Dear Mike,

Please forgive the familiarity but I guess you won’t really mind as that appears to be your style - a style which you use to good effect and which has made you an influential figure in the coming US presidential election. (It has also had the rather nice side effect of making you a million bucks).

I went to see your new film Fahrenheit 9/11, the other day. It was a profoundly depressing experience. Not only because of its subject (you do an excellent job of showing the futility and horror of war) but also because of its method. You see, I have a problem here. I was, and remain opposed to the war in Iraq. I have severe doubts about the links between oil, big business and American foreign policy. And your earlier film, Bowling for Columbine, is one of my favourite films. I thought that that film was very clever, well made and an extremely interesting analysis of some aspects of American society. But Fahrenheit 9/11 confirmed something that has been going on in my thinking re your work – and it was not pleasant. I have this nagging fear that, rather than being a prophet of the Left, you have become the mirror image of the Right wing radio ‘Shock Jocks’.

It all began after Bowling for Columbine. I went out and bought Stupid White Men. To say it was disappointing would be to put it mildly. The lack of depth and substance, combined with the inaccuracy and the blatant and open propagandising, was disturbing. As an attempt at political satire, it was not funny. As intelligent discussion it was dumb. As humour it just did not really work. The basic problem with Stupid White Men was that you were quite happy to cite only one side and that you deliberately distorted information. In other words you did not tell the Truth. Oh, you told partial truths. But to tell only part of the truth is to tell a lie. Apparently you got round this by making the now infamous statement ‘How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?’ Please tell me you did not really say that? Lies are ok if they are funny?! (It reminds me of the Daily Mirror editor who, after being caught printing false pictures of British soldiers ‘torturing’ Iraqis, breathtakingly declared that they were ok because although they themselves were fake, ‘they portrayed the situation as it was’!).

But let us come on to the film itself. As usual it was well made and interesting. But enough of the plaudits – you have already had more than enough of people telling you how brilliant it is. The question that bothers me personally is simply why a well made anti-war film should cause such a negative reaction in someone who is anti-war? I have been thinking about this a lot and I guess this is what I would come up with.

Firstly there is an inherent self-contradiction in the film. Following on from Bowling for Columbine, you suggest that what the US government is doing is playing on and increasing people’s fears (you picked this up from Glassner’s book The Culture of Fear). I suspect there is a great deal of truth in that – and it is right to state that much fear is irrational. However the contradiction is that you yourself do the same thing. Aiming at an audience of Europeans and liberal Americans, you play on our fears about a Right wing religious American government going to war just for the personal benefit of the Big Corporations. You have your own conspiracy theories – none of which you back up with any substantial evidence.

Then there is the question of truth. You suggest that it was pilots from the Saudi air force who were the pilots at 9/11. You tell us that government planes went round picking up relatives of the Bin Ladens in the US before transporting them out of the country, immediately after 9/11, and this despite the FBI wanting to question them. Yet you do not tell us that these were not government planes, that the Bin Ladens remained in the US for over a week after 9/11 and that the FBI approved their departure. I was also intrigued by your suggestion that the war in Afghanistan was not about getting Al Qaeda, but more about clearing the way for an oil pipeline which Bush had approved. I was intrigued because I had just read Taliban, an excellent and thoroughly detailed book about the rise of the Taliban. Guess who approved and wanted that pipeline? Bill Clinton.

In terms of distortion of the truth there is the question of balance. You were right to show the grieving mother of the US soldier killed – although I did think the way that you used her was a bit exploitative. But surely you should also have shown the mother who was proud of her son and what he had died for? You rightly showed the suffering of civilians in Iraq (although given your record of distortion one always has the feeling of some inaccuracy even in this) after American bombing – but did you show the sufferings of those who had been tortured and killed during Saddam’s time? Did you show the relatives of the children killed by suicide bombers in Baghdad? Did you show any of the Iraqi’s who are glad that Saddam has gone? And you were right to show the horror of American soldiers going into battle with heavy metal songs about killing, blasting through their personal stereos – but why did you not show the Muslim young men who have been fed a doctrine of hate and false religion to the extent that they are prepared to die as long as they can kill? In fact I cannot recall you mentioning anything about Islam at all – hardly an attempt at in depth and realistic analysis. The truth is that there was no balance in your film at all. It was a superficial and smug piece of propaganda. Goebbels would have been proud.

