The film Fahrenheit 9/11 goes to great lengths to make clear of its anti-Bush stance, while providing indisputable facts regarding the faults of George Bush’s presidency and his evident corruption. The film had a much larger impact than just portraying Bush in a negative yet comical manner. It displayed the impact of Bush’s poor, money influenced decisions while showing the impact those decisions had on the many people across the globe. These decisions destroyed people’s lives, communities, and families while Bush gained in financial opportunities.

To support my stance regarding the broader significance and impact Fahrenheit 9/11 provides I would measure the comments and opinions generated from film’s audience. Personally, I found the film intriguing, inspiring, and intelligent. The film did not only expose Bush and his investors but delved into the lives of Americans, Afghans, and Iraqis who were terribly affected by him and his associates selfish greed. The second blog posted on, http://apps.metacritic.com/movie/usercomments.jsp?id_string=2667:JPtPuID5hR7BQ$w1D1yitA**, provoked a key aspect that supports the integrity of the film, which is to question and discuss the events occurring around the world and in every day society. The ability to think, doubt for ones self while gaining knowledge from other individual’s viewpoints is natural and necessary for a progressive, functioning society. Another website which portrays the impact of Fahrenheit 9/11 is http://f911.blogspot.com/, which shows alternate opinions regarding the film in negative and positive ways.

This film deeply effected the way I view politics, democracy, and the greed, destruction money can generate among poor and wealthy individuals..

Students should see this documentary before the military recruiters get them!

I think that Fahrenheit 9/11 had indirect political influence and had both intended and possibly unintended social impacts.

The documentary has enraged and educated some who can take the information and inspiration and turn them into ideas for action. For example, blogger Don McNay reemphasizes Moore’s observation that only one Congressperson has a child in the military and that most soldiers do not come from rich families. McNay encourages blog readers to help allow military families to send packages to soldiers in war zones for free. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/fahrenheit-911 However, there was no bill number mentioned, and I assume that there is no proposed legislation yet.

Linda Milazzo, in her post “Step Up to Mike’s Challenge” directly forwards more of Moore’s calls to action and is grateful for Fahrenheit 9/11 and his other works. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-milazzo/step-up-to-mikes-challeng_b_316619.html
The way she discusses Moore is reminiscent of the way Flaherty is discussed in Aufderheide’s book Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction. Perhaps that is because Flaherty was known for the bond and affection he had toward those he filmed; it seems that Moore also has a bond and affection for many of those he films -- especially working class poor in Flint, Michigan.

I do not think Fahrenheit 9/11 was solely preaching to the anti-Bush choir, although he probably knew that this choir would support him at the box office. It seems that the documentary was also meant for folks like Lila, the mom who was a staunch supporter of the war until her son died. I think Moore wanted to reach the Lilas of American before their sons and daughters went to war. I don’t remember the previews for this movie, but I hope that it showed a clip of Lila putting up her flag to encourage flag waving war supporters to watch the movie.

I could see why some may argue that Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda, which Aufderheide explains is “made to convince viewers of an organization’s point of view or cause.” In one sense it like the propaganda documentary Listen to Britain, which “celebrat[es] ordinary people” however, Fahrenheit does not have a happy ending and was not made to boost national confidence. Part of Fahrenheit is similar to Triumph of the Will, which focuses on one person, Hitler, in that it focuses on George W. Bush (although focusing on how he is a weak leader and has been less than intelligent for much of his life). Fahrenheit has the opposite purpose of Why We Fight, which explains why the war should or must be fought, and, instead, explains why the war in Iraq is bad. While Fahrenheit may be propaganda in that it clearly attempts to convince the viewer of certain things, it is also informative as are public affairs documentaries.

Farenheit 9/11

I think that Farenheit 9/11 had a lot of political and social impacts. It was clearly anti-Bush which is why it brought up such controversy. Since it was so straight forward and didn't skip around the real issues, it created an upheavel amungst those who were on the opposing side. For me, it's a bit hard to understand how the other side could be so angry when Michael Moore is just stating the truth. I thought that the real footage he chose really showed that Bush's decisions had a huge impact on the rest of the world. The way in which Michael Moore portrayed him was not just an attack against that side, though everyone knows he did not support him, it was more an explanation. But of course, like with all situation with 2 sides, there was disagreement.
I think the way to measure the impact of the film is to listen to what people's reactions were. Even though there was a great deal of people who were against it, that too shows the impact. The movie was so powerful that people had to discuss their feelings about it. I personally was so affected by it. I already felt the same way he did but seeing the Iraqis and Afghans who's lives were destroyed because of Bush's decisions to further his own career and not care about the rest of the world's was so heartbreaking. The scenes of injured or dying children and women, who died solely because Bush wanted war all the time, had to have a broader impact.
Like the writer of this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/17/uselections2004.cannes2004 mentions, there were strong reactions to the film and those right there are good proof, I think, that this documentary very much affected the political and social world.
I do not consider it a propaganda piece because unlike propaganda, the facts he is showing the audience are real. He can't fake the footage of Bush not doing anything when he heard about the planes hitting the World Trade Centers or any of Bush's comments. He also could not fake the outcome of all his decisions. I see where the opposing side would be frustrated by it, but to call it a propaganda piece, I think, further just shows they're desire to hide these truths.

OMG, I don't like him 'cuz he fat...

