”
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?
Michael Moore may not be the kind of documentarian that tries to employ any shade of objectivity to his investigations but that doesn’t make Fahrenheit 9/11 a propaganda. No political party or government stood to gain by this film. Since Michael Moore financed the film himself and did not use it to gave political power, it is not propaganda. According to Patricia Aufderheide’s definitions, Fahrenheit 9/11is an advocacy film because it advances the agenda of only Michael Moore, a civilian operating in the public sphere of interest.
ReplyDeleteI am bothered by the contradiction between the film’s earlier portrayal of the military as a violent, ignorant bunch of soldiers who are unbothered if not turned on by the viscera of war, and how they are depicted later as poor, innocent victims; members of such a poverty stricken demograph that they are easy prey to insatiable recruiters. To me, some of Michael Moore’s credibility iis minimized because of this contradiction. In the beginning he seems to portray the troops as part of the problem, and later he says they are the most innocent victims of the problem.
In the Slate article, Christopher Hitchens discusses the apparent contradictions in Michael Moore’s agenda as well, implying that Moore changed his opinion on Bin Laden himself. I disagree with most of Hitchen’s assertions (and I am usually a fan of Hitchens). Hitchens is bothered by the fact that early Moore stated that Bin Laden is only as guilty as can be proven in a court of law. I don’t see why this is inconsistent with his stance on Bin Laden later. In Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore never implies that Bin Laden should or would not be tried in a court of law, he just points out the the many links between bin Laden and the Bush family, with the suspicious result that that relationship prevented the Administration from making a real effort to catch Bin Laden. We hear evidence that they used the 9/11 attacks to accomplish other goals like wiretapping Americans and invading Iraq. Oh, and to make a staggering profit as well. Michael Moore summed it up so well at the end of the film: “Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous.”
After watching the film I googled “Fahrenheit 9/11 impact” to see what came up. This website: http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRIraqFahrenheit911704.html popped up which features letters written by service members who felt “ashamed” by the film. I was intrigued and wanted to see what they had to say. Joe Roche wrote “Moore has abused the First Amendment and is hurting us worse than the enemy has. There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren't familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven't been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore's." This film in no way abused the First Amendment; if anything the film fully exercised the rights given under Numero Uno. This soldier seems to say that he resents or feels embarrassed that people like Moore want to deabte the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. As a taxpayer, I feel like it is our utmost responsibility to debate war. War is not only incredibly expensive but also incredible deadly and I cannot find something more worthy to debate about as a means of avoiding it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Simply put, propaganda is education." (Statement made by John Grierson in Documentary Film By Patricia Aufderheide Pg.74) I do believe Michael more wanted to educate people, but I feel he wanted to raise awareness more then anything. Raise questions. If we compare this to Leni Riefenstahl's piece Triumph of Will, it was made to educate the German people into believing they should "serve Hitler as an equivalent of the nation." (pg. 68) That wasn't left up for debate; no questions. That's why this should be qualified as an advocacy documentary instead. It's Michael Moore's way of mobilizing action.
ReplyDeleteI feel this film had a louder short term effect but also a subtle long term effect on the population.
When it comes to short term, the film definitely had people riled up and creating blogs like http://f911.blogspot.com/Fahrenheit 911 (and a half) to post their opinions and questioning of the government. Also John Berger wrote a piece for the UK Guardian (http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-berger310804.htm) glorifying this film and urges reader to ask the question Moore does in the final minutes of the film, "How will we survive?" Berger states: "There is no future for any civilization anywhere in the world today which ignores this question". When we see images of Iraqi children with their limbs blown off or American mothers weeping for their fallen son's like Ms. Lila does toward the end of the film, we can't help but instantly feel we need to take some form of action. But the sad truth of this is given a little time something else comes along which grabs our attention and suddenly makes a larger impact on us. Like when Moore came out with The Ugly Truth global warming because the next thing to encompass the social network. For the most part the Fahrenheit 9/11 websites and blogs were written years ago, like John Berger's in 2004, or spun off onto a whole new subject like Fahrenheit 911 (and a half) which their last posting was in 2007 and was about Obama's website design.
I do believe that this film did have a subtle long term social effect though. It, like many other documentaries, has got us questioning the validity of our government for longer then the "right now" period. Moore has helped raise points and even bring points to new light that people might not have known. For example I had no idea Bush and other members of his Cabinet had so many ties into benefits of the 9/11 aftermath, like Cheney and Halliburton. This as well as many other points I believe will be in the back of people's minds when they vote on the next President, or see a clip of our troops overseas. It helps open people's minds.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Documentaries are part of the public media that help us understand not only our world but our role in it, that shape is as public actors.” This is from Patricia Aufderheide book: Documentary film. I think ideally documentaries have a moral obligation to the public. I have watched this documentary many times now. The first time I watched it was in a history class I had in high school. At this point in my life, I was somewhat conservative and believed in the Bush administration because I thought I didn’t know all the information and they must want the best for our country. This documentary did not persuade me to be on my Michael Moore’s side but it did get my brain jogging and forming my own ideas. Since high school, I have joined and worked for many organizations and have become more progressive and active in the community. I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 again earlier this week and it was more persuasive because I am at a different stage in my life. I also agree with some of the stuff he says. In the doc. Moore talks about the army recruiting inner city kids. I can attest to this. After 9/11 it seemed like every high school in L.A. had army and navy recruiters. I have friends who have joined because they said there wasn’t anything else they can do. One friend was sent to Afghanistan a week after her graduated and spent a couple of years there. His best friend (19 yrs. Old) died next to him from a bomb. It was hard for me to objective or neutral because I can put faces to the issue and deaths. According to Howard Zinn, you cannot be neutral.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Patricia A. outline of propaganda, I do not think that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a propaganda film. “Propaganda documentaries differ from other documentaries in their backers, who are agents of the state-the social institution that sets and enforces the rules of society, ultimately through force.”(-Pg. 77 ) There was no backing from the government for this film.
I think this film made a social impact in our society because it got people questioning and looking for answers. It is still shown in many classrooms and discussed. If it didn’t make an impact than I don’t we would still talking about it.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/09/71753
http://911blogger.com/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh 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.