|
|
Michael Moore Paints George Bush Into A Corner
Editor's Note:
Fahrenheit 9/11 is now showing in theaters across the country, so
when freelance journalist Cole Smithey approached me about running an
interview he obtained with Michael Moore, part of me felt an obligation
to run something timely and significant, while the journalist in me that has had
experiences with Moore in the past was skeptical.
This is because that while I applaud Moore's burgeoning talent for documentary
filmmaking, I have always remained cautious in terms of his penchant for
non-balanced reporting as a journalist. That we live in a time where it takes
one extreme to counter-balance the other in terms of mass media is something
that should concern all of us.
Back in 1979 when I first started 'The Review', Moore was living in Flint trying
to expand his local newspaper into 'The Michigan Voice.' At that time he took a
pot shot at my partner and me by running a letter criticizing us for not being a
'true' alternative newspaper because we also did profiles on local businesses in
the area. Of course, I've always believed that business is part of the news and
unlike the 'Voice' I wasn't using volunteer help. Moreover, unlike Moore, I've
never believed in running my projects like a place of worship.
Several years later after the national investigative magazine 'Mother Jones'
hired Moore, it came to my attention that he had censored a story by journalist
Paul Berman. Berman had spent time in Nicaragua covering the Sandinistas and
according to him, Moore censored the portions of his article that were critical
of the methods employed by Daniel Ortega, leader of the Sandinista
opposition party. Shortly after that, Moore was fired from 'Mother Jones',
going on to film his landmark movie 'Roger & Me', which was also purportedly
borrowed from an original idea by Ralph Nader.
I
haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but feel it incumbent to at least let
our readers know that while definitely a crusader, Moore is not immune from
engaging in the acts of censorship that he is often so critical of in others.
By Cole Smithey
The unknown potential political impact of Michael Moore's imminent
"Fahrenheit 9/11" has audiences champing at the bit to see news that they
can't read in USA today, or any day since George W. Bush sat in a
children's classroom reading "My Pet Goat" knowing that America was under
attack.
The
movie promises a brewing storm of civil controversy that has never before been
tested in the history of cinema. (Editor's Note: Unless you count Leni
Riefenstahl's propaganda film on the Third Reich called 'Triumph of the Will').
A
poll of audiences who attended Moore's last movie ("Bowling For Columbine")
revealed that "70%" had never before attended a documentary film.
Michael Moore
is a populist filmmaker who happens to engage in a significant brand of
independent journalism that raises crucial questions in an air of simplicity and
honest curiosity. But the damning answers to some of his direct queries demand
action. When Moore reveals that no member of Congress had even read The
Patriot Act before voting on the document, it would seem that the American
public should perhaps serve our negligent Congress with pink slips. (Editor's
Note: This is why Senator Robert Byrd and other Democrats voted against it -
they didn't have enough time to read it before it was fast-tracked through
Congress by Republicans.)
However, the blind passing of the Patriot Act is but one infraction against
American citizens in a laundry list of offenses that Moore clearly exposes in a
movie that, more than anything else, provides insight into the lies that
Americans have been pummeled with by the Bush Administration. Michael Moore is a
sincere and articulate everyman that people around the world listen and respond
to enthusiastically, which is much more than can be said of George W. Bush.
Q: What in this movie do you think will be shocking to the public, and
what of that would be threatening to the
US Government?
MM:
Well, what's going to be shocking to most Americans who see this film is Bush's
military records that were blacked out by someone at the White House. I don't
think people have heard American soldiers in the field talk the way they talk in
this film of their disillusionment, of their despair, of their questioning
what's going on. Those were brave words to say to a camera. We have not seen
that on the evening news. We've not seen the suffering that the war has
caused-from those who've been maimed and paralyzed, to the families back home
who've lost loved ones. How often have we heard their voices? Every step along
the way in this movie will be a revelation in terms of how this lie was
perpetrated upon them.
The good thing about Americans is once they're given the information, they act
accordingly, and they act from a good place. The hard part is getting through
with the information. If the freelancers I was using were able to find what they
found in Iraq, with our limited resources, you have to question why haven't we
seen this? You see in the movie the first footage of abuse and humiliation of
Iraqi detainees. And this occurred in the field, outside the prison walls. That
is disgraceful, that it would take as long as it's taken, and for me to come
along with stringers and freelancers to be able to bring this to the American
people. The American people do not like things being kept from them, and I think
what this film is going to do is be like a mystery unraveling.
Q: Do you think the coalition should pull out of
Iraq?
MM:
Of course the (chuckling) "Coalition of the Willing" needs to de-will
themselves, and the United States must remove itself from the situation. We need
to find a better solution with people who the Iraqis want there, and who will
help the Iraqis rebuild their country - that is not the United States of
America.
Q: George Bush accused the US troops, who abused the Iraqi detainees, of a
"failure of character," what do you think are the failures of George Bush's
character?