It's actually kind of amazing to me that so few people seemed to take Fahrenheit 9/11 seriously. I know, there are blatant omissions and some obvious bends-of-the-truth, but like anything worth watching, it did make me think.

The amazing thing is that even when the anti-Bush sentiment was in full swing, even when American casualties were soaring in Iraq, even when most Americans should be conversing between each other about the war, most of the people I knew refused to watch this movie due to a few preconceived notions that 1) he is a "commie", 2) he is a liar, and 3) he is a FAT commie liar.

It is not hard to find blogs and articles on the atrocities that Mr. Moore has committed. Take a peek at this famous article written by Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/ . Here, Hitchens points out every omission that Moore commits, and basically rants on about what a scum bag and evil doer Moore because he is not telling the whole story in Farhenheit. But what he fails to address is that this movie was not intended to be the be all end all of truth. It is the view of one man wanting to bring to light what he feels are important conversations that the American public should be talking about. In addition, what Hitchens neglects to see is that his whole profession is based on the same principal of Moore's film: find an angle and try to sell some papers with it. What I do like though is he continues the conversation that Moore starts, and to me this is the main importance of his article.

On the other hand, to call Moore a communist or a propagandist is a gross exaggeration. If anything, Moore capitalizes on current world events by making advocacy films that challenge the way we were taught to think. Whether he is right or wrong is up to the viewer--Moore allows you to believe what you want to believe, and to further look into what you doubt. Whether it is his intention or not, he is asking us to get off our couches, put the video game controller down, and find out something for ourselves. If he was a propagandist, he would be backed by the government and would be reinforcing the governments beliefs--not challenging them. That point aside, I think throwing out the word communist has become an absolute joke. It has been misused in so many ways that the word doesn't even have a definition anymore.

Furthermore, I actually know someone who told me they could not sit through one of his movies because they couldn't stand how fat he is. Fair enough I thought. Maybe that person has dealt with fat issues before. To each their own, right? Nonetheless, I decided to take a look to see if there was any web gems regarding how fat he is. The first hit on the list was this gem: http://wikiality.wikia.com/Michael_Moore. Whoever took the time to publish this site really wanted to get the point that across Michael Moore is fat commie. This is where I start having problems. How does this promote democracy? How does this embrace American values?

I understand that Moore is not liked by certain groups of Americans. That I can accept. In fact, I don't buy into everything Moore presents, and I know just as much as the next man that he's trying to make a buck as well. But what I do know is that democracy is based on the simple notion that the citizens of a democracy must consort between each other in order for the system to properly work. The whole tenets of this system were worked out in a dimly lit tavern over a few sudsy ales. To purposefully neglect an important conversation because that person is fat, a so-called commie, or speaks of a subject you don't agree with is downright un-American and undemocratic. In this blog http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com, at least the author took the time to watch the movies, formulate his own opinion, and start a dialogue with other Americans. To me that is noble, to me that is democratic. To neglect an important conversation due to some preconceived notions should be the new definition of communism.

What happened? How did we get here?

It’s amazing how this film could affect me so greatly six years after seeing it in the theatre when it first came out. I am enraged by the disenfranchisement of the black voters in Florida and the stone wall the Senate gave the congressmen and congresswomen who protested the corruption. Racism thrives. What year are we living in?

Justice

That Justice is a blind goddess

Is a thing to which we black are wise:

Her bandage hides two festering sores

That once perhaps were eyes.

Langston Hughes

Why did Gore roll over and give up so easily?

So many questions arise from the multitude of layers and interconnections Michael Moore uncovers in this film. If you are progressive, you likely appreciate the critical examination Michael Moore gives to the Bush team, the presidential election of 2000, The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, the following wars, as well as the culture of fear that was created post 9/11. If you are conservative or extra sensitive to raw and critical film, Michael Moore probably irritates or aggravates you and Fahrenheit 9/11 is not going to be your cup of tea.

If this film had any political impact it stems from how the film begs one to look deeper and to question the powers that be and exposes how little accountability they have. It exposes the mainstream sources of misinformation, and the lack of critical discourse and investigative reporting in most media in this country. Why are the deep levels of questioning Michael Moore engages throughout Fahrenheit 9/11 fringe? Is it not alright for the people of the U.S. to see the violence and craziness our soldiers are exposed to in Iraq?

Aufderheide described the importance of documentaries linked to public as social phenomena (Aufderheide p. 5). She goes on to include John Dewey’s argument that the public is so important to the health of a democratic society. The public requires means to communicate about shared problems, calling communication the soul of the public. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a provocative means to ask needed questions, and exposes a lack of deep and healthy communication in the mainstream media in the United Sates.

The broader impact of Fahrenheit 9/11 is unclear to me. The film was not about drawing conclusions but asking critical questions. From my exploration of the blogosphere, it’s apparent that the film struck many nerves and hit on many political topics people love to argue about. Therefore, the movie did get people talking or arguing--the right enraged and the left motivated to hustle and organize. Reading in the blogosphere definitely illuminates the division in the politics of this country.

The Man With The Many Hats

How do we measure the cultural impact a political documentary has on its audience? Is it by the ability to sway elections? The insight to start raising serious sociopolitical questions? Or, maybe it's by pissing off people like this guy?? Either way, I'd say, 2 out of 3 is quite impacting, wouldn't you? Fahrenheit 9/11 managed to do exactly these things, with the exception of sending George W. back to his Crawford Ranch to wallow in the dry, hard to breathe, Texas heat. Oh Shucckks!

