A popular view of Fahrenheit 9/11 is that the film is propaganda, and I agree with this statement. The opposition will claim that everything that President Bush releases is propaganda, and, as Moore himself claims, everything the media releases–and fails to release–is also propaganda. All of these points are true.
Unfortunately, this volleying of propaganda between political sides in the view of the American public is bad for the democratic process, and is bad for the country.
Consider the 1930s Soviet film, the Battleship Potemkin. The Soviet government funded Eisenstein’s allegory of the people’s revolution against the Romanov czar. However, because the film had been so widely released in state-run movie theatres throughout the Soviet Union, many Soviets by the end of the Cold War accepted the film as an account of the truth. The fabricated mutiny of Russian sailors against their captain became the popular memory of the victorious revolution and the rise of Communism.
I worry that Fahrenheit 9/11 might have the same effect. I don’t doubt the truth of the footage in Moore’s film, but we should remember that Moore is, first and foremost, a storyteller. In many cases his logic is fallacious, and his presentation is meant to be cathartic. The problem with Moore’s approach is that it’s overwhelming enough to convince people of the truth without persuading people to think about all of the evidence they’ve been shown. I fear that people will remember the events of 9/11 not from the hours of footage they were shown on the day of, but from the two hours of footage they were presented in some cramped movie theater.
Do I challenge his right to release such a film in order to influence the mind of the populace? No; I respect the right to revolt and elicit change as the most important right. However, I fear that the film and its timely release may color the election in a way that’s not favorable for the country.
There is no comparison. Moore’s films have an amateurish quality while every shot in an Eisenstein film is perfectly composed, framed, and lit. October is even more perfect than The Battleship Potemkin.
Oh? This isn’t Cafe Society?
I don’t think you have to worry about that. We’ve all had every minute of that morning branded on our brains.
Ugh, don’t remind me about Potemkin. I spent half a freaking semester on the steps sequence in film school.
I think the cases are much different, though I, too, am interested in how history will view F-9/11. Not so much THIS generation, but say, 100 years from now. I think it may well be taken as a literal history. I don’t mind that personally, since it is pretty accurate. :-p
However, Potemkin is viewed mostly now for its editing content, not for historical accuracy. F-9/11 has absolutely no danger of falling into that trap. Eisenstein was a genius. Moore (and whichever editors he used, I didn’t catch the names(s)) didn’t do anything groundbreaking or otherwise meritous. It will mostly be remembered as a portrayal of the Bush administration, and may (hopefully) be a primary lasting historical record.
Certainly, when professers are teaching Early 21st Century History, they’ll be showing F-9/11. :-p
Hijack (probably allowed for the sake of fighting ignorance). I believed all my life (well…at least since I watched “Potemkine” when I was 11 or so) that this mutiny did happen. But if I understand correctly, it wasn’t merely a propaganda film about a real event, but a made-up story???
Potemkin is more valued for its film qualities than political statements (outside the USSR at least). So I don’t think Fahrenheit 9/11 is comparable.
F - 9/11 enters a lot of details that won’t be interesting to future generations. They won’t understand or misunderstand the context of why “saudi bin ladens being flown out” is bad for Bush.
Also a lot of the impact of the movie depends on what happens in november and in the future. If Bush wins and does an average govt. F 9/11 will dissapear in history. If he wins and totally fucks up the world... F - 9/11 will be the "warning" movie no one gave attention. If republicans lose and stay out of power for 2 decades then F - 9/11 might be boosted to a major change in US history.
Still even being a fan of Moore... I hardly think F - 9/11 is history material... not in the medium and long term. Though I feel it may help bring us out of the Dark Ages we now live.
Quick nitpick - Potemkin was filmed in 1925, not the 1930s.
We have plenty of widely-released dramatizations of historical events here in the US - the phrase “Based on a True Story” ring a bell? Sure, some people are going to think a film may be entirely historically accurate - I wonder how many folks thought the dashing young Irishman, fated to fall in love with the beautiful socialite on board a doomed ocean liner, actually existed? - but that’s something that can be corrected through further reading and discussion.
