Michael Moore has recently been both pilloried and feted, and in all of the furor over Fahrenheit 9/11, a number of critics have glossed over one of the more beneficial aspects of the film — its power to spark reasoned and informed debate.  

Writing in The New York Times, A.O. Scott states that Fahrenheit 9/11 “is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies.”

A.O. Scott is correct; Moore’s film certainly isn’t nuanced, nor is it meant to be. Fahrenheit 9/11 is more like an editorial than a documentary; it is clever, opinionated, researched, and affecting. It reminds us of the circus of the 2000 elections and the confused battle for Florida, highlights some of President Bush’s most offensively incompetent moments, and documents the human cost of the war in Iraq. Moore’s research and analysis is not exhaustive or comprehensive, but it is provocative.

While the factual and educational merit of the film is debatable, it would be a shame if Fahrenheit 9/11 served only as an anti-Bush film and a hollow and tired talking point for liberals and democrats. Fahrenheit 9/11 should act, at the very least, as a springboard for informed public debate about the American war in Iraq. Our understanding of the war in Iraq should not be limited to the sensationalized news flashes on CNN and Fox; to digest only those sound bites is to fail to see the larger historical context of America’s and George W. Bush’s relationship with the Muslim world and with the leaders in the region. While Fahrenheit 9/11’s box office earnings are impressive — the film grossed approximately $21.8 million in its first three days — let’s hope the film isn’t just preaching to the converted.

Mimi Hanaoka