30.EPILOGUE.43f: April 23, 2003.
"The War Party 2: Bowling for Iraq."
Scene: Guess.
BRIAN: You know, I just realized something.
BOB: What?
BRIAN: In all likelihood I'm probably too tall to be able to
have sex with sheep.
BOB: What?
BRIAN: Yeah. My legs are too long. If I stood behind
a sheep, its butt would probably only come up to just above my knees.
BOB: What in the name of God does this have to do with the war
in Iraq?
BRIAN: And if I knelt, the sheep's butt would be in line with
my chest.
BOB: That's really good.
BRIAN: So, the best I could probably do is jerk off onto the
sheep.
BOB: And, again, I state what does this have to do with Iraq?
BRIAN: Basically, any sort of really hard-core, functional bestiality
is probably out for me. Except for maybe cows. But even cows
are a bit too high, I think. I'd probably have to stand on something
and I've got a real bad fear of heights. Like, standing on anything
where I can see that I'm off the ground. I'm more afraid of knowing
that I can fall. Airplanes don't really bother me-- as far as acrophobia's
concerned anyway. Maybe I could put a gerbil in my butt, though.
But with the claws and teeth, I can't imagine how that would feel good.
And I'd probably just feel bad for the gerbil.
BOB: And this has what to do with--
BRIAN: Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
BOB: And you're bringing this up why?
BRIAN: Because I'm sick of the War Against Iraq. Absolutely,
utterly sick of it. It's already become boring as hell, and I want
to move on.
Pause.
BRIAN: I guess I could pass time playing solitaire with my Iraq's
Most Wanted playing cards, while waiting for something new to talk about
to peep over the horizon.
BOB: And they keep complaining that this war isn't a game, that
it isn't a media event, that it isn't just a shill.
BRIAN: You have to admit that it is a unique strategy, though.
Or at least almost unique. He says in a resigned voice. Since
I guess it looks like we're still probably going to be talking about the
war in Iraq whether I want to or not, right?
BOB: Right.
BRIAN: And I always thought I was the one in control.
BOB: But, these cards, you say they're a strategy, but they're
a strategy for what? What does a pack of playing cards accomplish?
BRIAN: Well, for one it trivializes the enemy. Makes them
seem, well, silly. I mean, Saddam Hussein is the Ace of Spades?
BOB: Well, that is kind of racist.
BRIAN: Yeah, and also blackly funny. No pun intended.
BOB: It's kind of like a "don't-worry-be-happy" strategy.
BRIAN: Sure. They did something similar in Britain during
WW2. They had planes printed on cards so you could identify whether
the things flying overhead were Axis or Allies planes. It calms people
down. It tells them it's not a war, it's all just a big game.
But this is the 21st Century, and we've got lots of different, much more
sophisticated technological games we occupy our time with, now. So
cards is very strategic. Because, yes, a deck of cards tell you that
the war is a game, but it also tells you that it's a trivial game.
It maybe be a game, but it's not a sophisticated, technological game.
It's a card game. Basic, simple, straightforward. I mean how
much more game-like, and trivial, and non-technological can you get than
playing cards? Cards aren't even even a chess set-- which would at
least imply war.
BOB: I guess, yeah. But it seems like a step backwards.
If the USA wants to turn the whole war into a big game, I was at least
hoping there'd be a cool Iraqi desert simulation.
BRIAN: We already have that. It's called CNN. It's
called the BBC. It's called the CBC. And, of course little
pinheads like me with their webpages and "blogs" spouting off uninformed
opinions like facts, pretending they're actually getting through to anybody.
And so on.
Pause.
BOB: Yeah, it almost sounds like you're just about ready to give
it up, pack it in, and head back home.
BRIAN: Well, yeah. It's not like there's really anything
happening here.
BOB: So you're giving up this lame excuse for "War" "coverage."
BRIAN: Well, it's a lame excuse for a war. To begin with,
the reason troops are over here keeps on changing. On the other,
the left is being just as idiotic as the right-- when the left's not being
ignored, that is.
BOB: Or when it's not being run over and crushed.
BRIAN: Exactly. The best metaphor for the entire global
political situation I can think of is that bulldozer that ran over Rachael
Corrie in Rafah, on the 25th of March, 2003. I know it doesn't have
anything to do with the New Gulf War, but it's still a perfect metaphor.
Someone from the left acting stupidly and irresponsibly, and someone from
the right utterly ignoring everything and obliviously moving ahead anyway.
BOB: So what can we learn from this?
BRIAN: One message here is that everyone is stupid.
Another message here is that people can complain all they want and it won't
change a Goddamn thing. It's poetic that it was a bulldozer that
killed Corrie. She put herself in the path of power, and the power
very literally bulldozed over her.
BOB: Hmm.
BRIAN: And then there's the fact that the trendy protesters have
already faded away. The war's been on for a few weeks now, and people
are tired of it, and so they're starting to get on with their lives.
The momentum has faded, the caring has gone away.
And it happens like this
again and again. A wave of caring comes out of the fashionable left,
sweeps over the land, and then ebbs away once again when the fashionable
left gets bored and switches channels. I mean, look at Michael Moore.
