I am sure that there will be quite a few papers this semester that focus on the impact of film on the American public this election. While other years have concentrated on television and radio, this year it seemed that the public not only had access to information, but also to different coherent versions of what the stakes of the election were in film form. The American publics reaction to this new, somewhat difficult medium for news, was fascinating. Was it a result of distrust for the standard news organizations? Was it propaganda? It is easy to classify “ Primary Colors” or “Bob Roberts”as satire instead of news because they are fiction. With the new genre of docu-dramas we are at a more difficult crossroads, and questions must be asked of both the factuality of the information as well as the motivations of the people behind the funding. To watch these films is to offer oneself up to an overloading of stimuli, and I think the closest communication theory to this is the “single-bullet” theory, and most people come out affected. I hesitate to call it propaganda because I would hate to think of people paying money for propaganda, but that is what really good propaganda would do. These films certainly polarized the country and began what will probably be a new age of journalism. We can only hope it is one where responsibility to the truth outweighs political motivations.
In researching this paper, and in an attempt to stay informed, I have tried to see many of the political films that have come out these last few years, but the list is very long, and there are some that I missed. I would like to base this paper on comparing and contrasting Michael Moore’s Farenhiet 9/11 with it’s identical conservative opposite, Farenhype 9/11. There are quite a few others though, Bush’ Brain, Bush Family Fortune, Going Upriver, Uncovererd and assorted other f/911 take-offs that are certainly worthy of attention. The media has an extremely important role to play in order for our democratic society to work properly, and the fact that films, which have always been about “suspending your disbelief “ have become a forum for current affairs says a lot about how well the public thought of the media’s agenda setting. The public seems more likely to “suspend their disbelief “ in regards to the conventional medias take on things.
Michael Moore is an unlikely canidate for superstardom, but his first film “ Roger & Me” revolutionized the publics idea of documentary. There was something likable and comical about this david and goliath formula that garnered him much praise and credibility in the liberal media. His next few projects in the late eighties and early nineties found him writing books, filming movies and working on a television show for, I believe, Fox called “TV Nation”. All these projects held a common theme of standing up for the little guy and against corperate tyranny.And, for the most part while Moores agenda was oriented to the left, the was little sympathy for Bill Clinton and other moderate democrats who were soft on issues deemed important to Moore and his Staff. In the late ninties he found himself with another T.V. show on the B.B.C. called The Awful Truth, where he had his first run-in with the then Govenor Bush while attempting to convince Bush to engage in a mosh-pit for the shows support. The show ended before the election in 2000, with Moore’s non-chalont “ Hey, theres always Ralph Nader, right?”
The election of George Bush in 2000 and the controversy that ensued did not provoke a reaction in film from Moore until 2004 when F/911 came out. But, his books “ Stupid White Men “ and “ Dude, Where’s my country?” as well as his oscar award winning film “ Bowling for Columbine.” Kept the publics conscience on alert during a period of time when dissent was not tolerated well. I would have to agree with Michael Niemans review of F/911 in artvoice that it was certainly not the film that Bowling for Columbine was. But I feel it served a different purpose, and that purpose was to stimulate Americans into taking part in democracy again. I feel like this goal was accomplished with the help of F/911.
There has been speculation that because of some of the footage in the film, the films original backers, Disney, held the film from being released for a year after it was completed. Strangly enough, the Abu Garib scandal that broke a few months before the films release and a few months after the films completeion, was shockingly similar to footage used in Moores film. Never the less, the film was hailed by international critics and Americans began demanding it’s release in the states. The interesting thing is that the film, like most of Moore’s work, consisted of a lot of information that was readily available to the public. The public was more interested to see it shown through Moores lens, if you will. Or perhaps a two hour film is about as much time as anyone wanted to put into their political views. That is why, no matter how hard it is for me to say, F/911 is a propaganda piece and not a documentary, because not only was it highlighting what Moore in specific wanted to point out about the presidents foibles, but that is what the paying audience expected to see. Again, the single bullet theory.
Moore’s films have a tendency to be able to draw emotion from the everyday people that are featured in them. This has been one of the strengths of his films, highlighting the everyday person who had a wrong righted. Although F/911 does not have the plot contextualization that “Bowling for Columbine” had, and is much more formulaic and slick in comparison to it’s predecessors, it does have a lot of the basic frameworks employed by Moore in his other films. The style of confrontational interview remains, though somewhat muted, and the story ends, like his others, with questions and suggestions, not any sort of climax. A big difference in this film is the material that was used was often stock footage, and it needed to be wrangled, if you will, into context with the plot line as it moved. But, this footage was necessary for the message being portrated, and it was done effectively. But I think, the lack of cinematography perhaps gave the movie a more B movie quality than it deserved. Still, when it was released, it quickly became obvious that while the journalists in America did not want to ask the president the tough questions, the American public wanted to hear some answers. Or perhaps more simply, the American public wanted to watch a president who did not like to be watched.
