GAVIN OWENS
After watching this film for a second time, I was surprised at how my perception of the arguments had changed. I have been thinking about this, and I believe that Scott’s retort may shed some light here. I believe it is partially due to a shift in national mood, rather than only a shift in my views. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 when it was in theaters because I was curious about what all the hype was for. Michael Moore seemed like an idiot, his arguments were theatrical and marginally based in what I believed to be reality. His attack on our government at a time when we needed unity was maddening. On top of that, after the show people were clapping -I wasn’t. After watching it in class I have to say I can no longer remember what my outrage was for. Sure, some of his arguments are pretty thin but the film is still compelling. Tobias concludes his article saying, “By the time Fahrenheit 9/11 ends, it's abundantly clear that arrogant, neo-con pipe dreams have real human costs.” Seeing as this was my conclusion the second time around I have to wonder why I did not see this the first time. I believe that the success of this film is largely due to it’s timing. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a perfect looking glass into the national mood during that crisis. Having a more conservative background may have forced a conditioned reaction in me. Also, it is easy to believe my naive and immature mind simply could not grasp the complexity of the film. Even now it is difficult to see where there are real connections and where Michael Moore is just being contentious, staying true to his obnoxious character, as always.
-Gavin Owens
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can definitely relate to a change in opinion from when 9/11 first happened and now. This was the first time I'd seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but of course I'd heard about the outrageous things he exposed in the movie. Thinking back to when 9/11 first happened, of course I felt patriotic, as I'm guessing you must have, if the film enraged you the first time. Reflecting on that point, when 9/11 first happened, we were in fifth grade (at least I was). Is a 10 or 11 year old really capable of understanding the nitty gritty of a terrorist attack?
ReplyDeleteBoth of you raise another quite relevant issue: age. It seems obvious, but often it seems either ignored or that we're unclear what to think of it. I can't imagine what all of you must have thought of 9/11 as ~9-11 year olds; and I certainly can't imagine how much of 'F9/11' you could have made sense of at ~12-14. But we can't expect Moore to target his film at *everyone*, right? So do we just accept the fact that different age groups will see the film in different ways (this applies to all ages, too -- some would say older folks are more set in their ways and less able to be open-minded, in general).
ReplyDeleteThe way I felt about 9/11 when it actually occurred is markedly different from how I feel about it now. I, too, had seen the film when it came out, and was too young to fully grasp the unprecedented severity of the situation at hand. When I saw it again last Tuesday, a stronger emotional response was elicited. This may be not only because of the difference in age, but also because the World Trade Center attacks were something that had not been a pressing issue in my mind as of late. Therefore, seeing footage of it again reminded me of the sheer catastrophe and horror of September 11th, 2001.
ReplyDelete