‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ burns with brilliance

One of the biggest criticisms of “Fahrenheit 9/11” is that the general public already knows most of the facts that it espouses.

You’ve probably heard about Bush’s connections to the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladens; that, good heavens, some foul play happened during the 2000 Presidential Election; and, surprise of surprises, that President Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

However, filmmaker Michael Moore has finally put all of these facts into one, hard-hitting package. The film serves as a harsh reminder of past actions.

We may know what the film has to say already, but how long has it been since we’ve thought of those facts? For instance, we all remember that Mel Carnahan was elected as Missouri State Senator a good two weeks after he died in a tragic plane crash. But do you remember that the man he defeated was future Attorney General John Ashcroft? That’s probably the least of the rude memory jogs that Moore has to offer.

Unlike “Bowling for Columbine,” Moore takes a much more solemn stance on the procession of events. September 11 was certainly the defining moment in many peoples’ lives, and he has nothing but the utmost respect for its ramifications. There’s still a little room for comedy, however—especially when Moore recounts the war with Afghanistan, comparing it to a western movie mentality. Let’s just say we know where the phrase “smoke ’em out” came from.

But also consider Moore’s visit back to his hometown of Flint, Michigan to interview Lila Liscomb, a proud flag-waver who actively encouraged her children to join the military to pay for the college that she could not provide.

When her son is killed in combat some time later, Moore returns, and witnessing her new feelings is nothing less than heartbreaking.

One of the most important elements of “Fahrenheit” is Jeff Gibbs’ musical score. It seems to convey a quiet sense of urgency, as if someone’s getting away with something—and Moore wants us to know that they are. Somebody’s got to do something about it, it seems to say, and Moore pins that responsibility on the viewer.

Accusations of lies certainly abound when dealing with Moore’s work. It’s true that there were some falsehoods in “Bowling for Columbine,” but I still stand by my support of the film, because despite any loose play with facts, the film still raised much-needed questions about the gun control issue.

In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” however, there are not nearly as many abstract graphs and numbers that can be put into question. The camera does all the talking here: at crucial moments in the timeline, President Bush’s face tells a whole story on its own.

Your enjoyment of “Fahrenheit 9/11” will probably be determined by your personal level of faith in the Bush administration.

Think Dubya’s running the nation into the ground? Then you might consider this film your Bible.

Think that Michael Moore is just a liberal mouthpiece? Then to you this film will be nothing more than a hatchet job.

Nixing the politics of the issue, artistically, this is an incredibly well thought-out, brilliantly devised motion picture—perhaps even more so than “Bowling for Columbine.” If nothing else, maybe both sides of the political spectrum can agree that John Ashcroft is one hell of a singer.