BOB: Michael Moore?
BRIAN: Yeah. In case you were living in a hole last month
you probably know that when Moore accepted his Oscar for Bowling For
Columbine he made an anti-war speech that had him booed off stage.
BOB: Some people cheered, too though.
BRIAN: Oh, sure. Yeah Moore has his supporters. There
will always be naive people who are easily swayed to his cause.
So, anyway, let's go back
in time one month. To the 75th annual Academy awards, March 23, 2003,
8:30e/5:30p, let's go back to the date of part 2 of The War Party 2,
let's revisit at least in spirit a column entitled "Line, please...."
Michael Moore, when he received
his award, said the following:
Whoa. On behalf
of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like
to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary
nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to - they're here in solidarity
with me because we like non-fiction.
We like non-fiction and
we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious
election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time
where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.
Whether it's the fictition
of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr
Bush. Shame on you, Mr Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope
and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
This thing is all over the net.
I got mine from the BBC (all typos ("fictition"???) are either sic. or
Britishisms), but you can find other copies of it at:
among other sites.
And, just to be anal retentive
about it, there is also a variant at the Michael Moore homepage (www.michaelmoore.com)
that reads:
"On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan
(from Canada), I would like to thank the Academy for this award. I have
invited the other Documentary nominees on stage with me. They are here
in solidarity because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction because
we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where fictitious election
results give us a fictitious president. We are now fighting a war for fictitious
reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fictitious 'Orange
Alerts,' we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush,
shame on you. And, whenever you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against
you, your time is up."
(And, actually, the variant is probably actually the "official" statement
from Moore. And so that's why I'm including it.)
And it's a witty message.
And, actually, I agree with it. We do live in fictitious times,
the US election in 2000 was probably rigged, and the reasons for this war
are, yeah, fictitious. They're so fictitious no one can actually
decide why anyone's fighting.
I agree with Michael Moore.
However....
BOB: However?
BRIAN: Yes. However. Throughout his career Moore
has always struck me as being a self-aggrandizing egotist. He sets
stuff up to make his point., His "documentaries," while technically
well-done, are probably only slightly less "factual" than Hunter S. Thompson's
screeds. And, from what I understand, if you know anything about
his subject matter, holes immediately appear.
BOB: But the left loves him.
BRIAN: Yes. Because he kowtows to them. He sucks
them off. He tells them what they want to hear in a loud, but kind
of rumpled and unassuming, way. I mean, Roger And Me is an
entertaining movie. Unfortunately, when I saw it I really thought
it was all set up just a little too perfectly. Roger Smith seemed
to be a construct by Moore, a straw man for him to knock over. And
then later I heard that Moore played fast and loose with the chronology
of the film's events-- in a way, of course, that made Moore seem like a
victim and Smith seem like an arch supervillian. And then later still
I heard a rumour that Smith had always been willing to see Moore, and that
Moore set up his scenarios so that it looked like Smith was avoiding him--
but I don't really know about that because, like I said, it's just a rumour
and so may be untrue. I mean, Roger Smith is probably no saint.
But, then again neither is Moore. I mean, he's a champion for the
little guy who lives in a million dollar home, and sends his kids to an
exclusive private school-- all the while trying to seem like some over-aged
slacker, or maybe an illiterate a cornfed rube. It's a contradictory,
insincere image. And it makes him seem like a phony. And, of
course, then there's Bowling For Columbine.
BOB: What about it?
BRIAN: Like Roger And Me, Bowling For Columbine
is an entertaining movie. And there are parts where I felt the injustice
of the world weighing down on me. And, I was buying into the movie.
I freely admit it. I was totally sucked in-- in places-- because
Moore is such an engaging filmmaker. But then, with one scene, things
shifted and I saw the movie for what it was: a work of fakery by someone
who only pretends to care.
BOB: And that scene was?
BRIAN: The part where Moore makes the claim that in Canada, because
we have gun control, we don't lock our doors when you leave our houses.
BOB: That's stupid. I lock my door.
BRIAN: Yes. It's stupid. And, quite frankly, it is
a bald-faced lie.
BOB: Looks like even Michael Moore has a little bit of Mohammed
Saeed al-Sahaf in him.
BRIAN: Everybody I know locks the door when they leave either
their house or their apartment. Most of them even lock their doors
when they are indoors. The only people who don't lock their doors
are either just plain idiots, or burned out hippies and self-conscious
slacker left-wingers who are either too stoned and forget to, or just don't
have anything worth stealing beyond a bong, a box of photocopied 'zines
and small bag of weed and some patchouli oil-- in short, Moore's main audience.
BOB: Yeah. And a lie like that makes you wonder what else
in the movie is a lie.
BRIAN: Exactly. And based on that lie, I start to thinking
back to the stuff I heard about Roger And Me. And, I mean,
journalists do have to manipulate things to conform to formats, sure--
but no self-respecting journalist would set up a scene making it seem like
a subject didn't want to be interviewed, just to sell a story. But
also, no self-respecting journalist would make up a lie about a country
where no one locks their doors because the country has gun control.