Four months prior to the 2004 elections, Fahrenheit 9/11, "Michael "Snake Oil Salesman Moore's" seditious political documentary invaded our town theaters, selling his "self-righteous, self-serving, self-interested" message to get us to watch his film so it could gross $222,446,882 and he could buy a few more hats, and ultimately show hilarious scenes of George W's driving technique and Brittney Spears' nationalism .

Michael Moore is by no stretch a visionary. Michael Moore is really not even a good snake oil salesman. I mean, he wears ball caps. He looks like college football fan. But, what he is good at is clearly presenting ideas in a "quasi-believable" fashion that somehow vaguely resembles something of the truth. Sort of. Kind of. Maybe. I don't know. Either way, I'd like to believe Fahrenheit 9/11, when it came out, managed to change some peoples' attitudes toward the events that took place on September 11, 2001. Geez, even this guy is still pissed about the film. I know that when first seeing George W's reaction to the crashes at the World Trade Center, his commander in chief style of handling the situation was just downright impressive. George's reaction to the WTC crashes while at an elementary school, "la la la, la la la, cats, dogs, goats, mice." America's reaction on 9/11, "What the fuck is happening!!!! Where is our president?" But don't get me wrong, this is not a summation of the man's style of leading our country. Maybe this helps?? I'd say this film brings out the worst in Mr. W, and it doesn't need 8 years to prove it to-ya.

All in all, Michael Moore, managed to inform me, while making me and my friends laugh (at obvious parts). I'd say that's pretty remarkable. Most importantly, what Fahrenheit 9/11 managed to do (besides put Michael Moore on every major new station) was tell a story we could all relate and sympathize with. We all know where we were at on 9/11, and what we were doing. But, what ultimately the film managed to successfully do was give restitution for those of us who knew and those of us who didn't know of our government's mishandling of 9/11, before and after. In the end, does it really matter if the film reeks of propaganda? I mean, at least it's coming from a noteworthy side. Could you imagine a rightwinger's doc. of the events that took place on 9/11? Something makes me believe it'd have Sarah Palin in the cockpit of a fighter jet, firing her bazooka, while bald eagles, in synchronized formation create the American flag with this writing inscribed: "This is America, we fight for our freedomsss, and we fucking go to war if we have to!!!" "Liberals die!!" "And Michael Moore especially!!"

Nothing Fair about 9/11

In the film Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore examines the United States in the aftermath of terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001. He shines the spotlight on many of the Bush administrations blunders. He goes about illustrating his ideas in a sarcastic, often snide manner which has generated loads of criticism. He uses edited footage e.g., President Bush continuing to read My Pet Goat for 7 minutes to school children after being told of the attacks, in an attempt to show how foolish or inefficient he is as a president. According to Ellen Goodman of the (Boston Globe) "there were a few too many cheap shots among the direct hits, conspiracy theories among solid facts, and tidbits of propaganda in the documentary. Going for jugular, he sometimes went over the top." She describes common feelings of the film shared in cyberspace. I think that his antics coupled with his film techniques lost the ability, to what I imagine he originally sought out to accomplish, change peoples minds. Ultimately he hoped his film would influence the election, Moore mentioned "this may be the first time a film has this kind of impact," (USA TODAY). Unfortunately for him in 2004 George W. Bush was re-elected.

However Fahrenheit 9/11's impact socially can't be denied. Documentaries let alone political documentaries rarely if ever receive the attention Michael Moore's film did. It only took a week for his film to become the highest grossing documentary of all time (Time.com); that's quite a feat. A buzz was definitely generated by this film. People were engaged and talking. His arguments inspire conversation and may lead some to express their disagreement with foreign policy. Documentary Film (pg 78) He provided a platform that some may have not ceased before viewing Fahrenheit 9/11.

I feel that Fahrenheit 9/11 has made a lasting political and social impact. The documentary was confrontational with a flurry of information, albeit biased information. The documentary has been torched by the right and heralded by the left. This documentary has spurred dialogue about 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, civil rights, war profiteers and war in general.

The film is not a complete and objective account of Bush, 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, all documentaries are biased. As Aufderheide states, manipulation and distortion of reality is inherent to filmmaking. Similar to "Walmart: The High Price of Low Cost", Moore was not looking to provide a balanced discussion. He focused on representing the problems.... Bush's Saudi connections, assaults on civil rights, fear mongering, the military's exploitation of poor inner city youth, etc.

The film did preach to the anti-Bush choir. However, the film also raised questions in the minds of politically inactive Americans. The film raised more questions than it answered in a provocative way. Moore's use of dialectical montage in contrasting images to create meaning served as a powerful storytelling technique.

Journalist Nicole Laskowski specifically discussed the contrasting scenes of an elder Iraqi woman crying out after her house had been bombed to Britany Spears stating that we should just "trust" the president. Laskowski states that this specific dialectical montage was served as a jarring transition "chastising the Spearite age group and the general ignorance of the American people."

A large number of young Americans watched Fahrenheit 9/11. A demographic that does not usually watch documentaries, especially political documentaries. The importance of whether viewers agree with Moore's point of view is diminished by the inclusion of young Americans and previously inactive Americans to the political debate of the wars we create.

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc47.2005/MMoore/2.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/07/fahrenheit-911-and-its-impact-on.html

http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-reviews/fahrenheit-9-11-michael-moore/

Fahrenheit 9/11

This documentary really bothers me.  It's not that I don't agree with most of what Moore says because I do.  Or, I think I do.  I'm not sure, I think it touches on too many separate issues without fully developing one, two or even three.  It's almost been ten years since the 9/11 catastrophes and over five years since the movie came out.

Like many I have a strong personal connection to the date.  One of the planes flew into my brother's offices on the 83rd floor of the South Tower.  Luckily, he was in Italy, but it was a small company and he lost 60 people.  People he had worked with daily for close to ten years.  He listened to their last phone messages, he attended countless funerals and tried to comfort their families. 

It's such a nightmarish thing to have happened and so frustrating that perhaps it could have been avoided if the right people paid attention to important documents.  I get that Bush was on vacation and played golf a lot during his first months in office but that's an overly simplistic conclusion on how the events could have been avoided.  There is a connection between Saudi Arabians and the Bush family.  Halliburton and others made a lot of money.  There was no reason for us to invade Iraq.  We let Osama bin Laden get away.

Because Michael Moore goes overboard on trying to sell us his ideas.  For instance having members of the US government shake hands with people dressed in robes who were apparently Saudis his message becomes sensationalistic.  I feel like it would have been stronger if it went a little bit deeper on the relationship between the Bush's and the Saudis for instance. 

The fact that soldiers were killed and expressed that they fought for naught is important in itself, as is the ongoing situation that while politicians seem to have time to write laws with hundreds of pages they don't have time to read them.  I feel that if Moore had focused on fewer key points and presented the information in a believable way that maybe Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.  Just documenting problems is not enough.  I feel like there needs to be a way to help spread the message.  When this documentary first came out social media was pretty much limited to Friendster.  Maybe if there had been more social media at the time then it would have had a different impact on the world.   


There is a general page for the film on Facebook. Facebook makes general pages like this for people and products who have not created their own page.  It's similar to a Wikipedia entry.  Currently over 11,000 people like it.  It's interesting that the film is not offered on iTunes but I found a free copy through Veoh. 

The film is on IMDB of course.  There is most recently a link to a news story that Moore is being sued because of a picture of an injured Iraqui girl on his website MichaelMoore.com .  The photographer alleges that Moore suggested that the girl was injured by U.S. soldiers when it was atually a bomb set off by insurgents.

Mapping the Social Impact of Fahrenheit 9/11

One of my first work-study assignments as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was to work with the independent film making unit on campus. The director of the program, a small group of four people, was Jerry Temaner a founding member of Kartemquin, (Gordon Karr, Jerry Temaner, Gordon Quinn) film collective in Chicago. I learned quite a bit about the sheer mechanics of 16mm format documentary film making. The main lesson I learned is developing a topic as well as a point of view about the story to be told is very difficult. It takes a lot of preproduction planning to handle what occurs spontaneously in the field on location. The collective practiced 'Advocacy' film making as referenced in our text "Documentary Film, A Short Introduction"

Kartemquins' first film had been "Home for Life" about life in a nursing home . The funding source for that and their other subsequent films were independent foundations, educational grants and fellowships from non profit groups. Another lesson I learned, from working there and from our text, is that the members of the collective, when making a film, took the point of view of the subject(s), whatever that happened to be ; in other words there was no omnipresent narrator or over arching authority figure to direct the on screen action. They recorded and edited, actual occurrences; no scripted actions, perhaps archival material was used for contextual purposes.

All this to say I am somewhat familiar with the process and work involved in creating a documentary film.

Before entering this class I had never seen Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11", but I had heard other people's opinions about the film, and critical reviews as well as political feelings from radio personalities. But, that was several years ago and those opinions had nothing to do with how I viewed the film now. It appears as though" Fahrenheit 9/11" is a hybrid documentary, it does not fall neatly into any one category or film type. By the definitions given in chapters one and two of Patricia Aufderheide's text, Fahrenheit 9/11 has elements of a Public Affairs documentary in that it presents information here to fore not presented to the public , in the publics' interest; it has characteristics of a propaganda film, the clearly puts forth the view that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were contrived, by the executive branch of government, and war is wrong; Advocacy is evident with the interviews with people both in and out of the armed forces who are not in favor of the were but who were in favor any use of force by the United States government previously; family members of interviews are especially in evidence, giving first person accounts of how their views have been changed.

Additionally, the personal touch has been applied by Michael Moore when he , the director, is one of the participants , on screen, asking members of Congress if they would sign up one their children to fight in the war. Michel Moore is also an on screen interviewer , not in a traditional cross cutting from interviewer back to the subject way, but in a two shot view where the bodies and or faces of both are seen simultaneously.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" was not funded by any government or corporate sponsor, (not directly, but was distributed by one). Therefore, no one other than the film maker himself, and his partners, were responsible for its' content and intent. In trying to tell the story from the start of one war to the start of another, use of archival scenes of official press conferences with speakers such as the President, Secretary of State and Vie President were sued from various times ; these were juxtaposed to show how the speakers contradicted themselves from one speech to another. Additionally, this same technique was used to show how one message can be repeated by government officials and then repeated by members of news and general media, as though they (media) were an echo chamber for the government.

Ultimately, tries to be a chronology of how war was started, why war was supported by government, media and the public; what were the consequences for all those involved. In trying to answer all these questions the film succeeds in being thought provoking. That is its' impact upon society, it Michael Moore's film is a provocative 'act' , it causes people of many political persuasion and views to think , talk about what happened during and after September 11th 2001. This complex film forces people who have seen it, and sometimes those who have not, to discuss, think , and contemplate the facts about what happened on that day as well as the days and years that followed. This is the impact, the affect the film has had on many people, globally.

Here are few of the sites researched and used in this post and for future reference:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fahrenheit_9/11
http://kottke.org/04/06/fahrenheit-911
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/18/173312/462
http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/fahrenheit_911.html

Michael Moore: Bully with a Heart of Gold

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 has been dismissed as a propaganda documentary by many film critics and the political right. But can this really be considered “propaganda” if it represents a minority stance against the government and is made with no government funding? Moore does present a completely biased vision, but what is a public critique if it has no firm voice and independent thought? It is mostly Moore’s approach and filmic techniques that bring his documentary under scrutiny, and, unfortunately, his sarcastic and mocking approach does dampen the effects that this powerful documentary could have amongst non-believers.

Moore presents disturbing facts and backs them up with professional interviews, such as the former federal agent who demands to know why the Bin Laden family was escorted out of the U.S. without being interrogated about their knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts. However, Moore undermines his own authority and believability when he uses goofy music, mockery, and misleading editing (e.g. repeating footage to make it appear longer, as in the case of Bush in the kindergarten classroom) to poke fun and demonize the Bush administration. With his confrontational and antagonistic style of filmmaking, Moore becomes a bully instead of a relatable voice of reason. And no one likes a bully, even when he is fighting for the underdog. Moore doesn’t allow room for people in other camps of thought to agree with the points that he is trying to make. By antagonizing his viewers that do not already share his beliefs, he simply alienates them. This could have been what spurred Christopher Hitchens’ opinion of the film. But, ironically, the journalist attacks Moore with the same techniques that drove the film.

In his Slate.com article, “The Lies of Michael Moore: Unfairenheit 9/11,” Hitchens claims that Moore contradicts himself and demands that concrete lines be drawn in Moore’s arguments. He dismisses Moore as a liar and a hypocrite who can’t make up his mind about whether the Saudis run U.S. policy or not and whether the Bush administration wrongly sent in troops or whether they sent too few. In his bias- and rage-clouded reaction to the film, he takes an aggressively oppositional stance to everything in it and wages a personal attack against the filmmaker. But being an accomplished journalist himself, it is surprising that he wants to view the world in black and white. There is nothing simple in modern government or war. The Saudis do not have to control every aspect of the U.S. government in order to have a considerably heavy influence over the political decisions of its leaders. And it is perfectly appropriate for Moore to demand that A) U.S. troops not be sent to war in the Middle East, and B) If it does happen, that the U.S. send enough troops to give them half a chance at success and safety.

Yes, Moore uses sarcasm and irony to get his points across, as Hitchens complains. But isn’t it interesting that Hitchens himself has a reputation for being an outspoken and stubborn radical? His reactions to Moore’s film (and his general tone) are as unilateral and aggressive as Moore’s filmmaking, especially in his essay’s unsubstantiated attacks on organizations like MoveOn.org. He goes so far as to outwardly challenge Moore. “Any time, Michael my boy, “ he says. “Let’s redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let’s see what you’re made of.” Well, guess what Hitchens? This isn't about you. Hitchens is as biased, unfair, and hysterical as he accuses Moore of being.

Let us not forget that this piece of political critique is, indeed, a movie (albeit made to inform). Bearing this in mind, I explored what the critics have said. The FILM critics, that is...

In his film review, Paul Clinton of CNN declares that “The question isn’t whether “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a fair and balanced look at its subject matter. Of course it isn’t. Rather, is it good filmmaking? The answer is yes.”

And an even greater question: Did the movie meet its goals? To James Berardinelli of Reelreviews.net, “The primary goal of Fahrenheit 9/11 is obvious: Offer evidence that President George W. Bush is an incompetent moron and that his administration is corrupt.” But let’s not be glib. As a documentarian, Michael Moore set out to reveal truth (or in this matter, untruth) and to get a large audience to pay attention to his assertions. However melodramatic, sarcastic, or snarky he may have been, he did, in fact, get the world to notice, think, critique, and discuss the issues that he believed were, as Aufderheide defines as a documentary, “important to understand.” Unlike Bush’s Iraq invasion, this film is a mission accomplished.

Moore Misses the Point

’In accordance with the principles of double-think it does not matter
if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The
war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.’ (George Orwell, 1984; quoted at the end of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11)

Although American support for the Iraq war has been declining, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" failed to gain the massive support of military personal or succeed in booting Bush out of office in the 2004 presidential election. Although this movie very much preaches to the anti-Bush choir, this movie was not made for political junkies or active, voting citizens alone. It was made with the hope that it will be seen by those who have not really been paying much attention or asking questions. Who have, for whatever reason, decided that what happens in the halls of power does not have that much to do with them. It is an impassioned plea to ordinary Americans to "Pay attention!" and as the film pleas with the audience at the end "Do something!", unfortunately it failed to have a widespread impact. President Bush was reelected to a second term and the war continues even today.

Can Moore's work simply be dismissed as propaganda? According to Patricia Aufderheide, "propaganda documentaries are made to convince viewers of an organization's point of view or cause" and they "peddle the convictions not of the filmmaker but of the organization" (Documentary Film, 65). Moore's film is merely an independent one, which although angry and with an implicit goal to be a "direct intervention in public conversation" (78), it is merely the view of one man and does not represent the opinion of an entire organization. Much to the dismay of some who like to try to pass off Moore as merely a puppet of "the Liberals".

Even before its release "Fahrenheit 9/11" garnered controversy when the Walt Disney Company prevented its Miramax division from distributing the film and many people already formed their opinions on the film without seeing it. Although I agree with probably the majority of Moore's politics and think that there were nefarious motivations behind the decision to invade Iraq, I cannot help but disagree with his approach in this film. The movie which many believed would be all about Bush portrayed the army in a negative light to illustrate a point and this lost the broader support he could have garnered from those in the military and their families. While there may be a valid point that soldiers are sometimes thrown into wars with no perspective on how to rationalize killing or come to terms with their friends’ untimely deaths and that this can distort the soldier’s perceptions of right and wrong, this was glossed over in favor of a more simplistic view. Clips of soldiers interviewed on active duty are shown talking about what type of music they listen to in the tanks or they are shown shoving guns into the faces of a crying family with no explanation of why the soldiers are there in the first place. To soldiers who viewed the film they felt they were made to appear at first as psychopathic killers and then as poor kids of color, who are merely acted upon rather than actors in the events shown in the film. These two polar opposites do not take into account the realities of war nor the complexities of humans. There is a complex relationship that exists between the war experience and storytelling and Moore fails in his endeavor by refusing to get out of the way and to let the story tell itself.

By showing the horrors of war in graphic unflinching detail, Moore is attempting to shock the viewer and this blend of news footage and filmed commentary is occasionally effective, particularly when Moore lets the footage speak for itself. Unfortunately, he is unable to do this and must constantly inject himself into the film, with voice-over narration of jokes and amusing pictures/clips that are deemed more valuable than convincing logic; presenting crucial information in a manner that is irrefutable is less important than the slapdash connections he makes between various facts and events. The clear implication is that the truth is not only radical, but too radical to be part of an acceptable mainstream dialogue.

The (Un)Impactful Fahrenheit 9/11

Michael Moore attempted to avoid the anti-Bush sentiment throughout the film to appease a broader audience, but ultimately, I feel the documentary was unsuccessful. With an opening release date of 25 June 2004, the war continued with little to no real opposition and the Bush administration was preparing to win a re-election. While the film successfully gnawed at my emotions, I could not help but feel underwhelmed by the documentary as a whole.

There were very intense war visuals that I really would have been fine with not seeing, again. I served in Iraq from Aug 2003 to Mar 2004 as a combat medic in Fallujah. I know the average American does not get to see the realities of war, but I think a strong, educated message could have been depicted without the violence and carnage of war on film. Sometimes during the documentary I felt Michael Moore had too many things he wanted to say, or maybe felt needed to be said that made the film feel almost accommodating to an apathetic audience.

I had a difficult time finding people who agreed with my unique sentiments in cyberspace. When I was searching for veteran responses to the film, I found lawsuits from injured soldiers that were featured in the film without permission: the young man with missing limbs talking about his experiences and difficulties of being an amputee (http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/31/wounded-soldier-sues-michael-moore/) and a whole lot of blogs with words like bluegrass, red state, conservative and patriot in the titles. Some went through great lengths to counter and discredit Moore, making sure that Americans knew that soldiers voted almost four to one for Bush and his re-election (Fact No. 38 http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/.)

The tragedy of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent wars to follow are going to be remembered by those who experienced the horrific events first hand and I know the impact of the film Fahrenheit 9/11 will never come close. I appreciate the time and energy that went into compiling all of the footage and information, no matter the validity of every claim. I will always remember the war and the impact it had on my life and the lives of my fellow soldiers, but this documentary will be easily forgotten. Nothing has changed in the years following the film and I have little hope change is coming.

F9/11: The Temperature at Which Fox News Fumes

I first saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in the theater. Many of my young, liberal compatriots and I needed this movie to assuage our rage at this dull president who definitely did not have a reputation for progressive ideas. I already despised Bush for his thoughts on pro-choice rights, fondness for Creationism and religion in general, lack of concern for gay rights, his attacks on stem cell research, and general butchering of the English language. Fahrenheit 9/11 speaks to the choir. Much like Religulous, it picks an easy target, caters to a built in audience, and then rips away with the satirical remarks. Which I like. Though I do enjoy Maher more than Moore. The first ten minutes showcases many confused looks on Bush’s face and recaps how he robbed Al Gore. Which, he did. Jeb was indeed governor and the great state of Florida (my home state) had the ugliest voting mishaps.


I don’t think that the film had a good deal of political influence. It maybe stirred up conspiracy theory buffs a little more. Bush still got another four years. It did, however, have a social impact. It is the highest grossing documentary ever. Seriously, ever. It grossed over $222 million. I think Moore’s brand of sensationalism and showmanship appeal to the left due to our lack of Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters. It also got a depressed left fired up again. I never had any productive conversations about the film. I had just started at the University of South Florida and was involved with the few liberal groups we had on campus. My mom thinks Moore is Satan. The Young Republicans table handed out fliers also claiming Moore was Satan. My friends and I continued to think Bush was a dolt. The film did not have the political influence to cause frenzy or fervor (like a propaganda film often does) but it did make people on both sides of the line angry. I’m surprised Bill O’ Reilly didn’t have an aneurysm. People love to talk about what makes them angry. Michael Moore has made four of the ten highest grossing documentaries ever (Capitalism: A Love Story, Bowling for Columbine, Sicko, and Fahrenheit 9/11). He definitely gets people talking about issues they otherwise may not and that always has an impact.


I love Christopher Hitchens but he is off base when he compares Moore’s film standards to Riefenstahl’s. He didn’t whip any kind of nationalist fervor even if he spurred some to create those obnoxious 9/11 truth groups. The film is definitely not propaganda. Aufderhide even defends more against critics’ claim of the film being propaganda by stating “Moore is not a minion of the powerful as propagandists are.” (20) He has no authority over the citizenry and has no political power to gain. Aufderhide does not classify the film as an advocacy film either because Fahrenheit 9/11 mobilize people for a action on a specific cause or issue (78). It is biased though. He has a montage of the Bushes fraternizing with Saudi elites set what I believe is REM. Later, he splices together contradictory news clips where some encourage citizens to fly and buy things while others talk of the heightened security and to avoid flying. Moore’s movie can even be seen as counterpropaganda because propaganda enforces the rules of society (Aufderhide, 77) rather than challenging them. It’s at least fun and makes me laugh. Oh, and you get to see Ashcroft sing. Really?


For more mixed feelings:
Doublethink
Filthy Critic
Proper Propaganda

Seriously Michael, What's Your Point?

I'm all for advocate films. I want to see/hear someone's rational* point of view especially if it doesn't necessarily jive with my point of view. The reason? Because ultimately, until we actually listen to dissenting voices and then debate those points using coherent and logical reasoning, all we end up with are hissy fits promoting juvenile arguments that devolve into shouting matches akin to a five year old yelling "blah blah blah - i don't hear you"
(*rational being the operative word, btw)

Documentaries, especially political activism films such as Fahrenheit 9/11, typically reinforce the beliefs of the like-minded rather than convert dissenters (Documentary Film, pg 71). That said, F911 grossed $222 million worldwide (boxofficemojo.com); unheard of for a documentary, and hugely successful for an entertainment film. Put another way, F911 grossed 100 times the average political documentary's gross receipts. (boxofficemojo)
So who saw this movie and why?

According to Byron York of the National Review (nationalreview.com) "blue" states watched the movie MUCH more and more frequently than did "red" states. Which we probably knew already. That said, one of the social impacts of the film for "liberals" was notable; the movie fostered verbalization of the then Age of Democratic Discontent**. And for this, a gander at the political climate of 2003/4 is in order.
(** oh what a quaint and naive time it was back then)

Democrats were robbed of a president***, we went to war with Iraq for stuff plotted in Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia, we were told to shop like hell to help the troops****, and more often than not President Bush was speaking in malapropisms that were kind of baffling*****, meanwhile team Cheney/Rove/Ashcroft appeared to defy the underpinnings of the US government structure (that, when used as intended, is waaaaay cool) which they, in theory, held near and dear to their hearts.
(***ALLEGEDLY; **** for reals, remember those shopping bags in all the shop windows and Mayor Brown delighting that mantra?; ***** i'm petrified to speak in public, so i can't really hold my favorite "strategery" against him.)

Enter Michael Moore - pissed off film maker, liberal and damn proud of it.

I was one of those Facepalming Frustrateds when F911 came out. And I believe one of the movie's social impacts was its role as a discussion catalyst; it gave many disenfranchised folks sorely needed discussion points to yell in all directions. So as noted in Documentary Film (pg 78), context matters. In this case, the political climate for disenfranchised democrats was ripe for a rally cry.

So why the poopy title? Because I'm a simple girl from a big city. The first half of the film seemed to be a one-man crusade to ridicule and rid US citizens of President George W. Bush and Friends using lighthearted music (vacation montage), pithy commentary (7 minutes of the Goat Book, anyone?) and all-out image manipulation (Gore's Florida "victory" celebration was actually a political rally).
(caveat: I thought some of it was quite was funny)

The second half was a much more serious and critical tome of why we went to war (oil?, Bush Sr.?, WMDs?, tyranny? - I still don't know), how Congress was convinced to go to war (For the record: Iraq *Not Equal To* 9/11. I don't care what Condaleeza Rice said.), what impact the wars were/are having on soldiers (Do not squander finite precious resources without serious thought or at least an exit strategy.), and who was actually *winning* the wars (one word: Halliburton. (finance.yahoo.com and set the starting date at 12/31/2000)).

Part 1, one man's opinion served up as dark comedy. Part 2, advocacy bordering on propaganda... mostly in style since no government dollars were spent to promote a specific point of view but then again no alternative points of view were offered either. (Documentary Film, pg 77-78) So really, what should we call it? And did it do what it was supposed to do?

The reaction to F911 was fairly heated on both sides of the aisle. Inaccuracies were highlighted all over the place (moorewatch.com, spinsanity.org, counterpunch.org, - but hey, I'm up for a good debate and rational arguments like these - see above). Rebuttal films sprang up like spring wheat in fertile soil. (Celsius 41.11, Fahrenhype 9/11 - all *fine* and hey, even First Amendmenty - except from what I've seen and read of these movies, more so the former, it's a lot of fear and flag waving w/out much substantive debate).

