More on Moore

One rule about my own moviegoing that I take rather seriously regards movies that claim to be historical. Basically, I make it a point to learn in advance or immediately afterwards what is true about the movie, what is dramatized, what is utterly false, and so forth. Otherwise I assume that everything in the movie is completely made-up, and keep it segregated from the "facts" part of my brain. For example, when I see Zulu, I feel I owe it to my own intellect to have straight what parts of that are real history. Similarly, someone who chooses to see Oliver Stone's JFK really needs to compartmentalize that as a complete crock-up, or have already absorbed a responsible historical work like Case Closed.

It is depressingly obvious though that millions of my fellow Americans don't feel that way when it comes to what they choose to keep in their minds. I refer of course to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, as dense a mishmash of half-truths, slanted editing, crackpot conspiracies and innuendo as any work since The Clinton Chronicles. To say that Michael Moore is a documentarian like Leni Reifenstahl was a documentarian would imply an artistic flair that Moore lacks (the most powerful shots in F9/11 were borrowed clips captured by other filmmakers). I prefer to say that he's a documentarian like L. Ron Hubbard was a priest.

For those who wish to expose themselves to Moore's propaganda but still care enough to innoculate themselves, allow me to refer you to Christopher Hitchens' review, which is darn good reading, and Dave Kopel's 56 Deceits, which is more of a work-in-progress point-by-point laundry list. While Kopel's draft doesn't read particularly well, it does have thorough citations.

I suppose now I should strike a pose against the scary lawyers in Michael Moore's "war room," supposedly poised and ready to file defamation suits in response to anti-Moore criticism. But this would be about as courageous as Moore supposedly was in making this movie. Well, I take that back. I'm still more courageous, because in Moore's case he could be pretty much certain that he was going to rake in millions of dollars from the American populace he so disparages. I'm just blogging here. What do I stand to gain?