# Campaign 2008, in the (sizable) wake of Michael Moore **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520 "2004-07-17T01:04:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/21 "2004-07-19T14:37:11Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > No. Movies with enough “mass appeal” to worm their way into popular culture are primarily made to cash in on people under 30. Since there aren’t a lot of hard bodies or explosions in political “documentaries” (I suppose we could have Reno and Kerry do a love scene backlit by footage of 9/11, but most people would find that in poor taste) I don’t see politics making much headway in popular culture. Culture, sure, but not _popular_ culture. I know that Moore’s movie is doing well for a “documentary” but can its sales even hold a candle to something truly popular culture like **Spiderman 2** or \*\* Shrek 2 \*\*? Hell, even **The Day After Tomorrow** has already made $100 million dollars more than Fahrenheit 9/11 [cite](http://moviescene.myvideostore.com/content/new/video_month.html?client=moviescene&month=10&year=2004) and you hardly heard anything about it. > > Perhaps if Johnny Depp ran for office and someone made a documentary about that…I’d consider voting for him, depending on his platform…but then, I’m under 30 🙂 Well now, if you’re going to start comparing movies that are still in theaters, you have to take into account their premier dates. Sure, Day After Tomorrow has taken in a lot more money, but it’s also been out twice as long. Using data from [here](http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/weekly/index.php?2004-07-16) for the top 25 movies this last weekend, and diving their total domestic take to date by the number of days they’ve been out, F911 actually edges out Day After Tomorrow. Yes, Spiderman 2 and I Robot have a much faster rate, but there have been one or two blockbusters every year for the last 25-30, with the rest making much less (refer to the Variety Box Office charts republished in Michael Gebert’s “Encyclopedia of Movie Awards”, 1995) while still being considered popular. We won’t know what was the biggest draw until they’ve all left the theaters anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/22 "2004-07-19T15:22:25Z")
1. Yes, though I wouldn’t say ‘will’. I think the success of the film indicates that we are already in a place where pop culture is politicized. Moore isn’t ushering in a new era so much as releasing a work within an already established paradigm (oooh, I like that sentence!). 2. I think this trend is in general a bad thing. Not because I don’t think politics and art/culture shouldn’t mix (in fact, much of the time they are intrinsically connected), but because what seems to pass for politics at the moment is nothing but partisan bickering, ad hominem attacks, exposes of the private lives of politicos (oooh, sex sex sex!), and pandering to and manipulating the least informed of the masses. We don’t have an increasing politicization of popular culture, but rather an increasing ‘pop’-ification of politics. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/23 "2004-07-20T03:59:09Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > 1. I think this trend is in general a bad thing. Not because I don’t think politics and art/culture shouldn’t mix (in fact, much of the time they are intrinsically connected), but because what seems to pass for politics at the moment is nothing but partisan bickering, ad hominem attacks, exposes of the private lives of politicos (oooh, sex sex sex!), and pandering to and manipulating the least informed of the masses. We don’t have an increasing politicization of popular culture, but rather an increasing ‘pop’-ification of politics. For now, perhaps – but isn’t it possible that in the long run, this trend will draw more public attention to really serious political questions? Maybe even fundamental questions nobody seems to talk about much now – like the nature of America’s class system and whether we have to put up with it. ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/24 "2004-07-20T05:15:52Z")
When I watched _Fahrenheit 9/11_, I found myself thinking of _The Atomic Cafe_. The two films are similar; they’re both polemics, both basically assemblies of existing clips, with a viewpoint and an attitude. Their goal: to generate and implant opinions by way of carefully edited existing news clips and film footage. Yes, I know, much of \*F9/11 \* was filmed specifically for the movie (the ice cream truck sequence and Moore’s attempt to enlist congressional offspring, for example), but most of it was old film footage, edited in such a way as to create an editorial viewpoint. Of the two, \*Atomic Cafe \* does this way better; _AC_ is so good, in fact, it eschews any narration or added footage; it’s nothing BUT carefully edited news and archival film footage… but it manages to create the impression that the creation and use of nuclear weapons has been rather badly mishandled by the military and our leaders, in the past, as well as the fact that a lot