Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Image Credit: Michael Moore

I want to begin this entry by saying that I feel like I do not know enough about the events of 9/11 and the War in Iraq to fully comprehend this documentary.

This is the first Michael Moore documentary that I have watched. I have always heard that he directs provocative films, and now I can see why. His presentation of the events of 9/11 and the War in Iraq was radical, to say the least. In his film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", Moore argues that President George Bush and the federal government played a role in the plane hijackings in order to set the stage for acceptance of the War in Iraq. Moore utilizes several mediums, including TV broadcasts, interviews with all types of citizens, and clips from TV shows, to persuade the audience of his extreme perspective.

The movie began by laying out the beginnings of Bush's presidency, noting that he might have won by such a narrow margin because of his cousin and that he seemed to be playing harder than he was working. Then, the movie shifted to the 9/11 attacks and made Bush seem as though he had ignored prior notice of the attacks occurring. He also seemed indifferent when the attacks actually did happen. Moore presented a series of facts about the Bush's ties to the Bin Ladens and President Bush's attempts to silence talk and investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Because the United States' citizenry was in the dark about the events of 9/11, it was easy for them to support the War in Iraq when Bush initially suggested it (people were also gung-ho about the Patriot Act). It was not until the war seemed to drudge on that people began to think twice about what they were supporting. From the interviews with the soldiers, I got the sense that even they did not know why they were fighting (some even said so explicitly). I was especially struck by the soldier that stated: "I was a republican, but I realized [as a result of the war] that they conduct business in a dishonest way. And I am now a democrat". This seemed to solidify that the government was hiding information from the citizenry.

I found it interesting that the Patriot Act was passed so hastily and without Congress actually reading the provisions. I could not believe that the congressman in the interview stated that government officials do not read every bill that comes through because that would slow the process and be inefficient. We elect these officials to see to it that we, as citizens of the United States, are protected and we trust that these officials have our best interests in mind. If elected officials do not even read all the bills that come through congress, are they really doing the job we elected them to do?

Additionally, I found it interesting that people in the poorer communities were enlisted into the army after people began resigning or becoming disinterested in enlisting. I thought it was unfair to lure young men in by telling them about which celebrities had been in the army and/or marines, in hopes of persuading them into enlistment.

I noticed the film's tone change about midway through. The beginning of the movie seemed to be laying out a multitude of facts which laid the foundation for and supported his argument. The last half of the movie seemed to be much more emotionally-charged, especially with the interviews with soldiers and their families. If the facts from the first half of the film did not provoke thought or evoke an emotional response, surely the second half did.

Moore used rhetorical techniques throughout the film that made the conclusions that the viewer draws seem to be their own conclusions, rather than Moore simply stating his opinions and allowing the viewer to think about his points on their own. For example, when he was talking about the 9/11 attacks, he asked a series of questions about what normally occurs after a murder. The viewer is prompted to think that multiple investigations occur and the family members are the first people that are questioned. Moore then states that those actions were not taken in this situation. This evokes a feeling of suspicion on the part of the viewer, which is exactly what Moore was attempting to do.

Some random thoughts:

Does Moore actually believe everything he has laid out in the film?

What was Moore's motive in making the film?

What did Bush think when the film aired?

How does Moore gain access to the information he has obtained?

Peter Davis' "Hearts and Minds"

Image Credit: Peter Davis

Peter Davis' film, "Hearts and Minds", attempts to give multiple perspectives on the Vietnam War. He shows interviews with soldiers, common citizens, government officials, and the Vietnamese, while including excerpts from movies and presidential speeches. As I was watching, I noticed a direct parallel between "Hearts and Minds" and Bernie Cook's article, "Over My Dead Body: The Ideological Use of Dead Bodies in Network News Coverage of Vietnam". Throughout the movie, the Vietnamese were depicted as inferior to the Americans.

Many of the camera shots showed the Vietnamese in moments of weakness. For example, one camera shot showed a close-up of a wounded Vietnamese man on the floor, partially naked, with a group of American soldiers surrounding him, putting a gun to his chest. Never in the movie did Davis decide to depict the Americans in such a way. Instead, the Americans were shown either in body bags, or in a shot taken from such a distance that it was difficult to see the details of what was occurring.

Also, the shots of the common people in America and the common people in Vietnam contrasted sharply. The shots of the Vietnamese showed children that were missing limbs, had dysfunctional limbs, or had some other handicap. On the other hand, American children were shown playing football with their fully functioning bodies, and men and women were shown attending rallies to support the troops. This different depiction of the Vietnamese and the American common people further made the Vietnamese seem inferior.

Additionally, the interviews between the Americans and the Vietnamese were treated differently. Davis included multiple clips of the Vietnamese talking about how their homes were destroyed, how their families had been killed, and how they were left with nothing to eat, among other things. Both countries seemed to not understand why the war was being fought, but the interviews with Americans seemed to just show that the American people were relatively unaffected by the war and its atrocities. Davis' showing of the Vietnamese struggles and hardships made them appear weaker than the Americans who seemed unaffected.

Some other random thoughts:

I thought it was interesting how the interviews with the American soldiers were shot with a close-up head shots throughout the first part of the movie, but later the camera zoomed out to reveal the soldiers' handicaps acquired from the war.

