Recently Stephen Rosenthal and Junaid Ahmad fairly reviewed the explicit content, present and absent, of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” [http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_9809.shtml], Jul 4, 2004.  And the Letters section of the current New Yorker, 12/19 July 2004, is dominated by other writers’ defense against David Denby’s critique of the film in that publication.

While these apologias are affective, I must report that I was quite disappointed with 9/11.  The production values were mediocre at best, the logic poor to non-existent and the appeal to the unpersuaded insufficient to turn the head of a critical snail.

Not that I don’t agree with Moore’s intent and message: Bush and Co.  have surely, repeatedly betrayed much that made this country worthwhile and continues to do so unabated!  But as effective theatre, whether dramatic or persuasive, this film should receive a failing grade; it’s an embarrassment that I wouldn’t recommend to any non-believer I hoped to enlighten.

Sure it’s fun to have my prejudices re-enforced and my angerfires stoked, but that’s all this film seems designed for: whipping up the frenzied followers, not converting the heathen.

No matter that no man ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American voter - H. L. Mencken -, we, the movement, need something/someone far more professional than this film represents to carry the message forward.