July 10th, 2004

Filed under:
Movies
7 Comments »

On Fahrenheit 9/11

propaganda n.
1. publicity to promote something: information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause
2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread
[Early 18th century. From modern Latin Propaganda Fide , literally ‘propagating the faith’]

Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda, in both definitions of thw word. It’s well-made, compelling propaganda that I mostly agree with, but it’s still propaganda. To call this film a documentary is to shame David Attenborough or Jane Goodall or a thousand other filmmakers. This is a polemic against the Bush administration, and little else.

The film ultimately disappointed me. After a promising, well-researched opening discussing the links between the Bush family, the Bin Ladens and Saudi royalty, the movie devolves into stunts, anecdotes and cheap shots. The film’s major points are all ideas that any thinking American already knows:

  • The links between Iraq and Al Qaeda are tenuous.
  • Iraq has little or no weapons of mass destruction.
  • American soldiers are dying needlessly.
  • The President isn’t the sharpest tack on the corkboard.

Bowling for Columbine, by comparison, was heavy with facts and had a relatively original thesis. Moore has stated that this film’s goal is to get Bush out of the Whitehouse. While that’s a goal I applaud, it doesn’t necessarily make for a very watchable film.

As such, it’s hard to understand why this film is fostering so much controversy in the States. Moore’s marketing department no doubt has something to do with this, but people on both sides of the debate have latched on it

It is a well-made film. In particular, Moore deals with the events of September 11 with skill–there are the most powerful moments of the movie. Elsewhere, Moore makes easy jokes about Bush’s intellect, his family and his advisors. It’s entertaining, but hardly the incisive attack I’d come to expect. Moore’s invective is under cut when he trots out the mother of a soldier who died in the invasion of Iraq.

The film, Dave Pollard’s posting on changing your mind and our recent election has me thinking about the two-party system in the US. I wonder what percentage of Americans vote the same way their entire life? It must be a pretty profound decision to switch parties when they seem so polarized. I know that governments must govern from the middle, but it seems to me like the Democrats and Republicans start on different planets.

Comments: 7 Responses so far

Matthias
July 10th, 2004
3:34 pm

Being of only fifteen years myself, I don’t suppose that I know much about politics, but I just decided to say this much. If the Republicans and Democrats of the U. S. didn’t care so much about executing actions that benefited their own parties, as opposed to the people they promised they’d help, we’d all be better off. It’s good to have opinions on things, but if people worked together more and didn’t take cheap shots at each other, then we probably wouldn’t have as much criticism for the guy some people like when it could be the guy that most people like. It may not pertain much to Fahrenheit 9/11 in itself, but that’s just my take on the world around us. Lovely blog by the way, Darren. I’ve been reading it for about a month now and I very much enjoy it.

[Reply]

Mark
July 11th, 2004
11:39 am

Is “polemic” an insult now? I didn’t get the memo. Regardless of that, according to Britannica , the term “documentary” is inclusive of propaganda - so I guess Attenborough has learned to live to working in the same medium as Reifenstahl already. I do think your righteous indignation for those poor wildlife filmmakers is just hilarious.
For what it’s worth, I though 9/11 had far fewer “stunts” than “Columbine” and was for powerful for it - and I may have seen a different movie from you if you think it descended into cheap shots towards the end. My impression was that most of the laughs at Bush’s expense were before the half-way mark, and the movie gets quite a bit darker after that.

[Reply]

Darren
July 11th, 2004
4:05 pm

Jeff: Do you disagree that it’s a polemic? If not, why is it wrong for me to refer to the film as one?

When I want to define a word, I go to the dictionary, not the encyclopedia:

doc·u·men·ta·ry adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

The important phrase there is “presenting facts objectively without editorializing”. We can debate objectivity in authorial voice some other time, but I think you’ll agree that Moore left his objectivity back in film school. While I don’t agree with everything he has to say, this guy addresses the problematized use of the term visa vi Fahrenheit 9/11.

I didn’t compare the number of stunts in the two films, I compared the number of facts and the originality of their theses. Bowling for Columbine had its fair share of stunts, and I wasn’t particularly impressed with those, either. Though, admittedly, the Columbine victim returning the bullet at K-Mart HQ was, for my money, more poetic and compelling than the sound and fury we saw in this film.

In short, after the Saudi/Bush family connections, the film had nothing particularly original or compelling to say to me.

[Reply]

Mark
July 11th, 2004
6:53 pm

The name is Mark, BTW. Yes, of course it’s a polemic, it’s Michael Moore - that’s what he does.
While I don’t normally make a habit of disagreeing with dictionaries, the second part of the definition you present - the part you’re relying on here -is somewhat ridiculous. It’s interesting to note that it comes from the American Heritage dictionary. Isn’t the American notion of “objectivity” in journalism one reason we got into this mess in the first place - and the reason many Americans have _not_ seen a lot of the images in F9/11? Do you really believe that a documentary is not allowed to present an opinion?
How is Moore’s earlier work better in this respect? There is a 5-minute cartoon in Columbine for god’s sake… how can that not be editorializing?
Funnily enough, the Bush/Saudi connection was one area I was most familiar with - and the cult-like military recruitment techniques seen towards the end of the movie were the biggest surprise.

[Reply]

Mark
July 11th, 2004
7:28 pm

Don’t believe me and would rather believe the AHD? Perhaps you’ll beleive the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences instead. Here goes… this is the entire definition of a documentary for the purposes of the Oscars.

Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards

I. DEFINITION
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.

[Reply]

Darren
July 11th, 2004
7:48 pm

Sorry about the name.

For my money, no dictionary is more definitive than the OED. I can’t give you a Web reference, as they’re subscription-based. However, here’s what my hardcopy says:

“Factual, realistic; esp. (of a film, etc.) based on real events, places or circumstances and usu. intended primarily to record or inform.”

I think we both agree that recording or informing is hardly Moore’s top priority.

My larger point, however, is that the term ‘documentary’ has been expanded and therefore debased by the likes of participant-filmmakers like Moore and films like “Super Size Me”. I’m not questioning their quality, just the fact that they fail to meet the definition of the term ‘documentary’. When the creator is also the subject of or central to the film, as Moore undeniably is, this term is no longer applicable. After all, a documentary strives to ‘document’, which certainly isn’t a priority for Moore.

Moore’s 5-minute cartoon was editorializing, but it was also full of facts. If I recall correctly, it provided a (admittedly one-sided) history of Puritanism and gun ownership. Where, outside of the Saudi/Bush topic, did we see that sort of information in Fahrenheit 9/11? Where, for example, were the facts about military recruiting in US? How many recuits? Average income? Average education? Resulting employment? Columbine had analogous numbers, but this film did not.

Regardless, I never said anything about the amount of editorializing Moore did in the two films, I only compared the number of facts and the originality of their theses.

In short, it may be a decent film, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lousy documentary.

[Reply]

Jay Currie
July 13th, 2004
12:38 am

Perhaps we could settle this by calling F9/11 a mockumentary and have done with it.

Over at The Blogging of the President I am doing battle with a couple of Moore defenders who figure their best move is to call F9/11 a narrative - this means everyone will know it isn’t actually, er, true.

Strange.

[Reply]

Add a comment