My old buddy David Foster Wallace wrote an article for Gourmet Magazine that was supposed to be about the Maine Lobster Festival. And it kind of was. But, mostly, it was about
whether it's ethically OK to boil lobsters alive. I wish this article were online so I could read it, but in the meantime I'm just going to say that I'm on board with causing crustaceans pain in order to make them tasty.
And also, a completely separate point. I have a lot of problems with Mike Moore's "Farenheit 9/11," the big one being that basically Moore stoops to all of the same dirty tricks that he condemns when people with whom he disagrees make them. Apparently, though, I underestimated how underhanded and deceptive Moore can be when he wants to make his point.
From
his online chat (currently still going), Gene Weingarten, a Washington Post columnist, discusses it:
Gene Weingarten: Good afternoon.
Some weeks ago, in this space, I defended the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” while acknowledging that it was neither balanced nor fair. My point was that it was not TRYING to be balanced or fair, and that attempting to analyze this movie as though it were a traditional documentary is an error. The movie was a one-sided political argument based upon a visceral disgust with the administration of George W. Bush, I said, and if viewed as such, and no more, it was riveting, powerful, funny, deliciously vicious, heartbreaking, and, overall, extremely entertaining.
I need to revisit that position, based on something I just learned. My initial analysis was based on the presumption that, though Michael Moore was being unfair to his subject – Bush, for example, is pictured ONLY at moments in which he looks clueless, callous or smug – Moore is being fair to the viewer, by wearing his bias on his sleeve.
Uh-uh. Michael Moore has contempt for his viewer. I’m no longer a fan of this movie.
If you haven’t yet seen “Fahrenheit 9/11,” and still plan to, you might want to skip ahead to the first question in the chat – though, frankly, this isn’t like disclosing the murderer in a whodunnit. I don’t think it’ll ruin your enjoyment of the movie to hear what I have to say.
One of the most powerful sequences in the movie is a running storyline about a Flint, Mich., woman named Lila Lipscomb, who appears initially as a flag-waving patriot. She is a job-placement counselor, talking about how the military is a good option for kids. She is bragging about the fact that hers is a family that has proudly served the American military. She is critical of war protesters, and thus such. Her daughter served in Desert Storm, and her son in Iraq. Later in the movie we revisit her: Her son has died in Iraq, and her views about the war have dramatically changed – she sees it as futile and dishonest, a betrayal. She comes to Washington, to shake her fist at the White House, and weep. Very, very powerful stuff.
I was discussing with a colleague how amazing it was that Moore actually had footage of this woman before her son’s death, and my colleague – a realist -- speculated about how strange a coincidence this was. Which got me searching the Web. It turns out that in a couple of interviews, Lila Lipscomb has made it clear that Moore did not meet her until long after her son’s death. Though it is not specifically addressed in those interviews, what this implies is that the first two segments of her storyline in the movie are manipulated to create the impression that her son was still alive. She seemed quite happy and content.
I went to see the movie again, yesterday. Moore is being coy. In those first scenes Lila brags about how her son “made it” into the military. So, Moore asks her, you had a daughter in desert storm? Yes, she says. And a son in Iraq? Yes, she says, happily. He does not say, “A son who died in Iraq.” He does not say that this entire conversation is, basically, scripted, for greater effect later.
I called Moore’s production company and talked to two different spokespersons for the movie. They confirmed that Moore didn’t meet Lipscomb till after her son had died, but argued that the only important judge of whether this was a dishonest presentation was Lipscomb herself. She has made it clear, repeatedly, that she loved the movie.
I said, no, that is not the point: Lila Lipscomb was not victimized by this portrayal. The viewer was victimized. Michael Moore has disdain for the viewer. Our emotions were crassly manipulated by a filmmaker who didn’t much care about the truth, or honesty – he was going for the greatest emotional whipsaw impact, even if it meant directly misleading the viewer. Sure, he was sly. He covered his substantial behind. He didn’t directly SAY that Lila’s son was still alive during the first sequences, but he implied it so strongly that if you Google reviews of the movie, virtually all that address the issue flatly state that the initial interviews were done before the young man’s death. It’s understandable. It’s precisely the misconception that Moore was TRYING to foster.
The production company said that Michael Moore had expressly addressed, and defended, this misrepresentation in print, and promised to email me the clips before this chat. Guess what? Nothing.
Is this a big deal? In one sense, no. The movie is still making a strong and compelling point, and there’s no denying the power of the footage of Iraqis suffering horribly, of American soldiers acting in a terribly insensitive fashion toward Iraqis, of the depth of Lila Lipscomb’s grief and the honesty of her anti-war passion. And yet, for us to believe that this movie is speaking to a greater truth, we must believe in the central honesty of the filmmaker. And he’s lost me on that.
Okay, then! Michael, the movie was your screed. That was mine.
And basically, what is sad about this revelation is how little it surprises me. I'm a liberal guy, I am against this war, I think Dems should fight back against the propaganda propegated by the Republicans. And I think Michael Moore is, in his own way, helping Bill O'Reilly et al by providing a perfect example of a rabid, mean, two-faced bully willing to do anything to serve his dogmatic, knee-jerk liberalism. Anyone who thinks the Left needs their own Rush Limbaugh needs their head examined. We need another Bill Clinton, who has mopped the floor with the Republican party in the last few months without resorting to untruths or slander, and we could even use another Al Franken, who is as biased as Michael Moore but somehow manages to use facts and sincerity to make his points a million times more effective.
At least that's what I think.