of people did NOT understand much about radiation and its hazards, back in the day. Still don’t, really. Comparing \*F9/11 \* to his previous film, _Bowling For Columbine_, though, I’m thinkin’ Moore’s motivating closer to the \*Atomic Cafe \* model, though. I’m not sure if this was intentional, or if he just had so much great Bush footage that he couldn’t stand not to use it. …and therein lies the rub. First of all, I’m not sure that F9/11 is going to be all THAT influential. From what I understand, your hardcore Bushies and archconservatives are refusing to see it at all, and it’s certainly not going to influence the Anti-Bushies; their minds were made up already. This leaves the swing voters, and how many of them, exactly, are going to go and see it? And of them, how many are going to get irritated by the fact that it is, in fact, a rather one-sided portrayal of the facts? If it is to have any effect at all, it must be in the fact that people are paying to go and see a political polemic on the big screen. It’s a big Anti-Bush Campaign Commercial, and people are going to go and pay seven to nine bucks a pop to watch the freakin’ thing. I’m quite sure the conservatives absolutely adore this idea, and are, no doubt, trying to figure out how to make the basic concept work for THEM. Any future Democratic President who gets caught diddling with any reasonably attractive woman is going to have some major headaches in this department; you don’t need Michael Moore to turn this into a sexy, titillating, entertaining (and politically devastating) hunk of polemical entertainment. It says something for Moore that he was able to make entertainment out of the Bush family’s close ties to Saudi business interests and the tentacular grip Halliburton seems to have on the government and on the Iraq war. Most people have trouble staying awake through the six o’clock news for this stuff, but Moore’s got them paying for it AND sitting through two hours of it! The question remains, though, whether or not the conservatives will find someone sufficiently dedicated and talented enough to make it work. Moore’s got talent, and more importantly, he’s a true believer in what he’s saying. Are there none in the Republican camp who remain non-cynical enough to be able to pull something like this off? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/25 "2004-07-20T05:18:46Z")
> [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > Of the two, \*Atomic Cafe \* does this way better; _AC_ is so good, in fact, it eschews any narration or added footage; it’s nothing BUT carefully edited news and archival film footage… but it manages to create the impression that the creation and use of nuclear weapons has been rather badly mishandled by the military and our leaders, in the past, as well as the fact that a lot of people did NOT understand much about radiation and its hazards, back in the day. I saw _Atomic Cafe_ – no cite, but I’m fairly sure the All-American White Suburban Dad and his kids were actors performing for that particular movie. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/26 "2004-07-20T06:32:21Z")
> [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > First of all, I’m not sure that F9/11 is going to be all THAT influential. From what I understand, your hardcore Bushies and archconservatives are refusing to see it at all, and it’s certainly not going to influence the Anti-Bushies; their minds were made up already. This leaves the swing voters, and how many of them, exactly, are going to go and see it? A [poll last week](http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0715-07.htm) showed that 11% of the voting populace has already seen the film, and almost 50% say they plan to see it. Furthermore, according to [the full report](http://www.greenbergresearch.com/publications/reports/MovPAC04m1_Fahrenheit_.pdf) (PDF), 23% of those intending to see the movie are Bush voters; one-fifth of Bush voters have either seen it or plan to see it. 76% of the voters in battleground states have either seen the movie or intend to see it. The conventional wisdom that only die-hard Kerry voters will see **Fahrenheit 9/11** isn’t supported by the numbers. And apparently [40 Republicans](http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-fahrenheit-for-republicans,0,5625165.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines) got to see it for free last weekend. 