F/911 begins with the election in 2000 and proceeds chronologically from there. It has five basic parts, ending with Iraq. I think Moore capitalized on peoples expectations of this film by keeping the most disturbing footage until the end. The opening sequence continues from the election coverage, where Moore asserts that Bush’s cousin, John Ellis, gave the call for Fox News to declare Bush the winner in Florida. As the film moves post election, it highlights the attempts by African American representatives to object the supreme courts ruling. When they are unable to find a senator to co-sign the petitions, the task of telling them to be quiet and sit down falls to Al Gore, who was still obligated to fufill his role as vice president. This was not a story that the American public paid much attention to after the election, and the emotional outbreaks of the representatives adds much weight to the argument of voter disenfrachisement. The movie then moves on to footage of the presidents inauguration ceremony and the large protest that was also covered with limited interest by the mainstream media at the time. These opening shots of dissent reinforce the idea that dissent is patriotic, and may even serve to justify the film’s dissenting opinions. Since one of Moore’s common themes is “if you have something to say, stand up and say it.”these opening scenes are familiar ground for fans of Moore, and probably have the effect of putting people who are less familiar with his work into a state of accepting dissent.
Then, after a montage of quotes from GWB during his first months in office and an assertion by Moore that the president was on vacation 42% of the time, the film opens and we are confronted, once again with the horrors of Sept. 11. Moore does a very efficient and beautiful job dealing with this tragic event. I think if one were to rule out political motivation in F/911’s subsequent award wins, this scene was well enough done to deserve the prize. Opening with just the sound of the planes hitting and the reaction from citizens below, Moore avoids showing any footage that could be considered in bad taste, even going so far as to barely even feature the towers at all. I think it is because he had already used the WTC footage in “Bowling For Columbine” but the F/911 scene does a good job of capturing the horror of that day without appearing to try too hard. I think, perhaps, it also lulls the viewer into a false sense of security that the bait and switch technique that Moore often uses to juxtapose the American Dream with brutal reality, may have been left behind. Moore then makes claims about the presidents ties to Saudi Arabia, and the amount of money they have invested in our country. These claims are somewhat justified by Moore’s being detained by secret service men outside of the Saudi Arabian Embassey in Washington. The practice of guarding ambassadors with secret service men is strange, and I remember thinking about supreme court justice Souter being attacked last summer and wondering why we would protect Prince Bandar more than Justice Souter. By this time in the film, most viewers have pretty much given themselves over to Moore’s propaganda piece. So much information has been thrown at them that it would be impossible to digest it all while still paying attention to the film. For the few people who may have already had access or interest in the information contained, the visual images of Ex President GHWB and others in the current Bush administration shaking hands and hugging Saudi officials in the name of Big Oil provides a stark face of reality to place upon conspiracy theory. I think these images have a big impact on audiences, and help to continue Moores point that perhaps President Bush does not always have America as his top priority. The connections made to the Carlyle group and other accusations come so fast that it is difficult to do anything but just accept the premise and allow oneself to make the same connections the filmmaker makes.
The third and fourth part are on the War in Afganistan and the homeland security department. Moore does an excellent job paralleling Bush saying “ We’re going to smoke him out.” Referring to Osama Bin Ladin, with footage from old Cowboy movies containing the same line. Assertions are made that the war in Afganistan was motivated more by hopes to launch an oil pipeline than to capture America’s most wanted fugitive. With Bin Ladin now “marginalized” as opposed to “smoked out”, most Americans might tend to agree that the purpose of the war in Afganistan did not really complete it’s goal. Moore moves on to include Halliburton into the pipeline scheme, nicely tying together the different people who were involved and showing their connections with the Bush Administration. The intent is to leave the viewer thinking that the country is run by corperate interests, and to the viewer, the accusations seem justified.
Homeland Security is scrutinized, taking careful aim at the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and it’s possible implications on our civil liberties. Since the cases are less sinister, and the people in charge seem bungling, this part does not have the effect that I think the material warrants. Moore’s main purpose in setting up this section, is to convince the viewer that we were scared into believing the information that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. One particularly poigniant scene is an interview were it is said that the American people are being told to “sit down and roll over at the same time.” An assertion I think many people can agree with in regards to the climate of opinion at the time. The tone of the film so far has been rather lighthearted, focusing on everyday people and their fears, with the only really jarring moment coming when grainy footage of a public beheading in Saudi Arabia was used to highlight the Saudi human rights problems. As the film moves into the war in Iraq, the tone changes dramaticly.
