Image Credit: Michael MooreI 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?
I really think I should have tried to blog on a single aspect of this film rather than compiling a random assortment of thoughts. Maybe I should have elaborated more on some of my ideas? I think I made this "mistake" because I was trying to keep an open mind while watching this film, unlike when I watched "Hearts and Minds". Additionally, when I was watching "Fahrenheit 9/11", I felt overwhelmed with information and ideas, and I had no clue where to start my blog or what to focus on.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly interested in the discussion we were having about Michael Moore's credibility. In the random thoughts section at the end of the blog, I mentioned a question about how Moore gained access to the information he obtained for the film. I personally felt that his everyday appearance raised some doubts about his credibility on the issue. Also, if the government was keeping so many secrets, how did Michael Moore gain access to the secret information?
I also was able to get another of my questions answered during the discussion. I did not realize that Fahrenheit 9/11 came out just before Bush was up for reelection. Now it seems clear to me that Moore's motive was to persuade people to vote against Bush in the election.
All in all, I think Michael Moore is a pretty intelligent guy. I am not saying that I believe what he has laid out before me in Fahrenheit 9/11. But I do think that the way he laid out his argument, the images, the music, the narration, etc. that he used to convey his argument was pretty clever.