MM: Bush's comment about the failure of the US troops is another example
of how George W. Bush does not support our troops. George W. Bush and his ilk
actually despise our troops. Only someone who despises our young people, who
have offered to serve and protect our country and give up their lives if
necessary - to send them to war based on a lie is the worst violation of trust
you can have, and the worst way to treat our troops. He is against our troops.
He has put them in harms way for no good reason other than to line the pockets
of his friends and benefactors.
The lack of character begins with him and Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, and
the fish rots from the head down. Whatever's going on in Iraq, in terms of this
prison abuse and the things you see in the film, starts with sending them over
there based on a lie. Immoral behavior begets immoral behavior. This is not some
noble mission to free the country, to free people, to prevent a holocaust. This
was a disgusting effort on their part, and all we can say is thank God that they
got caught as early as they did. If you remember with Viet Nam, it took years
before the lie was revealed. This has just taken months. So, I'm somewhat
optimistic that we can find a way out of this.
Q: In your movie, you criticize the way the American public is manipulated
with fear by the media. How do you manipulate your images?
MM: We do a de-manipulation of the images. The media in America provides
a manipulation. During the Bush years they put on a filter and they only allow
the American people to see what they think will keep the waters calm. So night
after night on the evening news you'll get maybe 5 seconds of George W. Bush
where it sounds like he makes sense. In my film, I show the 20 seconds on either
side of the 5 seconds where he clearly is totally discombobulated. In my film, I
take the filter off, and you see it raw and uncensored and the way it really is.
It's both hilarious and frightening.
Q: Are you afraid of being manipulated?
MM: When you come from the working class, you've got a pretty good
bullshit detector. I come from a factory town, my dad worked in a factory, and
there's a total lack of pretension--everything is the way that it is. Anybody
who tries to pretend to be something else is immediately seen for who and what
they are. That's a good thing about growing up that way, and I haven't lost
that. And I hope I always maintain that sense of always having a healthy
disrespect for authority and always believing, as a great American journalist
once said, 'all governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be
believed.' If we had more journalists who started with that premise, that
governments must prove everything that they're saying, then maybe we'd get to
more of the truth.
Q: How do you get the clips of these uncensored moments that belong to
networks?
MM: We spend a lot of time digging in their archives. Another way we do
it is there are people who work in media who don't like the way the media is
censored. So there'll be a cameraman over here or a sound guy over there who
knows that I would like to see something and will send it to me. We have a
network of people who believe that the public should be given all the truth. I
can't reveal everything in terms of how we do this, but we're able to get it out
there to the people. I shouldn't really have to do this in a free country where
there should be open information and you should hear all the different voices.
It shouldn't take a guy like me to provide the people with the things that
you're not seeing. But as long as that's the case, I'm going to take you to a
place that you haven't been before during the four years of the Bush
administration.
Q: How were you able to get the war footage from
Iraq?
MM:
I had a number of freelancers that I was working with, both people that I was
able to have go to Iraq, and others we discovered once they were in Iraq-some
were embedded, some weren't. The footage of the Iraqi detainees was from a
journalist who was embedded with the troops.
Q: How do you think the White House has tried to prevent your film from
being made and released?
MM: I only know what I was told by my agent. We had a signed deal with
Icon. We were just starting the movie and I got a call from my agent saying that
he just got a call from a person at Icon asking for a way to get out of the
deal, even though there was no way they could renege on it. They asked if there
was any way we could get someone else to take over the deal because they
received a call from 'top Republicans,' people connected to the White House, who
essentially wanted to convey the message to Mr. Gibson (Mel) 'Don't expect
anymore invitations to the White House if they're going to be behind this film.'
That's all I know. I don't know who made the calls, but we had this deal-there
was a big thing in Variety about the deal-then suddenly, weeks later, the deal
didn't exist. Fortunately, Miramax immediately took over the deal and said they
would make the film.
Q: Since the agenda of your film seems to be to influence the outcome of
the election in November, to what extent do you think a movie can accomplish
that goal?
MM: When I make any movie, it's to make something that I would want to
go see on a Friday night if I were going to a movie. That's always the foremost
thought in my mind. How can we make something that will be enjoyable and
entertaining, that people will want to take their date or their spouse to the
theater and eat popcorn, have a great time, laugh, cry, think, and leave the
theater to talk about it later. Those are always my primary motivations, and
that is the motivation behind making this film.
I wanted to say something about the times in which we live, in post 9/11
America, how we got to where we're at, what's happened to us as a people, and
have a good time doing it. I also think it's important to laugh during times
like these and that's why this film, like my other films has a good amount of
humor in it. This time I was the straight man-Bush wrote the funniest lines, so
what am I going to do when George Bush files a grievance with the Writer's Guild
wanting some sort of screen credit? In terms of 'Will it influence the
election?' I hope it influences people just to leave the theater and become good
citizens-whatever that means. I'll leave it to other people to decide what
impact it will have on the election.
|
|
