“I think that we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that” –Britney Spears

In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore confronts many political issues and expresses a very strong and powerful point of view, but while doing so he is also able to incorporate comic relief, and get rid of some of the tension that arises when discussing anything political.

When I heard that we were going to have to watch the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought to myself, “great a boring movie I’m going to have to sit through. It’s probably going to be a bunch of boring interviews thrown together, how am I going to be able to watch the whole thing?!” As I started watching the movie I realized that this is not what it was going to be like at all. Instead I was watching something that I couldn’t stop watching, even though at times I was so angry that I wanted to just stop the movie and walk away, but then at the same time I wanted to keep on watching.

Fahrenheit 9/11 obviously confronts political issues, even if you know nothing about Michael Moore, just from the title of the documentary you can tell that politics is going to be involved. The documentary begins with a discussion of the controversial election of 2000. What was so surprising to me was that some of the things that I was hearing about the election were so new to me, that I wasn’t sure whether they were facts, or if it was just someone making things up. Everything that was said however was indeed true! Being that I was only 8 years old in 2000, I don’t remember much about the election of 2000, so seeing the images of Bush’s inauguration and hearing all of these new facts about the election really made me want to find out more about the election.

This was not the only political issue that Michael confronted, but it was the beginning of his criticism of the Bush administration. Michael Moore also brought up the attacks on September 11th. Along with that he confronted the issue of the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and the issue of nuclear weapons.

With so many political issues addressed throughout the course of the documentary, the question comes up, did Michael Moore present a point of view?

OBVIOUSLY! DUHHHH!

I think that Michael Moore made his point of view quite obvious, without every actually saying “I feel that” or directly stating his opinion. Michael Moore was quite obviously against the war in Iraq, and he was very critical of the results of the election of 2000. Moore is also clearly not a fan of the bush administration or the war on terrorism. But the beautiful thing about Michael Moore’s work I feel is that he never once actually stated a clear opinion about anything, rather it was all just implied (cool right?!). We were able to know all his opinions about everything just by the manner in which he chose to compile the facts and structure the overall film.

I absolutely loved the way Michael Moore added music to different scenes. The music was Moore’s hidden voice within the film. Instead of saying “wow Bush was such an idiot for going on vacation a couple of months after being in office”, he instead showed these same feelings by playing a cheerful, playful vacation song in the background, which basically told us the same thing.

In addition to Moore’s music selection, the way that Moore chose to structure the different components of his documentary was key. Often times when Moore was talking about something serious, he would then quickly switch to a funny scene which would get rid of the tension, which made the film enjoyable. For example, when Moore showed so many different pictures of the innocent civilians dead and injured, I actually had to close my eyes and was scared that he rest of the documentary was going to be gruesome, and that I would not be able to watch the rest. However this did not end up happening, and Moore used a playful scene after this horrific scene to not only relieve tension to make the film easier to watch, but also to add to his political criticism.

Along with music selection and structuring the documentary, another major component for any artist is choosing what you’re going to present to your audience. All artists choose what they wish to show their audience, and what they choose not to show their audience. They do so in order to make sure that their opinions are clearly represented. When Michael Moore made his documentary, he deliberately chose to include certain clips and images of Bush, and chose to omit others. After watching Moore’s documentary anyone would really think that Bush was a complete idiot, this is because everytime Moore presents Bush he seems to be doing or saying something stupid. Had Moore chosen to include a clip of Bush doing something that made him look smart, that could have changed the overall feeling of the documentary. Because of this, Moore’s selection of clips and images was essential to allowing him to get his point of view across without ever coming out directly and saying it.

Fahrenheit 9/11 changed how I thought of documentaries.  I used to think of documentaries as boring and depressing, very serious, and just presenting information to the viewer by means of a monotone announcer’s voice reading off of cue cards while black-and-white footage of bombs played in the background.  Fahrenheit 9/11 couldn’t have been further from what I imagined.  When I first started watching it, it was in color, it was upbeat, happy, with music and Ben Affleck.  I was actually nervous that I was watching the wrong film, but I saw that I wasn’t.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a political documentary that is anti-Bush and anti the war in Iraq.  The documentary clearly presented Michael Moore’s point of view, which was anti Bush and the war in Iraq.  The documentary showed his point of view through using different tools such as humor, popular culture, and opposition instead of just saying it outright, which would have been boring.

