|
|
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
|
|
WHEN HITCHENS ATTACKS
Now, I'm no Kilgore Trout but God knows I love a good movie review. Perhaps "good" is an inappropriate word choice. I love a vicious movie review, so much the better when the reviewer sharpens his almost feral instincts on that which he is reviewing. So when I found Christopher Hitchens reviewing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 , well I'l admit to a small stain developing in my lap.
Christopher Hitchens represents what the left would be if it were actually interested in winning an argument as opposed to looking compassionate as they lose. Hitchens is a brilliant writer and an oponent to be feared. He has the attack instincts of a brain damaged Doberman. To watch Hitchens rip and tear into an argument as it flails haplessly is almost as disturbing to watch as it is thrilling.
I disagree with Hitchens on virtually everything political. He is a socialist and I am decidedly otherwise. But we share a hatred of the same people. Bill Clinton, Mother Theresa and Michael Moore has all tasted his wrath.
From the Hitchens review of Fahrenheit 9/11:
With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
And
Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.
God, I love Hitchens. Everyone even thinking of giving Moore their hard earned money should read his article in its entirety. If I were to have any criticism of the review, it would be the failure to note that Moore is a 21st century Joseph Goebbels. But then, Moore lacks both the subtlety and vocabulary of the late Minister of Propoganda. He's more of a Julius Stricher, sensationalist and low rent to the very end.
|
|
|
| |