Honestly, I think you’re overestimating the power of the media (not just films) here. Whom is this film supposed to influence, and in what direction? It’s certainly not made with the intent of portraying Bush as someone worth voting for, so presumably you think this film is supposed to convince some portion of the population to vote for Kerry. Seeing as how Kerry and Bush have been in more or less in a dead heat at the polls, the people this film could probably most influence are those on the fence. If you scroll down the page I linked to, you’ll see a question that asks which of three candidates those polled would vote for; the totals add up to 93% of the answers given. Which means, unless I greatly misunderstand the numbers, a mere 7% of the voting population is undecided. Note also that even with Nader’s 5% in this poll, Kerry still has a six-point lead over Bush.
Additionally, note that this poll was taken in May of 2004, almost a full month before Fahrenheit 9/11 hit the theaters. Kerry had a lead then. What’s this film going to accomplish that hasn’t already been accomplished?
OK, I just found the June poll here. It appears Kerry’s lead has narrowed, but the “undecided/other” portion has increased to 11%. And Moore’s movie has been out what, almost two weeks? Makes you wonder what sort of influence it actually is having.
Well, it may not have as much impact as you think. Bear in mind that almost all of the people who pay money to see this film strongly agree with Moore in the first place, and the number of people seeing the film whose minds aren’t yet made up is probably very small. What’s more, it probably won’t make it to broadcast television until after the election, if it ever does. On top of all that, most people understand that Moore is a self-promoting hustler pretty much on the same moral and intellectual level as a TV preacher, and the film’s hostility and contempt might actually drive voters away.
I don’t think the comparison is apt at all. “Buttleship Potemkin” movie was sponsored and sanctioned by autocratic gov’t and “F911” was produced by a maverick in polar opposition to a current administration on all points and shouting wildly about it. Eisenstein was a Soviet stooge, whatever Moore is he certainly is not Bush’s stooge. Unless, of course… aw, forget it!
As far as lasting impact, if Bush wins the movie will have audience four more years, if Bush loses - immediate oblivion.
While I was seeking neither a critique of Fahrenheit’s cinematography nor a direct comparison of the purpose of the films…
[and yes, I have seen the film]
The important part of my message was the comparison of the two films as propagandist films. Yes, Fahrenheit 9/11 is hardly state-sponsered, and yes, Moore is hardly the respected cinematographic genius Eisenstein was, but my chief concern is that the American people–who have proven to be especially impressionable–will unrealistically color the view of the past three years.
While I don’t believe that Bush should be re-elected–he’s done nothing for the economy [though it continues to rise, a natural oscillation], he’s led us down the path of unsubstantiated war, and who doesn’t remember his gaffes before 9/11–I do believe that his office should be decided by informed voters rather than impulsive and easily convinced moviegoers.
Why is a voting populace unduly influenced by Michael Moore’s anti-Bush movie any worse than a voting populace unduly influenced by George W. Bush’s (known) misinformation?
I mean, the voters are already misinformed; just look at the percentage of the populace from last month who still believed Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were working together, or that Saddam had “vast stockpiles” of WMDs. In that environment, why is having Michael Moore trying to influence people in the opposite direction a bad thing?
Every time I hear this facile charge, -whether by the Left, claiming that Bush deceived “the nation”, or from the Right, claiming that Moore deceived “the nation”, - I want to ask, “Dear Sir, how many American people have you ever misled?”
I already addressed this point. I acknowledged the fact that all of this speech–from Bush, Limbaugh, anybody on the extreme right or left–is equally effective as propaganda. My point with this thread was to (a) examine the film for what it is, and (b) generate discussion on how much farther down the electoral primrose path these rhetorical battles will take us. Clearly, it’s bad for our ‘democracy.’
That was my point, really - poll numbers indicate that Kerry and Bush have the voting population pretty much evenly divided between them, and that this division predates F911 by months. So the number of people this film could decisively influence is certainly small, if they even exist. I just thought it was rather funny that the “undecided” factor seems to have increased since the movie’s release. I don’t attribute it entirely to the film’s influence - in fact, I’d hesitate to attribute any influence to the film - but it was worth noting.
