Film Review: “Fahrenheit 9/11
a review by Irem Özcan

“Fahrenheit 9/11. The temperature where freedom burns“. With this tagline, Michael Moore plays on the title of an earlier science-fiction novel called “Fahrenheit 451“, by Ray Bradbury The title refers to the temperature, when paper starts to burn.

The documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11“ by Michael Moore, is no documentation in traditinol sense. By the active appearance in numerous scenes of his film, Moore exceeds the “limits“ of a classic documentation. Rather, his film is described as “cinematic polemic“ or even “documentary gloss“. In the print media, the gloss is considered as a Subjective form of a comment. This sub- jectivity, irony, and sometimes even cynicism, Moore specifically used to emphasize a particular image. The most important task of a documentary, is to sketch the reality as it is. In the end, a correct classification of the film is not really necassary, because Moore himself admits, that only the facts of his film can be classified as “true“, not the conclusions you draw from it. With some publications and public speeches, Michael Moor expressed his critical opinion against Bush. Thus, with this film is no obejektive perspective expected. This fact should always keep in mind by the consideration of the scenes. George W. Bush as an incompetent and confused figure of fun in his undeserved role as the president. A man who used the funds of the state and also thus of the people, to have great vacation, and fun to swing the golf club. He manipulates not only military reports, which document that James R. Bath manages several finance of the Bin Laden family, but also brazenly lying related to the real reason for the war in Iraq. Well, an other opinion is not expected by Michael Moore.

Even though Michael Moore tries to give his film more „soundness“ by such facts, the film is still most impressive in the scenes where politicians are shown in their satirical simplicity.
A wonderful example of such a satirical effusion is the legendary call of George Bush, to combat terrorism with his immediate grip for his golf clubs. His following expectation to the reporter in the surroundings to be encouraged of his would-be exellent strike, unfortunately not underlines his actually serious message, but his ridiculousness in this situation. This scene did not need perfect researched facts. The cognitions Bush offeres by himself. The scene that might caused the most controversy is Bush’s emotionless sitting in front of a class, after aprising him about the attack on the Twin Towers. Moore run riot in these few minutes by using skillfully numerous stylistic instruments. He used some repetition and also slow motion. By fading-in a clock, which fleshes out the passage of time, Bush isn’t showing any reaction, the scene is getting upgraded subjectivly. This scene caused many diskussions. Some consider Micheal Moors humorous representation for inappropriate. Some find the Sti- uation is very to the point. However, you can probably admit with pure conscience, that any other reaction of Bush would have been inappropriate in this situation. Even if i would have liked to see a small trace of emotion in his face.

A other highlight of the film is when you see two officers trying in the parking area of a shopping mall to recruit new volunteers for the army. It is glorious to watch how the officers want to make the army tasty, to an adolescent who is really only interested in music ,in which they emphasize that Shaggy was once in the navy.

However, you can feel it clearly, that this issue is of great importance for Michael Moor. Compared with other works by him, this film shows much more seriousness and drama. Of course, he uses his passion for the satirical representation still, as a style that accompany nearly every scene. But, he uses more „real“ emotions and fates of citizens in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Ultimately, Fahrenheit 9/11 leaves a mixed impression.
On the one hand, the film offers some interesting and relevant thought-provoking impresses. Fahrenheit shows many sleazes in politics, especifically in the policy under the Bush regime and opens people‘s eyes in view of absurdities of this policy.

On the other hand, the film is permeated by the odious opinion Micheal Moor of George Bush. This ma- kes it difficult for the audience immensely to form their own informed opinion. But no matter to what side you belong to the quintessence, that the Iraq war was begun for the wrong reasons, remains as a the most important truth in mind.