The war in Iraq retains the largest amount of attention in this film and also contains the films most disturbing scenes. I think that the films lightheartedness was a ploy to set people up for the horrors of war that were to come. As the scenes unfold, the viewer is greeted with horrific tape from Iraq, with the families of the dead weeping and holding the bodies of those they love. From then on the film bombards the viewer with negative imagry and stories. Moore introduces Lila Lipscomb, a social service worker and fellow Flint native, while talking about the poverty in Flint that causes so many undreprivlaged kids to join the military. This introduction and the subsequent scenes with Mrs. Lipscomb are another brilliant directorial choice by Moore. By introducing her as an expert in poverty, and then moving on to the fact that she has a son in the military, Moore plays on the audiences convention of his films, where many of the people interviewed are only featured in their respective single appearances, and that most of the time, when Moore has a camera in an office building, the interviewee is less than likely to wish to continue the conversation. When she continues to be part of the story line, viewers are made to be aware of her sons death in the war, but because Moore introduces her as an expert in poverty and not a grieving mother, the viewer’s sympathy is earned instead of just assumed. This is a powerful method of bringing the realities of war home to those who may be unaffected by it currently. When she weeps while reading her son’s last letter from the war, or in front of the White House, viewers share her rage. Moores’ skillful use of her story and the live footage of troops in Iraq offered Americans what they had hoped for going into this movie, the untold story behind the war, but I think it also has the effect of re-sensitizing people to the horrors of war. By de-mistifying the war with disturbing footage of the children, soldiers and families literally torn apart, Moore forces Americans to let go of their grip on the sensationalized violence of video games and Hollywood, and to face the realities of our foreign policy.
F/911 ends by asking if our troops will ever be able to trust that we will never send them into harms way with out sufficient reason. With the overloading of information in relation to the president and his involvement in business deals in the middle east, I think with the exception of the most die hard consevative, most people would walk away from this film agreeing with most of Moores assertions. That is what makes it such an excellent example of propaganda. In the wake of the election, although Bush did win again, I think it is safe to say that this film had an enormous impact on the interest in politics on both sides of the fence. For those that agree with Moore, the film delivered a strong argument that Americans could cite during debates and offered a lot of unknown or previously underknown information. For those that disagree, it offered a target for them to debunk, and it was not long before the Right responded in kind with Farenhype 911, a film that attepts to debunk from a conservative view, the assertations made by Moore in F/911.
Farenhype 9/11 features such conservative luminaries as Anne Coulter and Ron Silver. The suprising thing is the addition of Dick Morris,Ed Koch and Zell Miller, democrats. Koch provides insights into 9/11 and Miller’s home spun analogies give the conservative democrats point of view regarding the importance of the war on terror. Morris relates personal insights into President Clinton’s presidency and the former presidents reluctance to challenge Al Quaada in the late nineties. The film opens with Moore saying “ There is no terrorist threat.” And then the debunking begins. Amid a few pieces of President Bush in a more presidential light, the movie focus’s on Moore’s intent and the importance of both the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq.
The examples of falsity in F/911 all point to Moore intentionally distorting the facts in his case in an unscrupulous manner. Most of the major points in F/911 are debunked, from the involvement of Uno-Cal in the Afganistan pipeline, to the vacation time that Bush had during his first months in office. The experts come from well respected think tanks in Washington, and seemed baffled at many of F/911 assertions. “ Why are gas prices so high if the war is about oil?” asks Anne Coulter. The U.N. had been paid off to say no to the War in Iraq before Bush even asked when France, China , and Russia all accepted bribes in either monetary form or in oil fields in Iraq.They point to the famous “ Haves and the have mores “ quote, and put it into context that it was from a benegit dinner where politicians are traditionally engaged in self deprication. In fact, Al Gore was also at that dinner. The debunking continues on almost every major point that Moore makes, and points the audience closer and closer to seeing that Moores film is a manipulated version of reality.