😉 > [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > And of them, how many are going to get irritated by the fact that it is, in fact, a rather one-sided portrayal of the facts? Probably not a lot; I don’t know _anyone_ who claims the movie is “fair and balanced.” Moore wears his bias on his sleeve, and makes no bones about it. The idea that someone will be deceived into thinking **F911** is objective seems silly. > [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > If it is to have any effect at all, it must be in the fact that people are paying to go and see a political polemic on the big screen. It’s a big Anti-Bush Campaign Commercial, and people are going to go and pay seven to nine bucks a pop to watch the freakin’ thing. It’s also a very pro-support-the-troops movie, IMO. That’d explain why [servicemen and military families](http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=88) are flocking to the film, at least. > [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > Are there none in the Republican camp who remain non-cynical enough to be able to pull something like this off? You can find plenty of right-wing pundits with the drive and the money to pull it off. The big question is whether or not they can get the facts to support them. Moore got **Fahrenheit 9/11** vetted for accuracy by a team of lawyers; can a right-wing documentary by Limbaugh or O’Reilly do the same? ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/27 "2004-07-20T07:25:21Z")
> [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > The question remains, though, whether or not the conservatives will find someone sufficiently dedicated and talented enough to make it work. Moore’s got talent, and more importantly, he’s a true believer in what he’s saying. > > Are there none in the Republican camp who remain non-cynical enough to be able to pull something like this off? I don’t know, the propaganda output from Republicans tends to be pretty shoddy as well as negative and aggressive in recent years – it often makes me wonder who the hell falls for this often sanctimonious bullshit (at least **F911** is a well crafted and largely honest work, and though it seeks to influence it doesn’t smack of propaganda). When there was still a Democratic president, the major propaganda offensives were fought on the rickety fulcrum of a few blowjobs and a few whiny and opportunistic female halfwits for crying out loud. I must mention that Disney – who flatly refused to support **F911** – is now coming out with what appears to be counter-programming to F911, called **America’s Heart and Soul**. You can read about it [here](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000554196). Extract: > [@](#): > > \*from [Hollywood Reporter](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000554196) \* > So this is the kind of documentary Michael Eisner wants to distribute. The Walt Disney Co.'s chief, of course, refused to let Disney-owned Miramax Films distribute Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” because of its hot-button political content. But a flag-waving, unanalytical celebration of patriotism like “America’s Heart & Soul” gets the enthusiastic green light. In reality, the political content of Louis Schwartzberg’s film is every bit as strong as that of Moore’s film. It just happens to appeal more to Disney’s corporate heart and soul. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/28 "2004-07-20T10:30:57Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > I know that Moore’s movie is doing well for a “documentary” but can its sales even hold a candle to something truly popular culture like **Spiderman 2** or \*\* Shrek 2 \*\*? Hell, even **The Day After Tomorrow** has already made $100 million dollars more than Fahrenheit 9/11 [cite](http://moviescene.myvideostore.com/content/new/video_month.html?client=moviescene&month=10&year=2004) and you hardly heard anything about it. _Farenheit 9/11_ is far more profitable than _Spiderman 2_, _Shrek 2_, or _The Day After Tomorrow_. [_F9/11_ production & distribution costs](http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/FH911.php) were $18 million, and generated $92.6 miilion in revenue. That’s over 420% profit! [_Shrek 2_](http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/SHRK2.php) is a distant second, with 254%, followed by [_Spiderman 2_](http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/SPID2.php) (\*without distribution costs!) \* with 51% profit, and [_The Day After Tomorrow_](http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/TOMOR.php) with only 4.5% profit. Raw box office returns are meaningless unlees they are put in the context of profitability. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/29 "2004-07-20T14:35:02Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > I must mention that Disney – who flatly refused to support **F911** – is now coming out with what appears to be counter-programming to F911, called **America’s Heart and Soul**. It’s already came and gone. [See the gory details](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=americasheartandsoul.htm) for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520/30 "2004-07-20T15:32:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I saw _Atomic Cafe_ – no cite, but I’m fairly sure the All-American White Suburban Dad and his kids were actors performing for that particular movie. I have the film on DVD. Watching it, I believe that the people in question were actors, performing for an educational film of some sort, which was then spliced into _AC_. I could be wrong, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-2008-in-the-sizable-wake-of-michael-moore/255520.md?page=1)