Truth, lies and videotape

There are two things that a majority of film critics have failed to acknowledge about "Fahrenheit 9/11." One: that no work of art exists in a vacuum. Two: that a documentary is not a panoramic view of fact. Loyalists to Michael Moore's cause, and rebels against it, both hide behind the very form of film in order to promote political convictions. But this fault is trapped in the impossibility of viewing "Fahrenheit" simply as a film in its initial release.\n The critical reaction to "Fahrenheit" has pussyfooted around the idea that the film is primarily aimed at a political audience that is willing to accept Moore's ideas without question. Moviegoers pretty much know whether or not they'll like the film before they even walk in the theater. Is that a fault? No, it's politics. Rush Limbaugh has his ditto-heads, and Moore has his. In such a politically polarized time, the film's intended goal of information and entertainment has been sidelined, and has become a source of ideological reinforcement.\n The movie's biggest critical supporters use the film to show their political agenda while simultaneously trying to mask themselves behind a veil of critic-speak, selling the movie simply as "a brilliant film." Only a handful acknowledge their own personal politics influencing their decision as Roger Ebert does in his review: "opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them?" The movie's biggest critical enemies claim the film is not a documentary, rather propaganda or fiction; that Michael Moore unfairly takes one side, strings together unrelated facts and uses the piece to promote an agenda.\n Every film carries with it the cultural beliefs of those who make it, and those who view it can reject or accept its philosophical conclusions. To deny that, is to define the art of filmmaking as a simple, technical exercise. The very beauty of film's form comes from its ability to blend image, sound and idea into a tangible creation that elicits intangible reaction.\n The truth is that documentaries and traditional fictitious narrative films are not as far away from each other as we'd like to believe. They both have character and story arcs, beginnings, ends and most importantly, they are both controlled by purpose.\n "The Shawshank Redemption" doesn't attempt to explore the warden's reasons to keep Andy Dufresne in jail when he knows he is innocent. Why should it? It has no business with the antagonist, because that's not its purpose. Likewise, Moore has no reasons to side with Bush because he has no desire to. Moore's dogmatic documentaries are unfairly lumped together with the public's generic idea that documentaries are only nature shows and the History Channel retrospectives, a tragic by-product of perceived generic constraint that serves to overlook the fact that, by Moore's own admission, "Fahrenheit" is an op-ed piece.\n The filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard said, "The cinema is truth at 24 frames a second, and every cut is a lie." Just like a narrative film, a documentary chooses what is and what isn't shown in order to reach its own climax, which sometimes is not an event, but a conclusion. Moore's linking of seemingly unrelated facts is not a gimmick or a lie; it is the basis of editorializing. It is not the aforementioned panoramic view of fact, rather a strategically placed window of perception. He cannot be faulted for the conclusions his film lends to his absolute ideology, but he can be faulted for his views that lead to it.\n Anyone crafting an editorial response has one responsibility: to engage the facts; to take what they know and what they believe and synthesize them into a forward idea. There are those who will question the integrity of the editorialist, and there are those will praise him.\n Regardless, both bring a lifetime of political and social upbringing to the table that creates a formula for successful persuasion. Along with other Moore supporters, I cannot deny that I believe "Fahrenheit" to be an amazing expression of craft. Like "Triumph of the Will," I want to believe that it is a documentary whose formal elements are undeniably precise and can exist independently from its principles.\nBut I can't.\n My views and emotions are so far invested in Moore's journey that I cannot distance myself from his destination. But the other side is invested in this just as well … so much so that neither of us flinch at a moment of conflict. Moore's supporters and detractors cannot hide behind the very form of film in order to coyly push their agenda. It's impossible. Moore's opponents see the film as propaganda, and they're right. It is. But as one who sides with Moore, I have no problem with that, which further proves their point.\n "Fahrenheit," like "The Passion of the Christ" or "JFK," is a film hindered by the slow passage of time. Any film shrouded in political controversy cannot elicit a pure reaction upon initial release, because it sadly carries with it the weight of society's dependence on arguing its purpose. To judge "Fahrenheit 9/11" as simply a film can only come with time, when its agenda and hype cools. It could take four, eight or even 12 years … maybe more. Then and only then, will it be "just a movie."\nAnd to think … all of this from the guy who made "Canadian Bacon"