Another part of the film consists of interview’s with people who were featured in F/911 without their consent. The most moving of these comes from a wounded soldier who was featured recovering in the hospital. The serviceman states that Moore had never been to the hospital and that the footage was stolen footage. He goes so far as to say that Moore is dishonoring servicemen and women and that he does not need someone else voice to speak to him. His final assertion is that he has not, as was said in F/911, been left behind. Of all the ethical questions one could debate in regards to these films, this one sits as most important to me. These people, as well as the family of a soldier who’s funeral was featured in F/911, feel as though they themselves and their contribution to our country have been forever entwined into Michael Moores version of reality, which they do not agree with.
Farenhype 9/11 differ’s itself politically and stylistically from F/911, but in it’s totality it seems to serve the same purpose of propaganda. By going outside the debunking of Moores film and trying to insert a pro-war and anti-terrorist message the film loses a bit of it’s footing and becomes somewhat awkward. Moore’s film contained a side of the war we had yet to see, while Farenhype 9/11 sticks with the same arguments that were used by the Bush Administration to justify the war.There are assertations made that George Soros is in cahoots with shady middle eastern countries and that Moore himself supports Hezzbollah. Not a lot of information is given to back up those claims, but they are certainly tremendous accusations. If I were to watch these films in a solid block, I gaurentee you that the average viewer would probably agree most with whichever one they watch second, because both are filled with much too much information to be able to process it all. Both are too overwhelming.
Farenhype 9/11 does actually a good job of getting it’s viewer to accept the way things are and that this war on terror is actually the fourth world war, the third being the cold war. Zell Miller’s anecdote about finding a den of copperheads in his backyard and chopping off their heads with a hoe is an interesting contrast to the war on terror, although somewhat strange and unconvincing. Ed Koch and Dick Morris’s defense of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act almost justify it. The figures of 300,000 to a million people that were murdered under Saddam’s regine are hard to discount and ignore. To anyone who already agrees with the conservative point of view, this film not only gives them ammunition against the liberals, but it also justifies those opinions in a patriotic and intelligent way. Islamic fudamentalism is described as “ a hostile ideology with global ambitions.”
The next terror attack will be nuclear unless we stop it before it happens. If you agree with Moores point of view, there is nothing wrong with the terror attacks on 9/11.
While F/911 has a well laid out plot in terms of its docudrama form, Farenhype 911 sticks to a traditional documentary format, jumping from topics and back without much holding it together except the criticism of Moore. The music in Moores film was well done, accentuating the plot where necessary and never seeming overbearing. In Hype, during Zell Miller’s emotional speech about other battles that America has fought and prevailed in, and organ starts up in the middle of it, seeming to want to force the importance of his words. It seemed somewhat heavy handed, as did Hypes attempts to poke fun at itself with stock footage of Hitler and a jab at Ashcrofts singing. Hype was also surprisingly racially one sided, with the only minority voice being the Woman who was teaching the class that Bush was in on sept. 11. Out of thirty or forty interviews with both prominent individuals and everyday people, I would have thought a more diverse crowd would have emerged. Jokes are also made about Moores weight, and an assuption that he must be “ French”. I think that is a point where both these films have an identical interest, both serve to isolate those who do not agree with what has been represented.
Again, the single bullet theory comes into play, most people will walk away from whichever one of these films panders to their political interest with information they believe as true.
It would be possible for someone to watch farenhype 9/11 without having seen F/911 and agree with the commentators that Michael Moore has misused public trust in making a docu-drama out of something that is so difficult to deal with, almost taboo. But having seen F/911 and knowing that for all Hype debunked there was much more they did not even attempt to mention, I believe that Moore was ethically correct in his judgements to make the film the way he did. There was no reason for him to pull any punches since the movie was surrounded in controversy anyways. I think the pretext for F/911 in the pulic’s eyes was that it was a spoof of the Bush Administration, but I think Moores intention was to make an anti-war film, and to have that film show the realities of the decisions that were made by our government put on display for the American public to make an informed decision in the upcoming election. While Moore may have used subtle film tricks to lead the audience into agreeing with his perception, any responsible American understands that it is up to us to make up our minds based on what we see, and to not just accept the story as presented by one person. I think that is what the public was allowing to happen after 9/11 and the traditional media was facilitating it. What F 9/11 did was to bring these issues back into public discourse, and give people who felt as though their thoughts and questions about the administration were treasonous a chance to open dialogue with one another. It also forced the hand of the media into relying less on patriotism in their judgement of newsworthy items.
