to a grieving mother, that her son died in vain might backfire politically and assist the Bush campaign. In many parts of contemporary America, Moore's insensitive self-indulgence will earn no stars at all.

Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.