One of Americas contributions to the history of military warfare is the invention of the term friendly fire, which caused the death of more British soldiers in the 1991 war over Kuwait than enemy fire. So much so that when I visited Iraq in October 2003, escorted and guarded by GIs, my main concern was their rifles: For Gods sake, ask that guy behind me to point his gun away from me!
Is Fahrenheit 9/11 a searing anatomy of American politics in the age of George W Bush, or another symptom of its decay? openDemocracy writers discuss the meaning and impact of a film phenomenon:
- Todd Gitlin, Michael Moore, alas (July 2004)
- John Berger, Michael Moore, artist and patriot (August 2004)
The effects of US friendly fire, however, were not confined to the loss of innocent life but also the devastation of a whole country. Indeed, you can also say that one of its side-effects is the burial of the western claim to cultivate democracy, human rights and justice. After the debacle of Iraq, no one in the third world is going to believe in Americas claim to fight for peace and democracy. The GIs moan in Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 (I hate this country) is counterbalanced by the general outcry I heard and still hear from my Iraqi compatriots (We hate America). There is now no love lost between the two nations.
I went to see Michael Moore s moving film, which won the Cannes Film Festival top prize and has achieved high attendances everywhere, just after reading 14-year-old Maxine Gentles words to Tony Blair on the loss of her young brother, aged 19, in Basra: Its strange that to be a plumber you train for three or four years , but to be a qualified soldier you need to train for six months. It is even stranger indeed to find that in the United States you need no training at all to become president.
The opening of the film includes a shot of George Bush reading a goat fable to some schoolchildren for seven minutes after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center, obviously waiting for someone to tell him what to do. In another shot, shortly before he addresses the American people, his eyes dart left and right and left again in a manner which reminded me of Saddam Husseins eyes in full suspicious and manic mode.
The old saying, would you buy a second-hand car from this man? comes to mind when looking at the whole bunch of politicians paraded in Moores clever prologue to his story.
Yet the films opening is ponderous in its dissection of all the corporate intrigues, greed and involvement with the Saudis and their billions. This is rather a tedious topic, full of fiscal details, however controversial it might be and useful to expose; but the film soon moves on to the real drama of the story, the attack on Iraq. I had to close my eyes so many times in abhorrence and revulsion as gory and tragic scenes followed in rapid sequence.
If one is tempted to identify with a character in a story, mine was the disillusioned American mum who believed in all this mumbo-jumbo of patriotism and God bless our country only to have her beliefs shattered by the death of her own son. Millions like her had their beliefs in the American pursuit of exporting democracy and freedom to the rest of the world shattered by the conduct of this war.
The juxtaposition of the bereaved Iraqi mother, who looked, much to my discomfort, like my own sister, crying out hysterically where is God in all this? and her American counterpart is sufficient to arouse anybodys abhorrence of war. The contrasting scenes and statements, contradictory and cynical at one time and supportive and inspiring at another, is the directors art in this picture.
Also by Khalid Kishtainy on openDemocracy:
- On Saddams golden throne (with Ghazi Algosaibi) (December 2003)
- The balance of follies (January 2004)
- Fallujanomics (April 2004)
This indictment of Bushs administration was bound to arouse its anger and prompt its supporters to assail the film and undermine its arguments, a target which has left us with a number of essays and critiques questioning many points in Moores case. This is a miscomprehension of the whole exercise and message of the picture. Films are art not history books, and the artists mission is not to write down history but to make history.
Despite its few dull runs and questionable overstatements, Michael Moores film is a moving and powerful work that will have its own place in the history of anti-war cinema and the anti-military movement. Its exposure of cant, public deception and corporate machinations is finely presented in this gallery of fat cats and rogues, debating what money to make out of Iraq, and the sequence of satirical and comic scenes (George Bush and company galloping as cowboys, Britney Spears, blond and immaculate, pledging her trust in Bush) is a welcome relief to bruised sensibilities.
Of course US apologists will take solace and pride in the fact that Michael Moore is still alive and free and was able to produce such a damning film in the United States itself and have it distributed throughout the world, but alas, not in Kuwait where it is banned. Saudi Arabia did not need to ban it; there they have no cinemas, which are considered the work of Satan himself.
It will be interesting to see whether the American occupiers of Iraq will allow it to be screened. Otherwise the poor Iraqis will miss a really good lesson in democracy and direct criticism of the government. Like most nations of the developing world, they are not used to this form of open indictment of their rulers. Even here in London and after the fall of Saddam Hussein, they still lower their voices and speak in whispers when they say something against him. It is the Pavlov complex. To their literary and artistic spokesmen, the only way to express any negative opinion is to convey it indirectly, clothed in symbolism and innuendoes, mostly by referring to some unheard-of sultans or viziers living in distant lands in days long gone by.
Even so, many swung from the electric ceiling fan or had their women gang-raped, when some quisling explained to the authorities the wicked meaning and intention of their work. Here I come myself. I wouldnt dare write this review for an Arabic magazine. So please dont draw their attention to it. I still have family there.