The other thing that disturbed me is that your film was entirely aimed at our emotions. You were like some old style fundamentalist preacher who aims to bypass the mind and go straight for the heart and will. Who could not be moved by many of the images you brought to us? They certainly moved me to tears. But I came away from that film thinking that somehow I had been abused – that you were playing with my emotions. You were thinking for me and then manipulating my feelings so that I would feel what you want me to. War is bad, Bush is bad. Stop the war, get rid of Bush. It is simplistic, superficial and very effective. You are very similar to the right wing talk show hosts I hear on US talk radio – entertaining, garishly fascinating, but profoundly dangerous - if taken seriously at all.

So, I am sorry Mike. The film just does not wash. It will make you lots of money. And it will influence lots of people but it is not the truth, and it is not fair. Indeed if your film has any decisive influence upon the presidential election, I fear for the US. There will be an increased dumbing down of political debate, more polemic and less real open and tolerant discussion. The conspiracy theorists and propagandists of both right and left will have a field day. (Incidentally this is also true in Britain – I happened to be in London when there was an anti-war demo a few weeks ago. It was horrifying to see the few who were there being regaled by a leading politician who spoke of the heroes of Falujah and seemed to delight in American and British soldiers being killed. Recently George Galloway expressed his wish that the Americans would get a good hiding in Iraq – how pathetic and sad is that? ).

Before I go – can I just say a wee word about your last book – Hey Dude, Where’s My Country? All of the criticisms above apply to it – but it is so much worse. It took me ages to read it (normally I can read a book that length in one sitting – or a couple of nights). It was so boring. It was unoriginal. And you committed the cardinal crime for a comedian – it was not even remotely funny. In fact the only way the book works is as a caricature of how not to be funny. And from a Christian perspective it is blasphemous. Why did you write chapter 6? Do you really think it is funny to pretend to be God? To portray God as some kind of weak, inept and pathetic creature? It left a disgusted and sick taste in my mouth.

In chapter six you have God saying ‘an embryo is an embryo is an embryo, a fetus is a fetus, and a baby is a baby. That’s the way I set it up. When it is a baby, then it becomes a human being’. Let’s leave aside the blasphemy of you thinking you can put words in the mouth of the Almighty – and let us recognise that this is of course your opinion. Well forgive me for saying so, but it is hardly the most intelligent of opinions is it? On what rational and scientific evidence is this based? Are you suggesting that a nine month old child in the womb is not a human being but that one hour later when she comes out of the womb she then becomes human? What rational reason is there for saying that? As you well know there is none. It is just pure prejudice – based upon your own absolutist presuppositions and fears. But what right do you have to play God and tell us when children should and should not live? How can you claim to be a champion of the poor and the oppressed when you advocate the wholesale slaughter of those children who have the misfortune to still be in the womb? It just does not wash. Anymore than your support of John Kerry in your desire to get rid of Bush. Can you tell me in which ways this multi-millionaire will be any different from Bush? I have read some of his material and it seems to me as though he will be as big a supporter of capitalism as Bush. But worse than that he seems to advocate fortress America – wanting to pull up the drawbridges – and protectionism. How will that help the poor around the world? Kerry looks like a good old fashioned reactionary Democrat. The only thing substantial policy differences I can find are that he supports abortion and gay civil partnerships. (I have to admit that I could be wrong on this but it is very hard to pin him down on any specific policies other than social liberalism). Is that what the Left in the US has come to? Protectionist Capitalists with a laissez faire social policy?

Mike, I despair. Lots of people who agree with you will have their prejudices confirmed by your work. Those who don’t will be made angry. The ignorant will be confirmed in their ignorance – the educated will feel superior. It will lead to more polarisation and less intelligent thought – as such unthinking fundamentalism always does. I would like to live in your black and white world. But I don’t. The world I live in is a mess. A mess which neither Bush nor Blair nor even Mike Moore, can sort out. There is for me only one hope. My hope is in the God you mock. I pray that he will open your eyes to see that he is your only hope too. No joke.

David.

back