Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film by Michael Moore that was released in 2004. Among other claims, it includes the charge that George W. Bush's campaign essentially stole the 2000 election, that Bush was unprepared for 9/11, and that Bush and his top officials mislead the American public while pushing for war with Iraq.
The film has plenty of interesting rhetoric, some of which is a little controversial. For example, after the film's opening credits, the screen goes blank and the audience is left to hear audio recorded during the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. It produces a stunning effect, even for someone who has heard the audio before. Dissociated with any visual cues, the audience is forced to conjure up images themselves when they hear the panicked audio. However, immediately after this isolated audio, Moore begins his charges against Bush's preparedness for the attacks. I personally felt like this was sort of a cheap trick to play to the audience's emotions. Obviously the attack was a catastrophic event that changed the course of American history, but Moore uses audio from the event to get the audience worked up, then attacks Bush. I feel like there was enough factual evidence in the movie to make people angry about Bush's handling of the attacks, and that this device was really unnecessary and probably drew more criticism to the film than was really necessary.
Speaking of the factual evidence, Moore has lots of it. He spends almost twenty minutes of the film documenting the Bush family's business ties to the Bin Laden family. It's an interesting point that raises questions about how much contact the families had prior to and following the attacks. More importantly, all of it is made using actual documents and facts, which I feel is more unilaterally effective than Moore's emotional appeals, because those tend to come off as cheap and tawdry. Much of the opposition to this film came from people who thought that Moore was kind of a bully, which honestly, I can understand. That shouldn't get in the way of the good points that he makes, but unfortunately, it does for some portions of the audience.
That's not to say that the film doesn't have sincerely powerful moments. At the end of the movie, Moore follows a mother whose son died in Iraq as she visits the White House for closure. She breaks down weeping, giving a face to some of the human suffering that has been a result of the war in Iraq. It's extremely touching, and is enough to get anyone to at least reconsider the war effort. Regardless of political affiliation, one must take this woman's pain seriously and recognize it as genuine. The fact that there are many more mothers who have lost children in the war only strengthens Moore's argument that war should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. Obviously Moore believes that the Iraq War is not necessary, and his arguments center around that. The effect of the emotional appeal at the end of the movie is likely conditional upon the political beliefs of each viewer, but in no way can the woman's pain be ignored.
I probably didn't speak enough about the controversy here. It's a pretty big deal, as we talked about in discussion. There were some people who didn't go into the movie with an open mind because Michael Moore was associated with it. Given Moore's editing and narration techniques, I'm not sure I can blame anyone for feeling that way.
ReplyDeleteThis particular point led to a discussion about Moore's persona vs. Moore's intentions with the movie. I felt like Moore was honestly trying to make points that he felt would ultimately help America, but he did so with little tact, and that turned a lot of people off of the film. This is unfortunate, because he did have some solid arguments, but he really doesn't have anyone to blame but himself for his provocative style. He probably feels that it's the best way to prove his point, but it can really turn the audience against him.