The best example of how Michael Moore used these tools to make a point is when he shows Bush on vacation, playing golf and by the beach, etc. with the bouncy vacation music playing in the background, which was clearly sarcastic and mocking the situation.  It also shows a great example of how Moore uses humor and music to make the documentary easier to watch, which makes us more receptive to the information and point of view he’s presenting.

He also used opposition, like when he was showing war footage with soldiers dying and people crying (mothers who lost their sons and Iraqi civilians), and then immediately after he shows Bush posing with a group of soldiers, smiling like a celebrity as if everything was awesome.  Meanwhile, the soldiers who he posed with probably would die a few days later in battle.  These opposition scenes played on our emotions because when I saw the people crying over all the deaths, I felt really bad for them that they were going through all the loss and tragedy, and then when it immediately goes to the footage of Bush posing like a celebrity, it makes him seem really ignorant to what is really going on in the war.

Everything in the documentary was true, it was all facts, but Michael Moore was able to manipulate them to show his opinion, by ordering them in certain ways (juxtaposing certain scenes), choosing what music to put in the background, etc in order to make a point.

Michael Moore’s strategy in presenting his view actually made it more persuasive than had he said it outright.  If he just stated his opinion, you would think, “Okay, that’s your opinion” and could either ignore it or disagree because it would feel really impersonal to you.  By presenting it in the way that he did, and not saying anything outright, but just hinting towards it, allowed the viewer to make the connections on their own.  For example, he doesn’t say Bush won Florida and the presidency because there was a conspiracy theory.  Instead he points out all the connections Bush had, makes a few sarcastic remarks, and lets the viewer jump to their own conclusion about a conspiracy theory, which is what he wanted to show.  Since the viewer reached the conclusion on their own, they’ll think about it more thoroughly than if someone else said it to them.  Its harder to ignore it if you reached that conclusion on your own, so you are more likely to agree with it because you understand where it came from since you came to it yourself.

Another way Moore convinces you is by choosing what pieces to include and which to omit.  For example, on the day of 9/11, Bush was reading to a bunch of children at a school.  Michael Moore made Bush seem like an incapable fool by saying (and I am paraphrasing), “And when Bush found out about 9/11, there was no one to tell him what to do, no Secret Service or advisor, so he sat there reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to a bunch of kids.”  It was just so mocking and so comical to contrast the seriousness of the 9/11 tragedy, with the image that our President was reading “My Pet Goat,” a baby book.  I am pro-Bush so as I was watching the documentary I was trying to justify and explain to myself why I didn’t agree with some things Moore showed.  When I saw this clip, I wasn’t sure how to explain it to myself- it did seem absurd.  But then in class Professor Healey said that he left out some pieces, like those that said it was a smart move for him to stay put so as not to startle the children, or that the Secret Service told him to stay there for his own safety.

When I think of a film that we viewed during the semester that demonstrates a strong, adamant political voice, I think of the words Michael Moore. The way he manipulates his own opinion  into his documentaries truly makes him an artist that is a political activist. He openly confronts  political issues and he does not do it in a way that is openly bias. Moore constructs his opinion through a careful selection of images. I am almost positive that all of us that watched Farenheit 9/11 got the idea of what Moore wanted to say.  Moore to me is one of the artist who out of all the films we watched openly expressed his role as a political activist especially in his film Farenheit 9/11.

I am pretty sure that anyone who has watched Farenheit 9/11 knows of the political issues that Moore confronted. Before I viewed the film, I always thought that this documentary was centered only around the Twin Towers. However, now that I watched the whole film, I realized that there are several issues that Moore desired to confront as a political activist. Michael Moore discussed events that revolved around  the 9/11 attack such as the controversial 2000 election between Bush and Gore, the terrorist attack, and the war in Iraq.  These are the events that  Moore  focuses on in his production.  He also confronts emotional issues as well. He approaches and discusses the reality of war and how soldiers, who we see as on fire for war, are saddened at the responsibility they have to bear on the battlefield.  In addition, he approaches families who are grief-stricken at the loss of the sons and daughters on the battlefield and how some Americans are blinded by this fact. These are the issues that Michael Moore strives to confront in his film and uses interesting approaches to discuss these issues.

