Michael writes:
The best analysis so far of F 9/11.
> But at its heart this film is not an argument. It's an
attempt to break a non-argument with another
non-argument.
Almost like Bush cast a spell and Moore is casting another in an attempt to break the hold of the first one.
> That connection wasn't created by real arguments. It was
created by fake arguments. It was created by juxtaposition,
repetition and emotional charge. And this movie attempts to
use exactly those same tools against it -- which might be the
only tools that could possibly work.
And the technique Moore uses is to skillfully edit found footage together and use his voice (a reduced presence) as the glue. The use of found footage reduces Moore's presence and makes it feel as if he is being "objective."
> And thereby to finally secrete that drop of corrosive doubt in
the minds of people in the center who just haven't wanted to
accept that it was all a Big Lie, that the constantly repeated
reasoning of the ruling elite is absurd.
And the closer is Lila Lipscomb and the story of her son. That is why Moore closes with her instead of the Iraqi mother since it is the Lipscomb story that will make sure the drop of corrosive doubt is secreted.
The goal of the movie is not to advance a coherent argument, but to make people doubt the ability/veracity of George Bush -- a celluloid pamphlet if you will (sorry, I was reading Thomas Paine last night).
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister