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:
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?
Thanks for this thoughtful post -- think about embedding some video or images next time to expand on your pov.
ReplyDeleteI wonder sometimes if the search for fact or fiction is complicated by the fact that there are so many hybrid forms of documentary, and documentary is no longer expected to be objective necessarily, but may, in fact, contain multiple points-of-view and a complex character-driven narrative. Core audiences for documentary are not necessarily looking for truth as an absolute...but are eager for an authored argument that supports their own ideas, and deepens resolve and engagement around an issue.
"Core audiences for documentary are not necessarily looking for truth as an absolute...but are eager for an authored argument that supports their own ideas, and deepens resolve and engagement around an issue.
ReplyDeleteI understand why and how it happens this way, but I am disappointed that it does. I believe it's important to understand an argument from both sides, regardless of whether you agree or disagree. Having been a part of a speech and debate team a few years back, I eagerly seek facts on both sides, and prefer them presented objectively, unless fun is poked at both sides. Personally, when I watch a documentary like this one, I start wondering how much I should really believe.
Overall, I think I'm disappointed at a majority of the population's lack of autonomy. "So and so said it, so it must be true!" seems to be the only thing most people support their opinions with.
Oh, and thanks for the advice! I will embed next time.
ReplyDelete