The rise of film, particularily F/911, in this election is an interesting new voice in national politics. A film has the ability to cover a much larger ground than news or radio can, and after seeing the reaction that F/911 received this summer, it also has the ability to provoke and influence people. Moore, although unsuccessful in unseating Bush as president, accomplished what many Americans had long thought impossible, the re-awakening of Americans to the importance of their involvement in government. While some people, including many liberals, saw Moores movie as a major factor in the polarization of America and feared the backlash from the right, I think that it accomplished a lot more than it will ever be given credit for. As history may remember it as the greatest propaganda piece ever, as the author of “ Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid Moron.” Said in Hype, it will remain as the catlyst to one of the greatest political re-awakenings our country has had in decades. Moore can feel proud that his film, even in it’s most propaganda fueled moments, served to make Americans better aware of their countries actions and the worlds reactions.
In researching this paper, and in an attempt to stay informed, I have tried to see many of the political films that have come out these last few years, but the list is very long, and there are some that I missed. I would like to base this paper on comparing and contrasting Michael Moore’s Farenhiet 9/11 with it’s identical conservative opposite, Farenhype 9/11. There are quite a few others though, Bush’ Brain, Bush Family Fortune, Going Upriver, Uncovererd and assorted other f/911 take-offs that are certainly worthy of attention. The media has an extremely important role to play in order for our democratic society to work properly, and the fact that films, which have always been about “suspending your disbelief “ have become a forum for current affairs says a lot about how well the public thought of the media’s agenda setting. The public seems more likely to “suspend their disbelief “ in regards to the conventional medias take on things.
Michael Moore is an unlikely canidate for superstardom, but his first film “ Roger & Me” revolutionized the publics idea of documentary. There was something likable and comical about this david and goliath formula that garnered him much praise and credibility in the liberal media. His next few projects in the late eighties and early nineties found him writing books, filming movies and working on a television show for, I believe, Fox called “TV Nation”. All these projects held a common theme of standing up for the little guy and against corperate tyranny.And, for the most part while Moores agenda was oriented to the left, the was little sympathy for Bill Clinton and other moderate democrats who were soft on issues deemed important to Moore and his Staff. In the late ninties he found himself with another T.V. show on the B.B.C. called The Awful Truth, where he had his first run-in with the then Govenor Bush while attempting to convince Bush to engage in a mosh-pit for the shows support. The show ended before the election in 2000, with Moore’s non-chalont “ Hey, theres always Ralph Nader, right?”
The election of George Bush in 2000 and the controversy that ensued did not provoke a reaction in film from Moore until 2004 when F/911 came out. But, his books “ Stupid White Men “ and “ Dude, Where’s my country?” as well as his oscar award winning film “ Bowling for Columbine.” Kept the publics conscience on alert during a period of time when dissent was not tolerated well. I would have to agree with Michael Niemans review of F/911 in artvoice that it was certainly not the film that Bowling for Columbine was. But I feel it served a different purpose, and that purpose was to stimulate Americans into taking part in democracy again. I feel like this goal was accomplished with the help of F/911.
There has been speculation that because of some of the footage in the film, the films original backers, Disney, held the film from being released for a year after it was completed. Strangly enough, the Abu Garib scandal that broke a few months before the films release and a few months after the films completeion, was shockingly similar to footage used in Moores film. Never the less, the film was hailed by international critics and Americans began demanding it’s release in the states. The interesting thing is that the film, like most of Moore’s work, consisted of a lot of information that was readily available to the public. The public was more interested to see it shown through Moores lens, if you will. Or perhaps a two hour film is about as much time as anyone wanted to put into their political views. That is why, no matter how hard it is for me to say, F/911 is a propaganda piece and not a documentary, because not only was it highlighting what Moore in specific wanted to point out about the presidents foibles, but that is what the paying audience expected to see. Again, the single bullet theory.
Moore’s films have a tendency to be able to draw emotion from the everyday people that are featured in them. This has been one of the strengths of his films, highlighting the everyday person who had a wrong righted. Although F/911 does not have the plot contextualization that “Bowling for Columbine” had, and is much more formulaic and slick in comparison to it’s predecessors, it does have a lot of the basic frameworks employed by Moore in his other films. The style of confrontational interview remains, though somewhat muted, and the story ends, like his others, with questions and suggestions, not any sort of climax. A big difference in this film is the material that was used was often stock footage, and it needed to be wrangled, if you will, into context with the plot line as it moved. But, this footage was necessary for the message being portrated, and it was done effectively. But I think, the lack of cinematography perhaps gave the movie a more B movie quality than it deserved. Still, when it was released, it quickly became obvious that while the journalists in America did not want to ask the president the tough questions, the American public wanted to hear some answers. Or perhaps more simply, the American public wanted to watch a president who did not like to be watched.