I was a little shocked at the comments that Westmoreland was making during his interview at the end of the movie. He was mentioning how life was not valuable to the Orient and they did not really care about their life. I felt like that statement was appalling.

Sontag's "America Seen Through Photographs, Darkly"

Image Credit: Diane Arbus

Image Credit: Diane Arbus

----------

Susan Sontag's "America Seen Through Photographs, Darkly" explores the art form of photography. As I read, I felt as though Sontag argued that the subject matter of one photograph is just as important or just as beautiful as another. Photographers used to focus mainly on universally beautiful subjects for their work (such as a flower or a woman).

However, some photographers have deviated from this trend and began photographing subjects that seem less than beautiful to the viewer. She extensively uses Arbus' photographs as an example, as Arbus focused on photographing "ugly" subjects (a few of Arbus' photographs are shown above). In one of her personal writings, Arbus mentioned that people immediately focus on flaws when viewing others as a reason for her choice of subjects. Through photographing traditionally less than beautiful subjects, Arbus was arguing and supporting Sontag's argument that everything is beautiful.

Sontag also argued that the context shapes the interpretation of the photograph. Arbus chose to photograph only people and things that were seemingly out of the ordinary such as the woman in the wheelchair with the mask or the boy with the awkward smile. Despite these photographs seeming "strange" at first glimpse, a closer look into the photograph and what surrounds the photograph might give clues to the photograph's normalcy.

Towards the end of the essay, I began thinking about the media and art and its role in our society. Sontag discusses how several things are that are suppressed in our society later become integrated into our society (images of death and dying, for example). It seems to me that art might be a vehicle for the suppressed to become an accepted part of society. As people are more exposed to shocking things, the element of shock decreases, thus allowing more acceptance on the part of the viewer.

I do agree with all of these concepts I have extracted from Sontag's essay, and I believe Arbus is a powerful example to use to illustrate these ideas of "there is beauty in everything" and "context is important in interpreting". While I did not look too much into the photographs I selected to include in this blog, I can think of numerous reasons for the people in the photographs to be acting or smiling the way that they are. For example, the boy might have just been frightened while playing outside, giving him the awkward smile and unkept appearance.

In one part of the essay, Sontag stated that the "weird" or "ugly" people photographed did not show signs of pain or despair like the people that were seemingly normal in photographs. This might seem contrary to what one might think because someone in an insane asylum, for example, might have some inner struggles due to the society they live in. However, she later references a secondary source that mentions that people that are unaware they are being photographed will show more of their true feelings than will someone that has been posed for a photograph. Since Arbus' subjects consented to and posed for the photograph, wouldn't that be the reason that her "ugly" subjects did not show their pains to the camera?

Rosie the Riveter Image

Image Credit: War Productions Co-ordinating Committee

The wartime poster featuring Rosie the Riveter, pictured above, argues that women are capable of having jobs that were traditionally reserved for men. This was particularly significant during World War II as many women were forced into work outside the home because so many men were part of the war effort. The positive language used in the poster's headline illustrates that women are confident that they can successfully work outside the home. Despite her long eyelashes, perfectly groomed eyebrows, and lips laden with red lipstick, Rosie's flexed arm, serious facial expression, and tied-back hairdo gives her a sense of masculinity. The large size of her arm and her action of flexing her arm muscles is symbolic of her strength and ability to work outside the home. Her serious facial expression makes her seem confident in her abilities and ready to work. And her tied-back hairdo mirrors the traditional hairdo of a man, short and out of the way. This depiction of male features on Rosie serves to show that she has the capability to work outside the traditional realm of women's work. The woman's pin on the collar of her shirt demonstrates that she herself supports women in the workforce.

Rosie's patriotic attire is of some significance, but I cannot put my finger on it definitely. I am thinking it is showing her support of the war effort. In that case, this poster might also be arguing that women are able to help the United States win the war.

This poster was put out by the War Production Co-ordinating Committee (or at least this committee endorses the poster because the committee's name is printed in the lower right-hand corner). I am not quite sure of the significance of this committee on the poster.

About Me

My name is Holly Michele Jefferys, but I go by my middle name. I was born in Austin and I live in Austin again now, but I have spent most of my life in The Woodlands. My family is one of the most important things in my life. I have one brother and one sister (pictured above), who are both much younger than I am. I went to a small high school and I now go to one of the largest universities. I was not in the top ten percent of my graduating class, so I did the CAP in order to transfer to UT. I spent my first year of college at UTSA, and I am beginning my senior year at UT this year. I am majoring in nutrition, a passion of mine, however I want to go to pharmacy school after I receive my degree. The summer of my sophomore year I had the opportunity to participate in a nutrition study abroad program in Spain. This experience not only opened my eyes to another part of the world and another culture, but also showed me how fortunate I should be for some of the simplest luxuries I used to take for granted (like air conditioning). In my spare time, I enjoy being with my friends and family, going out on the lake, playing Super Nintendo, playing kickball, and doing crossword puzzles among other things. I love listening to country, alternative, and 80’s music. The Randy Rogers Band is my favorite (click here to hear my favorite song J). Reading has never been a real interest of mine, however I do love reading magazines. In the next couple of years, I hope to learn to become a great cook, learn to scuba dive and see the underwater world, go skydiving and/or bungee jumping, and see the rest of the world.