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.

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?