Re: [Marxism] Robert Jensen attack on Fahrenheit 9/11

[Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:26:20 -0400 Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Counterpunch, July 5, 2004
>
> Stupid White Movie
> What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire
> By ROBERT JENSEN

I suspect that if Moore had made the sort of film that would
have pleased Jensen then nobody outside of Moore's
immediate family would have rushed out to see it.
Moore after all, did not make his film to inform the subscribers
of Marxmail about the nature of the Bush Administration.
There is, I think, very little in the film that ought to be news
to people here.  But guess what, Moore wasn't making his
film for Marxmail subscribers or for Robert Jensen. He
was making for the so-called "average Joe" who might
be sitting on the fence or leaning weakly towards Bush
because he or she is not well-informed.  Moore, I think,
has a better grasp of where these people are right now
than does Mr. Jensen. And the success of Moore's film
at the box-office, not just in places like Cambridge or
NYC or Berkeley but also in fairly conservative parts of
the country, including some Republican strongholds,
indicates to me that he has a pretty good idea of
what he is doing.

If he doesn't present the audience with Lenin's
*Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism*,
he does a pretty good job of sketching out a
class analysis of US foreign policy in terms that
people who have not read the Marxist classics can
understand. He does a pretty good job of taking
the myths that most American have uncritically
absorbed and juxtaposes them with reality in
such a way as to make viewers start thinking
about them.  That seems to me to be no mean
accomplishment.

>
> I have been defending Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" from the
> criticism in mainstream and conservative circles that the film is
> leftist propaganda. Nothing could be further from the truth; there
> is
> very little left critique in the movie. In fact, it's hard to find
> any
> coherent critique in the movie at all.
>
> The sad truth is that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a bad movie, but not for
> the
> reasons it is being attacked in the dominant culture. It's at times
> it
> is a racist movie. And the analysis that underlies the film's main
> political points is either dangerously incomplete or virtually
> incoherent.
>
> But, most important, it's a conservative movie that ends with an
> endorsement of one of the central lies of the United States, which
> should warm the hearts of the right-wingers who condemn Moore. And
> the
> real problem is that many left/liberal/progressive people are
> singing
> the film's praises, which should tell us something about the
> impoverished nature of the left in this country.
>
> I say all this not to pick at small points or harp on minor flaws.
> These
> aren't minor points of disagreement but fundamental questions of
> analysis and integrity. But before elaborating on that, I want to
> talk
> about what the film does well.
>
> The good stuff
>
> First, Moore highlights the disenfranchisement of primarily black
> voters
> in Florida in the 2000 election, a political scandal that the
> mainstream
> commercial news media in the United States has largely ignored. The
> footage of a joint session of Congress in which Congressional Black
> Caucus members can't get a senator to sign their letter to allow
> floor
> debate about the issue (a procedural requirement) is a powerful
> indictment not only of the Republicans who perpetrated the fraud but
> the
> Democratic leadership that refused to challenge it.
>
> Moore also provides a sharp critique of U.S. military recruiting
> practices, with some amazing footage of recruiters cynically at work
>
> scouring low-income areas for targets, whom are disproportionately
> non-white. The film also effectively takes apart the Bush
> administration's use of fear tactics after 9/11 to drive the public
> to
> accept its war policies.
>
> "Fahrenheit 9/11" also does a good job of showing war's effects on
> U.S.
> soldiers; we see soldiers dead and maimed, and we see how
> contemporary
> warfare deforms many of them psychologically as well. And the film
> pays
> attention to the victims of U.S. wars, showing Iraqis both before
> the
> U.S. invasion and after in a way that humanizes them rather than
> uses
> them as props.
>
> The problem is that these positive elements don't add up to a good
> film.
> It's a shame that Moore's talent and flair for the dramatic aren't
> put
> in the service of a principled, clear analysis that could
> potentially be
> effective at something beyond defeating George W. Bush in 2004.
>
> Subtle racism
>
> How dare I describe as racist a movie that highlights the
> disenfranchisement of black voters and goes after the way in which
> military recruiters chase low-income minority youth? My claim is not
>
> that Moore is an overt racist, but that the movie unconsciously
> replicates a more subtle racism, one that we all have to struggle to
> resist.
>
> First, there is one segment that invokes the worst kind of
> ugly-American
> nativism, in which Moore mocks the Bush administration's "coalition
> of
> the willing," the nations it lined up to support the invasion of
> Iraq.
> Aside from Great Britain there was no significant military support
> from
> other nations and no real coalition, which Moore is right to point
> out.
> But when he lists the countries in the so-called coalition, he uses
> images that have racist undertones. To depict the Republic of Palau
> (a
> small Pacific island nation), Moore chooses an image of
> stereotypical
> "native" dancers, while a man riding on an animal-drawn cart
> represents
> Costa Rica. Pictures of monkeys running are on the screen during a
> discussion of Morocco's apparent offer to send monkeys to clear
> landmines. To ridicule the Bush propaganda on this issue, Moore uses
>
> these images and an exaggerated voice-over in a fashion that says,
> in
> essence, "What kind of coalition is it that has these backward
> countries?" Moore might argue that is not his intention, but
> intention
> is not the only question; we all are responsible for how we tap into
>
> these kinds of stereotypes.
>
> full: http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
> --
> Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism