Honestly, the both times I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, I have felt bad for George W. Bush. I am by no means Bush supporter, but on the simplest, human level I sympathized for him. It must be humiliating to be portrayed in such a manner. In the beginning of the film, Moore portrays Bush as a cartoonish, lazy, imbecile. He shows Bush vacationing and enjoying other leisurely activities. Quick cuts of Bush and his trademark verbal bumbles also add to the image of a “stupid” Bush. I think in the context of the film, this is fair. This is the image that Moore wants to portray to his audience. He is trying to make the viewer think about how this man was "voted" into the highest office in the United States. Given the message that the film is trying to present, I think this portrayal is fair. However, I also think that it is disrespectful to the office of the president, no matter who holds it. Are these conflicting ideas? I'm not quite sure...
In regards to Bush’s 7 minute delayed response to the news of the second tower being hit, I think that it is understandable. Understandable, but not acceptable. I agree with what Shannon said about Bush only being human. Was he supposed to run into a telephone booth and emerge as Superman?
You bring up an interesting point, and one that I have pondered myself. Is it fair to disrespect a position so high as the President's? My initial response is no, because some aspects of leadership as sacred and should be respected. But simultaneously I think the stereotypical "freedom of speech!" and "why not question everything?" In some situations of possible unconstitutional actions, I think it is acceptable to openly criticize the President. I wish that there would be less masks on things though, from all sides, especially from the government, which is the brilliant and precise masker of who-knows-what. That way, much more is known and arguments can be much better analyzed.
ReplyDeleteI too find the issue compelling, Chris -- precisely *because* Bush is such an easy target from a certain vantage, it hardly seems decent to take pot shots. And to continue your & Gabe's thought: just because he's President does not mean we should necessarily attack his person (there is a classic logical fallacy, in fact, called 'tu quoque' -- 'against the person', which is to attack something thought to be entirely irrelevant to a rational argument: the character of the person presenting it). On the other hand, the fact that someone *wants* to be in that position (President), with full knowledge of what it entails, and then steps in that position and (some would argue) acts harmfully and negligently, means we get to express our anger with him -- which is also human nature.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add that I (fact: I am not a supporter of Bush) somewhat enjoyed this almost comical description of Bush. It is important to show this relatively unknown side of Bush, and though it may be overly harsh and critical of him in 50% of the movie, you have to question some of his reaction. One of the most gut-wrenching scenes to me is the one where he just sits in the elementary school as the towers are hit and does nothing... I'm not sure if anything can overshadow that inaction, and I really can't forgive it (though again, I agree I do not know all the circumstances that may have been present). With that sad, Moore's extremely negative portrayal of Bush is one of the focal points of the movie, and in America, a movie that criticizes the president is nothing new. In a democratic system, if this does not exist, it is essentially a dictatorship. Without critique, freedom can't exist.
ReplyDeleteYou question whether we should the president accountable for his actions, his every action. In Hollywood celebrities spend hours creating a public appearance so as to make sure their represented correctly to the people. Bush represented America, BILLIONS of Americans! His appearance is everything. He is our face to the world. Every move he makes should be calculated and precise, and the fact that he didn't do this can only be blamed on him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Chris and Gabe were talking about. Adam, you say the President should be held accountable for every action, I agree, that does not mean he should be demeaned and disrespected as well. There is a difference between criticism (good) and blatant attack (bad). Moore spends much of the film tearing down President Bush for his politics (ok) and his person (not so ok). As Charles said, arguments are to be made on the issue (policy regarding 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq), not directed toward the man's personal being.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that everyone refers to George Bush as "Bush" and not as President Bush. It is as though his title is being stripped away from him again and again, furthering the lack of respect given to him as a former head of state.
I dunno Ethan -- I thought you were going to say how he's referred to as 'W.' (about which I would get your point, though I'm not sure George himself ever objected to this distinction from his father), but it seems commonplace to call Obama 'Obama', Clinton 'Clinton', etc.
ReplyDelete