BOB: So then you start to wonder about Moore's credibility and
integrity. And then you start thinking that maybe the rumours about
Roger And Me are true.
BRIAN: Exactly.
And, unfortunately, I also
believe in gun control. People should not have ready access to firearms
because they will randomly kill each other in fits of rage or mental trauma.
(I know I would.) So I'm in agreement with Moore. And I say
"unfortunately" I believe in gun control because when I hear some pompous
dork say that Canadians don't lock their doors because we're all so safe
from guns, it makes me want to go out and buy a gun and shoot up a highschool.
And also, however, just
because there's gun control in Canada doesn't mean there are no guns.
Sure, it's harder to get guns. But if you really want a gun you can
get it illegally in days. You just have to know where to look.
And then you can shoot as many people as you want. Lots of people
wave guns around, in Canada-- not as many as in the 'States, sure, but
enough to make certain places and times of the day scary. Hell, I've
been an an armed robbery in a videostore. A guy came in wearing a
black ski mask and started waving a gun around. Scared the piss outta
me-- almost literally. And, yes, this happened in Canada, where it's
apparently so safe you don't have to lock your doors.
And, also, when there are
no guns available, people are frequently either stabbed or beaten to death.
There is no shortage of violence in Canada.
And, like you said, it's
that kind of manipulative, transparent lie that puts everything Moore says
into doubt.
And when he takes a stand
against something, and echoes almost exactly what I think, and does so
in a witty, concise, and engaging way, I feel kind of sick.
He's kind of like one of
those journalists that always carries a child's toy with him so when he
sees a bunch of ruins he can pull out the toy, place it strategically,
and tape or photograph it specifically to heighten then "human tragedy"
of the event.
BOB: You're kidding. People do that?
BRIAN: Oh yeah. I heard about it once in some sort of spoof,
or a satire or something-- I think it was maybe a British tv show-- and
I thought it was funny. But then I found out that news people do
that kind of thing all the time-- plant teddy bears or toys and tape them
lying in the rubble to make it look like children died there. It
tugs on the heartstrings and sells airtime.
BOB: I never knew.
BRIAN: Yeah. I even saw that happen one day when looking
at Iraq war coverage. I say a child's toy among some rubble.
No doubt lovingly planted there by whatever journalist was currently reporting.
BOB: Wow....
BRIAN: And it seems to me that Moore plays with reality in the
same way. When a friend of mine saw Bowling For Columbine
she said: "Just what the left doesn't need right now. It's
own Rush Limbaugh. Except of course without any of the charm."
BOB: Ouch.
BRIAN: Ouch, but maybe true.
Moore's tactic seems to
be representative of one of the biggest problems with the fashionable left:
He breaks out a bunch of
very, very valid postmodern cynicism and says something lots of people
agree with, but does so in order to heighten his notoriety and move units.
If you believe what Moore writes on his webpage, according to the Sept.
7, 2003 "Mike's Message" (www.michaelmoore.com), he's already, apparently,
been given funding for another documentary, people are flocking to see
Bowling For Columbine, his website is getting a staggering number
of hits, and there's talk of putting his old tv show TV Nation back
on the air. And the message that he wants to impart is that speaking
out doesn't get you silenced. Well, of course not. Everybody
knows that. The Dixie chicks did not ruin their careers for speaking
out against the war, as much as the mainstream media was like you to believe,
and neither did Michael Moore. But only the most absolutely naive
would believe otherwise. Notoriety only increases your appeal, if
only because it generates curiosity. This doesn't mean that your
"message" is spread, however. People knowing who you are and people
believing what you say, or understanding you-- or otherwise internalizing
the information you have to offer-- are totally different things.
People knowing who you are just means that more people know who you are,
and that you move more units in some way or another (defending on how you
define "units"), or at least have the potential to do so. And so,
I wonder exactly why it is Michael Moore said what he said at the Oscars?
Hmmmm?
And the best thing is he
says "we like non-fiction" and that's why we love documentaries when his
documentaries reek of fictionality and bias and are very clearly not all
"non-fiction." Even when I'm not familiar with Moore's subject matter,
his work smacks of artifice.
BOB: But, he does say "we live in fictitious times."
BRIAN: Yeah, but he says that in order to set himself up as being
above or beyond fiction. But however, he forgets that when he does
it a public venue he becomes just as fictitious as the George Bush he criticizes.
Moore is a media presence, which means that he is a consciously designed
image before he is a "real" person. The people in the media are not
"real" in the same sense as others. They choose to present aspects
of themselves in a heightened form to the masses-- and this makes everyone
in the media a fiction-- or the masses themselves fixate upon an aspect
(or aspects) of the media figure and propagate that. Either way,
it's propaganda. And so to appropriate and paraphrase something Geert
Lovlink said about Jean Baudrillard: If Bush is a fictitious president
and the Iraq war is a fictitious war, then Michael Moore must also except
that he is a fictitious film maker and his documentaries are fictitious
documentaries. He is a fiction criticizing a fiction for being fictitious.
He's as much a construct as the Bush administration and this whole War-on-whatever.
And, you know what-- before
you jump down my throat-- so am I.
30.EPILOGUE.43f: April 23, 2003.