F/911 begins with the election in 2000 and proceeds chronologically from there. It has five basic parts, ending with Iraq. I think Moore capitalized on peoples expectations of this film by keeping the most disturbing footage until the end. The opening sequence continues from the election coverage, where Moore asserts that Bush’s cousin, John Ellis, gave the call for Fox News to declare Bush the winner in Florida. As the film moves post election, it highlights the attempts by African American representatives to object the supreme courts ruling. When they are unable to find a senator to co-sign the petitions, the task of telling them to be quiet and sit down falls to Al Gore, who was still obligated to fufill his role as vice president. This was not a story that the American public paid much attention to after the election, and the emotional outbreaks of the representatives adds much weight to the argument of voter disenfrachisement. The movie then moves on to footage of the presidents inauguration ceremony and the large protest that was also covered with limited interest by the mainstream media at the time. These opening shots of dissent reinforce the idea that dissent is patriotic, and may even serve to justify the film’s dissenting opinions. Since one of Moore’s common themes is “if you have something to say, stand up and say it.”these opening scenes are familiar ground for fans of Moore, and probably have the effect of putting people who are less familiar with his work into a state of accepting dissent.
Then, after a montage of quotes from GWB during his first months in office and an assertion by Moore that the president was on vacation 42% of the time, the film opens and we are confronted, once again with the horrors of Sept. 11. Moore does a very efficient and beautiful job dealing with this tragic event. I think if one were to rule out political motivation in F/911’s subsequent award wins, this scene was well enough done to deserve the prize. Opening with just the sound of the planes hitting and the reaction from citizens below, Moore avoids showing any footage that could be considered in bad taste, even going so far as to barely even feature the towers at all. I think it is because he had already used the WTC footage in “Bowling For Columbine” but the F/911 scene does a good job of capturing the horror of that day without appearing to try too hard. I think, perhaps, it also lulls the viewer into a false sense of security that the bait and switch technique that Moore often uses to juxtapose the American Dream with brutal reality, may have been left behind. Moore then makes claims about the presidents ties to Saudi Arabia, and the amount of money they have invested in our country. These claims are somewhat justified by Moore’s being detained by secret service men outside of the Saudi Arabian Embassey in Washington. The practice of guarding ambassadors with secret service men is strange, and I remember thinking about supreme court justice Souter being attacked last summer and wondering why we would protect Prince Bandar more than Justice Souter. By this time in the film, most viewers have pretty much given themselves over to Moore’s propaganda piece. So much information has been thrown at them that it would be impossible to digest it all while still paying attention to the film. For the few people who may have already had access or interest in the information contained, the visual images of Ex President GHWB and others in the current Bush administration shaking hands and hugging Saudi officials in the name of Big Oil provides a stark face of reality to place upon conspiracy theory. I think these images have a big impact on audiences, and help to continue Moores point that perhaps President Bush does not always have America as his top priority. The connections made to the Carlyle group and other accusations come so fast that it is difficult to do anything but just accept the premise and allow oneself to make the same connections the filmmaker makes.
The third and fourth part are on the War in Afganistan and the homeland security department. Moore does an excellent job paralleling Bush saying “ We’re going to smoke him out.” Referring to Osama Bin Ladin, with footage from old Cowboy movies containing the same line. Assertions are made that the war in Afganistan was motivated more by hopes to launch an oil pipeline than to capture America’s most wanted fugitive. With Bin Ladin now “marginalized” as opposed to “smoked out”, most Americans might tend to agree that the purpose of the war in Afganistan did not really complete it’s goal. Moore moves on to include Halliburton into the pipeline scheme, nicely tying together the different people who were involved and showing their connections with the Bush Administration. The intent is to leave the viewer thinking that the country is run by corperate interests, and to the viewer, the accusations seem justified.
Homeland Security is scrutinized, taking careful aim at the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and it’s possible implications on our civil liberties. Since the cases are less sinister, and the people in charge seem bungling, this part does not have the effect that I think the material warrants. Moore’s main purpose in setting up this section, is to convince the viewer that we were scared into believing the information that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. One particularly poigniant scene is an interview were it is said that the American people are being told to “sit down and roll over at the same time.” An assertion I think many people can agree with in regards to the climate of opinion at the time. The tone of the film so far has been rather lighthearted, focusing on everyday people and their fears, with the only really jarring moment coming when grainy footage of a public beheading in Saudi Arabia was used to highlight the Saudi human rights problems. As the film moves into the war in Iraq, the tone changes dramaticly.
