Michael Moore is back with Fahrenheit 11/9
Michael Moore has always been a loudmouth. He’s brash, uncompromising, and provocative. His in-your-face style gonzo journalism can certainly be a turn off for a large section of the population—even if your opinions tend to match his, he’s not a go-to source to prove an argument or build bridges.
Conservatives accuse him of lots of things, from being disingenuous to massaging facts to being an outright liar. But those same conservatives wouldn’t deny his influence in political documentary filmmaking.
There likely wouldn’t be a Dinesh D’Souza or a Project Veritas without films like Roger and Me, which, if I’m being honest, is a fairly damning assessment of the Moore style of filmmaking.
The difference, of course, is that Moore’s tactics tend to backed up with simple, verifiable facts while D’Souza’s are not. In other words, Moore is the speck in the left’s eye called out by conservatives that ignore the log in their own.
The truth about Moore is that he is very often right and he’s very often pointing out uncomfortable truths that no one wants to address. This is on display in his latest documentary Fahrenheit 11/9, an ostensible sequel to his popular documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was damning indictment of the Bush Administration and the War on Terror and Fahrenheit 11/9 was expected to be a similar film about the Trump Administration. However, the film focuses on the current president very little. It’s almost a bait and switch. Viewers will not get exactly what they expect.
The film begins with the same tired footage of Hillary Clinton supporters reacting to Trump’s election. It’s of course played for bitter laughs, constantly cueing up Rachel Platten’s “Fight Song” over the wails and tears of the disappointed left. But the film isn’t overwhelmingly interested in raking Trump over the coals.
As Moore points out, Trump has been committing his crimes in the open for decades. Everyone knew who he was—from refusing to rent to black people in the ‘80s to calling for the execution of the exonerated Central Park Five to his very public affairs to his incredibly uncomfortable relationship with his daughter.
Moore argues that America was fine with him for a long time—no one ever called NBC to demand that an openly racist billionaire be taken off the air. Instead, Moore’s central thesis in the film is that Americans have been failed by establishment politicians, the RNC, the DNC, and every centrist politician in between.
Routinely, he claims, these people have sought to deny the will of the people, of whom a majority seem to support leftist ideas like socialized medicine and gun control. He spends much of the film on the failure of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to protect his people in the name of profit, particularly those damaged in Flint by his disastrous water policies, which lead to the poisoning of an entire city.
Particularly damning is how he paints Barack Obama with the same brush he does Snyder—just another politician using the crisis as a photo opportunity instead of declaring Flint a fewderal disaster area.
Moore does give the audience a few rays of hope. He spends time with the teenage activists created in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, where seventeen and eighteen year olds organized the largest worldwide mass protest in history. He takes us into the heart of the West Virginia teacher’s strike, where the entire state, fifty-five counties, shut down schools for a five percent raise and affordable healthcare.
Both of these movements were inspiring and spread across the country and the world. But ultimately, he returns to the root of the problem.
Moore makes the point that the largest political party in the country is non-voters. They are disengaged because the establishment, the bought and paid for men in power, ensure that they have no voice. He uses Bernie Sanders as an example of a true grassroots movement that was shut down by the DNC because his ideas were too far left, despite their apparent popularity with the masses.
Moore argues that the biggest danger to this country are disaffected non-voters. They allow people like Donald Trump to win elections and make decisions for them. The film is a rallying cry for political engagement. His point is well made. Democracy will not protect itself.