Senior Hilary King spoke first, expressing her opinion that the film seems so inflammatory not because its facts are exaggerated or blown out of proportion, but rather because it reveals things that had not been previously revealed or discussed by the mainstream media. For King, watching the film caused an unsettling feeling of helplessness for many reasons, including its portrayal of a powerful American aristocracy gaining economic benefit from war, the implications of the USA Patriot Act, lies and deception from the government, and the connection of poverty and social hierarchy to the war in Iraq. For example, she said, it is difficult for her to think that she gets to go to college, while many American students have to enlist in the military and risk their lives to be able to pay for the same privilege. She pointed out that on his website, Michael Moore provides documentation of all the facts used in the film and defends himself from challenges, which is more, she said, than the President's administration has done. In conclusion, King said that Fahrenheit 9/11 "presents issues that are not otherwise brought to us by our 'fair and balanced' media."
Sophomore Joe Jansen shared a very different perspective, saying that he could go on for the rest of the night cataloguing the various false claims that Moore makes in the film. Jansen highlighted what he believed were two major problems that appeared throughout the film. First, he said, many of Moore's charges are based on things that are simply not true or on facts that are presented in a misleading manner. For example, when talking about the flights that took the bin Laden family and other Saudis out of the country two days after September 11, Moore makes it seem as if all air traffic was still grounded and the Saudis received special permission to leave without being questioned. In reality, Jansen said, planes started flying again that day and that some of the Saudis were questioned before leaving the country. Another problem Jansen saw was that Moore often took irrelevant facts and connected them to form "grandiose conspiracy theories." An example of this, he said, is the way Moore connects various facts regarding the Taliban and an oil pipeline to suggest that Bush and his circle would have had economic interests in Afghanistan. Jansen also said that Moore's assertions about the Bush families financial connections to Saudi Arabia are all a conspiracy theory.
Professor of Comparative Literature Peter Rabinowitz spoke next, saying that Fahrenheit 9/11 is one of the "most carefully researched and footnoted films ever," particularly when one considers the extra evidence Moore provides on his website. He disregarded criticisms about the factuality of the film, saying that sometimes the criticisms are simply inaccurate, and other times they represent a "forest-trees" problem. The real questions should be the analysis that the film leads to, he said. Moore believes strongly that the Iraq war was not about a fight between freedom and fundamentalism or a war on terror, but economic and political gain. Rabinowitz said that the film reveals the Bush administration's "protection of the rich at the expense of the poor of Afghanistan, Iraq, Flint MI and Clinton NY." Moore is also honest about what he's trying to prove, and does not claim objectivity at any point in the movie, instead speaking from his own voice. To Rabinowitz, this made the film a good critique.
Phil Klinkner, the James S. Sherman Associate Professor of Government, began his remarks by saying that Fahrenheit 9/11 is primarily a "red/blue movie," meaning that your reaction to the film is based on your political affiliation. Klinkner, however, counts himself as an exception to this rule, saying that while he believes some of the things that the movie is trying to say, he believes that many of its facts are inaccurate and that it is an "unprincipled critique." He said that he is ashamed that so many people who share his political beliefs have embraced this film, which he views as being on the same level as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ads and other right wing attacks of the past. In conclusion, Klinkner said that people should not let their hatred of Bush and will to defeat him cause them to accept this movie at the expense of adherence to the truth.
The panel's remarks were followed by questions and comments from the audience that led to a heated discussion between people of many different viewpoints. The conversation ranged from from issues of truth and the purpose of documentary filmmaking, to the issues about terrorism and the war in Iraq that the film raises.
-- by Caroline R. O'Shea '07