The war in Iraq retains the largest amount of attention in this film and also contains the films most disturbing scenes. I think that the films lightheartedness was a ploy to set people up for the horrors of war that were to come. As the scenes unfold, the viewer is greeted with horrific tape from Iraq, with the families of the dead weeping and holding the bodies of those they love. From then on the film bombards the viewer with negative imagry and stories. Moore introduces Lila Lipscomb, a social service worker and fellow Flint native, while talking about the poverty in Flint that causes so many undreprivlaged kids to join the military. This introduction and the subsequent scenes with Mrs. Lipscomb are another brilliant directorial choice by Moore. By introducing her as an expert in poverty, and then moving on to the fact that she has a son in the military, Moore plays on the audiences convention of his films, where many of the people interviewed are only featured in their respective single appearances, and that most of the time, when Moore has a camera in an office building, the interviewee is less than likely to wish to continue the conversation. When she continues to be part of the story line, viewers are made to be aware of her sons death in the war, but because Moore introduces her as an expert in poverty and not a grieving mother, the viewer’s sympathy is earned instead of just assumed. This is a powerful method of bringing the realities of war home to those who may be unaffected by it currently. When she weeps while reading her son’s last letter from the war, or in front of the White House, viewers share her rage. Moores’ skillful use of her story and the live footage of troops in Iraq offered Americans what they had hoped for going into this movie, the untold story behind the war, but I think it also has the effect of re-sensitizing people to the horrors of war. By de-mistifying the war with disturbing footage of the children, soldiers and families literally torn apart, Moore forces Americans to let go of their grip on the sensationalized violence of video games and Hollywood, and to face the realities of our foreign policy.
F/911 ends by asking if our troops will ever be able to trust that we will never send them into harms way with out sufficient reason. With the overloading of information in relation to the president and his involvement in business deals in the middle east, I think with the exception of the most die hard consevative, most people would walk away from this film agreeing with most of Moores assertions. That is what makes it such an excellent example of propaganda. In the wake of the election, although Bush did win again, I think it is safe to say that this film had an enormous impact on the interest in politics on both sides of the fence. For those that agree with Moore, the film delivered a strong argument that Americans could cite during debates and offered a lot of unknown or previously underknown information. For those that disagree, it offered a target for them to debunk, and it was not long before the Right responded in kind with Farenhype 911, a film that attepts to debunk from a conservative view, the assertations made by Moore in F/911.
Farenhype 9/11 features such conservative luminaries as Anne Coulter and Ron Silver. The suprising thing is the addition of Dick Morris,Ed Koch and Zell Miller, democrats. Koch provides insights into 9/11 and Miller’s home spun analogies give the conservative democrats point of view regarding the importance of the war on terror. Morris relates personal insights into President Clinton’s presidency and the former presidents reluctance to challenge Al Quaada in the late nineties. The film opens with Moore saying “ There is no terrorist threat.” And then the debunking begins. Amid a few pieces of President Bush in a more presidential light, the movie focus’s on Moore’s intent and the importance of both the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq.
The examples of falsity in F/911 all point to Moore intentionally distorting the facts in his case in an unscrupulous manner. Most of the major points in F/911 are debunked, from the involvement of Uno-Cal in the Afganistan pipeline, to the vacation time that Bush had during his first months in office. The experts come from well respected think tanks in Washington, and seemed baffled at many of F/911 assertions. “ Why are gas prices so high if the war is about oil?” asks Anne Coulter. The U.N. had been paid off to say no to the War in Iraq before Bush even asked when France, China , and Russia all accepted bribes in either monetary form or in oil fields in Iraq.They point to the famous “ Haves and the have mores “ quote, and put it into context that it was from a benegit dinner where politicians are traditionally engaged in self deprication. In fact, Al Gore was also at that dinner. The debunking continues on almost every major point that Moore makes, and points the audience closer and closer to seeing that Moores film is a manipulated version of reality.
Another part of the film consists of interview’s with people who were featured in F/911 without their consent. The most moving of these comes from a wounded soldier who was featured recovering in the hospital. The serviceman states that Moore had never been to the hospital and that the footage was stolen footage. He goes so far as to say that Moore is dishonoring servicemen and women and that he does not need someone else voice to speak to him. His final assertion is that he has not, as was said in F/911, been left behind. Of all the ethical questions one could debate in regards to these films, this one sits as most important to me. These people, as well as the family of a soldier who’s funeral was featured in F/911, feel as though they themselves and their contribution to our country have been forever entwined into Michael Moores version of reality, which they do not agree with.