But the real reason for my title is I think Michael Moore's F911 had one other major impact that we still feel today. The movie promoted patriotic soundbites and pictures but ultimately was, in my opinion, the start for the great political divide that we suffer with today (allacademic.com). There's serious blockage in Congress right now and it's really ugly. Nothing is getting done and compromise (hey another supposed underpinning of our government!) is seen as weakness not to mention that 60 is the new-math majority. Meanwhile cable television's best ratings are driven by extreme rants rather than quick-witted debates and folks win elections on pithy comments and inane endorsements (themudflats.net) rather than from the ability to make hard but good decisions. Yeah, let's all just listen to our own existing opinions and block everything else out. Sure that'll work. But be careful, if you eliminate diversity the gene pool gets really wacky really quickly.

Full disclosure: I'm borderline socialist. I believe in universal access to healthcare, public schools w/ great teachers, a RATIONAL immigration policy, fair taxes, infrastructure spending (potholes and MUNI anyone?), and meat processed in non-toxic ways. I believe in those things, and am willing to pay for those things (see taxes above), because I'm also a capitalist. I believe all these are wise and necessary long-term investments that should ensure the health and wealth of this country.
Oh, and I really liked that F911 brought to light some somewhat odd relationships (Carlyle Group) and I thought the primping-for-tv scenes were really cute (and let's be real - every Democrat in office does that too******).
(****** well maybe not spit on the comb, but that's just old school)
/full disclosure


ps. i fully expect the first comment to be "Too Long Didn't Read"

photo credits: http://williamm49.blogspot.com/2009/12/daily-poem_5116.html; http://www.lolblog.co.uk/2008/10/facepalm-2/

response to farenheit 911 film

i never knew John Ellis was George Bushes cousin and how was Bush so sure he would win over the state of Florida that was really weird, Bush had a lot of family and friends in very high places, i think he some how knew he was going to win the election, i also found it very strange how no senators from Florida would sighn the bill and help the African American voters with doubt, it was also strange how they never shown all of the people throwing eggs at his limo and all of the angry distrought people that showed up at his inoguration, i loved how the film refered to Bush as a lame duck who when the people started to ask questions ran out to go on a long vacation, he told Michael Moore to behave himself and to go find some work, i found it hilarious, however i do not know if this film had very much political influence because its all conspiracy theories who knows if any of its one hundred percent accurate or true, seven percent of America is owned by Saudi Arabian princes i do not think so, also it is weird how he sat in the classroom reading books to children when the shit hit the fan, excuse my language. i enjoyed the film found it very intriguing and i loved the sarcasim.http://www.farenhype911.comhttp://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/farenheit_911http://www.michaelmoore.comhttp://www.myspace.com/dfrias420

Fact or Fiction

After watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I had my doubts as to the factuality of the entire documentary. There are plenty of sites in support of the film, as well as sites in opposition to it. Because of this, it is difficult to discern what is factual, what is fictional, and what is misleading. However, Moore’s intentions are clear.

This films opinion is shared by many, but is put forth by Moore alone. According to Documentary Film, A Very Short Introduction by Patricia Aufderheide, “Propaganda documentaries are made to convince viewers of an organizations point of view or cause,” and usually, that organization is a governing body. Moore produced this documentary to suit his views, not those of a governing body, nor an organized one, so this was not a propaganda piece.

One view point about the film that struck me was this one, written by a soldier. While Army Spc. Joe Roche believes Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a lie, he does not address the soldiers in the film who denounce the war. I assume Moore did not directly influence the soldiers he interviewed, but his viewpoints obviously influenced many who had not given any thought as to what they were fighting for, who they were fighting, and the destruction they were causing.

However, after reviewing the election results for the 2000 presidential election, and the 2004 presidential election, Bush gained more electoral votes in 2004 than he did in 2000, and he also won the popular vote in 2004, something he did not do in 2000. This leads me to believe that Moore did not have a significant impact in the poll booth.

Moore’s intention was not only to get the American public to take a closer look at President Bush; it was a call for oversight on the United States government. Moore wanted citizens to make connections, such as this one presented by John Berger:

[The Film] declares that a political economy which creates colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing poverty, needs - in order to survive - a continual war with some invented foreign enemy to maintain its own internal order and security. It requires ceaseless war.

Do you think Moore’s film may have been more of an attack on what he sees as an ill-informed public? With all the fact checking involved, did you find yourself burned out in doing research to separate truth from fiction? How do you think the American public discerned fact from fiction?

Mapping the Social Impact of Farenheit 9/11

”

Find at least two other blogs, vlogs, websites, Facebook groups, or podcasts that reference Farenheit 9/11 – link or embed the media in your blogpost, and comment on how, or if, you think the documentary had any real political influence or social impact. Make sure to use specific scenes from the film to contextualize your comments, and be clear about how you are measuring the impact of the film in a social context. Make references to the reading and make sure to credit other writer's ideas. Did this documentary just preach to the anti-Bush choir, or did it have a broader impact? How can we measure this? Is Fahrenheit 9/11 a "propaganda documentary" as outlined in Aufderheide's book?