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:
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
Oh Michael Moore....... I am so glad that people like you are in the world. Like Mr. Moore or not I think he brings a lot to the people. I think he opens a lot of peoples eyes to the hidden truths,he does a lot more then just makes films. He gets people thinking. I know after watch a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 that I find in the following days talking to many of my friends and family members about what is really going on with this Iraq war business. I think Michael Moore makes a very big impact socially and also think from a political influence he keeps people in the White House on their toes! With Michael Moore having 3 of the top 5 grossing documentaries, his word carries a lot of weight!
ReplyDeleteI like this video on YouTube that I found with Michael Moore talking to David Letterman about making the film 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-iCuj27EII&feature=related
It's nice to hear directors speak of their films to see where they are coming from and what they were think while making a film.The fact that he had problems releasing this film in America makes me question the reasoning behind the war (among the hundreds of other reasons why we shouldn't be over there).
A few different scenes from the movie that struck me during the film was the lady torwards the end of the movie who was crying and reading the letter from her son who died oversea. I could not imagine losing a loved one fighting a war that seems so pointless. Many people in this country continue to live the nightmare that lady and thousands of other familes have gone through. I have a cousin who just this month returned from Iraq. While he is home safe with no wounds, I wonder how it will affect him mentally in the years to come.
As I watched this film I noticed how many dumb things our president said back then. He was the leader of this country and he sounds like such a moran!! It seems like with the Bush family EVERYTHING comes down to money. How can we and our friends get richer. They don't care about the average family in America, well maybe only when it's time to get their vote.
I did come across some links talking about a sequel for Fahrenheit 9/11. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=44954
But, It talked about a release in 2009 and I haven't found one that has come out. I would really be interested in a follow up and how much of an impact the first movie made.