Farenhype 9/11 differ’s itself politically and stylistically from F/911, but in it’s totality it seems to serve the same purpose of propaganda. By going outside the debunking of Moores film and trying to insert a pro-war and anti-terrorist message the film loses a bit of it’s footing and becomes somewhat awkward. Moore’s film contained a side of the war we had yet to see, while Farenhype 9/11 sticks with the same arguments that were used by the Bush Administration to justify the war.There are assertations made that George Soros is in cahoots with shady middle eastern countries and that Moore himself supports Hezzbollah. Not a lot of information is given to back up those claims, but they are certainly tremendous accusations. If I were to watch these films in a solid block, I gaurentee you that the average viewer would probably agree most with whichever one they watch second, because both are filled with much too much information to be able to process it all. Both are too overwhelming.
Farenhype 9/11 does actually a good job of getting it’s viewer to accept the way things are and that this war on terror is actually the fourth world war, the third being the cold war. Zell Miller’s anecdote about finding a den of copperheads in his backyard and chopping off their heads with a hoe is an interesting contrast to the war on terror, although somewhat strange and unconvincing. Ed Koch and Dick Morris’s defense of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act almost justify it. The figures of 300,000 to a million people that were murdered under Saddam’s regine are hard to discount and ignore. To anyone who already agrees with the conservative point of view, this film not only gives them ammunition against the liberals, but it also justifies those opinions in a patriotic and intelligent way. Islamic fudamentalism is described as “ a hostile ideology with global ambitions.”
The next terror attack will be nuclear unless we stop it before it happens. If you agree with Moores point of view, there is nothing wrong with the terror attacks on 9/11.
While F/911 has a well laid out plot in terms of its docudrama form, Farenhype 911 sticks to a traditional documentary format, jumping from topics and back without much holding it together except the criticism of Moore. The music in Moores film was well done, accentuating the plot where necessary and never seeming overbearing. In Hype, during Zell Miller’s emotional speech about other battles that America has fought and prevailed in, and organ starts up in the middle of it, seeming to want to force the importance of his words. It seemed somewhat heavy handed, as did Hypes attempts to poke fun at itself with stock footage of Hitler and a jab at Ashcrofts singing. Hype was also surprisingly racially one sided, with the only minority voice being the Woman who was teaching the class that Bush was in on sept. 11. Out of thirty or forty interviews with both prominent individuals and everyday people, I would have thought a more diverse crowd would have emerged. Jokes are also made about Moores weight, and an assuption that he must be “ French”. I think that is a point where both these films have an identical interest, both serve to isolate those who do not agree with what has been represented.
Again, the single bullet theory comes into play, most people will walk away from whichever one of these films panders to their political interest with information they believe as true.
It would be possible for someone to watch farenhype 9/11 without having seen F/911 and agree with the commentators that Michael Moore has misused public trust in making a docu-drama out of something that is so difficult to deal with, almost taboo. But having seen F/911 and knowing that for all Hype debunked there was much more they did not even attempt to mention, I believe that Moore was ethically correct in his judgements to make the film the way he did. There was no reason for him to pull any punches since the movie was surrounded in controversy anyways. I think the pretext for F/911 in the pulic’s eyes was that it was a spoof of the Bush Administration, but I think Moores intention was to make an anti-war film, and to have that film show the realities of the decisions that were made by our government put on display for the American public to make an informed decision in the upcoming election. While Moore may have used subtle film tricks to lead the audience into agreeing with his perception, any responsible American understands that it is up to us to make up our minds based on what we see, and to not just accept the story as presented by one person. I think that is what the public was allowing to happen after 9/11 and the traditional media was facilitating it. What F 9/11 did was to bring these issues back into public discourse, and give people who felt as though their thoughts and questions about the administration were treasonous a chance to open dialogue with one another. It also forced the hand of the media into relying less on patriotism in their judgement of newsworthy items.
The rise of film, particularily F/911, in this election is an interesting new voice in national politics. A film has the ability to cover a much larger ground than news or radio can, and after seeing the reaction that F/911 received this summer, it also has the ability to provoke and influence people. Moore, although unsuccessful in unseating Bush as president, accomplished what many Americans had long thought impossible, the re-awakening of Americans to the importance of their involvement in government. While some people, including many liberals, saw Moores movie as a major factor in the polarization of America and feared the backlash from the right, I think that it accomplished a lot more than it will ever be given credit for. As history may remember it as the greatest propaganda piece ever, as the author of “ Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid Moron.” Said in Hype, it will remain as the catlyst to one of the greatest political re-awakenings our country has had in decades. Moore can feel proud that his film, even in it’s most propaganda fueled moments, served to make Americans better aware of their countries actions and the worlds reactions.
Comments