Hair Watch: Day 3
Wolfowitz’s miracle hair tonic: I’d heard the rumors, but it wasn’t until we saw “Fahrenheit 9/11” last night that I realized how charming it is to see Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz fixing his hairdo with human saliva. 
And not just his own phlegm. In the clip, which plays during the opening of the movie (a smorgasbord of politician primping), Wolfie licks a comb, brushes it through his ungainly locks, applies some more spit, and then, in a touching moment, his assistant uses some of his own juice to finish off the coif. Cynics might point to this as an example of disgusting right-wing hair care—juxtaposing it against the Democrats’ more genteel, salon-going ways. But I say it shows the way that the GOP sticks together—quite literally—to make their manicured hair-parts a team effort. Who needs AquaNet when you’ve got friends like these?
Despite all this, it’s clear from the above picture, a hair disaster, that Wofie could still use a makeover. That’s why I was delighted to hear that Queer Eye for the Straight Guy has taken the challenge. As the Fab Five’s Kyan Douglas suggests, highlights and Redken’s “Rough Paste” might be just the thing to give him a “tousled, sexy, ‘just got up from a romp in the hay with a hot babe’ look.”
(If anyone can find me a screen shot of the aforementioned F9/11 scene, I’d be extremely grateful. Email me at ted@turkeymonkey.com)
So, other than Wolfie’s spit take, what did you think of the film?
In a nutshell: I thought it was the best Michael Moore movie I’ve seen. And, unfortunately, it was still very much a Michael Moore movie. Which is to say that it was often as funny as a segment of SNL’s “Weekend Update.” At its best, the movie was as agitating as a rant from Lewis Lapham in Harper’s, and at its worst, like an issue of the Weekly World News. I feel like most of my compliments and criticisms have already been voiced, in a much more coherent fashion than I’m capable of, by people like David Denby (New Yorker review and Christopher Hitchens (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/“>Slate article). The half-truths and outright falsehoods of the movie are far too numerous to rattle off here, and besides, Hitchens and countless other journalists and websites have already taken care of this, too.
So, rather than digging through the muck, I’ll point to Denby’s take as the one that I most identify with. Michael Moore is an extremely talented filmmaker. “Fahrenheit 9/11” shows a dramatic improvement over his past work (don’t get me started on “Bowling for Columbine”), and despite most of Moore’s woolly logic, the narrative is swift, provocative, and even at times moving. What’s sad—and this was Denby’s chief complaint—is that despite all of Moore’s gumption and skill, this movie probably won’t change anyone’s mind about Iraq, Bush, etc. Indeed, if Gallup polls are any guide, it looks like the movie, after three weeks at the top of the box office, hasn’t made a dent Bush’s numbers. He’s still hovering at the same 49% in Presidential survey results—and Kerry’s numbers have even dropped! From 48% to 45%, and that’s with all the media attention surrounding the Edwards announcement.
With all the fantastic documentaries in the past year—“The Fog of War” and “Capturing the Friedmans” spring to mind—I left F9/11 wondering why Moore couldn’t be striving to make those kind of films. I know that’s not his bag, and even he will admit that his style is more mockumentary than documentary, more political attack than political analysis. But still, it’s unbiased docus (like those mentioned above) that really change peoples’ minds. By presenting an even-handed take on events, and dealing with facts rather than inaccurate theories, they leave it up to audience members to come to their own conclusion (about Vietnam, pedophilia, clowns, whatever). I hesitate to use the word “propaganda” when talking about F9/11, but it’s probably the most fitting term. “Satire” or maybe “polemic” might work, but they don’t underscore the fact that this film was conceived with an agenda (“fictitious times,” “fictitious president,” “fictitious movie”?). With the people I’ve spoken to, there’s sort of a tendency to say, “Yeah, Moore’s a crackpot liberal nut, but at least he’s our liberal nut.” Personally, I’d prefer a liberal who still aspires to a modicum of journalistic integrity. As the Denby review puts it, “Michael Moore has become a sensational entertainer of the already converted, but his enduring problem as a political artist is that he has never known how to change anyone’s politics.”
Alright, I’ll stop here. So much for “in a nutshell.”