With a lot of issues to confront, I think structuring the film was a very important task for Michael Moore. As a director, you want to structure your film in a way that will get your point across to the audience as effectively as possible.  I know that when I watch films, any movie with poor structuring can immediately lose my interest.  However, Michael Moore structured his film in a very logical sequence and  addressed all the issues he wanted to discuss. His film flowed from a discussion of the 2000 election to how President Bush’s victory was celebrated by vacation. From this he transitioned to the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq. Moore conveyed these issues for the audience to understand. As a part of the audience, I was able to follow the events that happened almost a decade ago with clarity because of the logical structure.

The way that Michael Moore structured his documentary was also influenced by his point of view. From those who have watched the documentary, you can tell that Michael Moore was strongly against how George Bush governed the United States during this moment of terrorism and war in Iraq. He detested the fact that George Bush was constantly on vacation a month before the attack and did not understand how George Bush put so many people in war and not his own children. These are the issues that infuriated Michael Moore and he needed to structure the images of his film in a way that made us as an audience feel this same anger.  So Moore only used images that supported his argument. He used the images of Bush’s vacation, the horrors of the war, and several others because he wanted us to have his opinion. Additionally, Michael Moore juxtaposed his images in order to effectively display his point of view. For example, he juxtaposes President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech with soldiers still in the war and the horrors that have happened to civilians. Through juxtaposing, Michael Moore is able to show his audience that what we hear by politicians and even the news media should not be taken so lightly.

I think that the last part critical to Michael Moore’s film structure was his narration.  For me, the narration served as a comic relief when put with certain images. They also serve as an expression of Michael Moore’s opinion and his point of view. He does not explicitly say to us that he despises Bush, but his sarcastic comments show what opinion he really has. In addition, he also used music as a form of narration. The audience is exposed to hearing the song “Vacation” as a comic relief to watch President Bush golf and enjoy the ranch. This was one of the many examples in which music was used as a form of narration to the audience.With all of these features combined, the audience can see his point of view without it blatantly said. Michael Moore fully uses his political voice to fulfill his controversial role as a political activist.

Politics has never been an interest of mine. When the topic comes up in conversation, I tend to stay out of it so that I wont make myself sound foolish.

Mostly, I do this because I do not understand politics. But, even worse is that I do not want to. No matter how hard I try, my mind refuses to grasp anything that has to do with the subject.

For this reason, when seeing something political, I like when the subject matter is “dumbed down” so that even I can understand it. I would not be able to watch a political movie that directly delivers facts and statistics. That’s just boring. And most people like me would not care to understand it.

Since I dislike politics, it was hard to think of a movie I watched dealing with political issues (except the ones we watched for class). The one movie I can think of that addressed political issues and was also enjoyable was Idiocracy.

In the film, the military wants to test out a hibernation invention, in order to save experienced soldiers for war times. To test the machine they use a completely average man, Joe Bauers, and a prostitute named Rita. The project is soon abandoned and the two wake 500 years in the future to a chaotic world.

In the future the characters discover that brainless people out breed intelligent people, since they have much more children than intellectuals do. People do not take responsibility of their actions and the world is dominated by commercialism. Even though one may think this is a typical time-travel movie, it is a direct attack on our society and a warning that if we do not focus on intelligence and the consequences of our destructive actions we will end up in a dystopia.

The film directly attacks commercialism and the ignorance of the masses. People let garbage pile up, and they replace water with the sports drink “Brawndo” which has killed off all crops. Brawndo even employs most of the nation. When Bauer convinces people the drink is bad for crops, they ignore reason and sputter what they hear from advertisements. These advertisements are large and everywhere. Instead of thinking, people only rely on what the media tells them.

The movie is a satire, and the tone of the narrator in the beginning an end express the views later reinforced in the movie. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11, the movie Idiocracy criticizes society indirectly, through the story of two people. I personally liked the criticism embedded within the narrative. The movie was not shoving a point of view down my throat (as I felt Farenheit 9/11 did) but it hinted at flaws in society. It was funny and entertaining.

Although it was not informative, it was very entertaining. The subtle message and humor made me more willing to accept the point of view presented. The story was also set in modern times, and the fact that an average man can rise to power is motivating to the viewer. It reveals that even the most average person can make a difference in the world if they try. The music within the movie also enhanced the point of view expressed. Music was simplistic and revealed the viewpoint that society was becoming less and less intelligent.

In the end, John becomes president (since he is the smartest person alive) and he marries Rita. The two have the three smartest children in the world, while their vice president has thirty-two of the dumbest children in the world. This juxtaposition at the end enforces the position the artist takes on current society.

Even if one were to disagree with the viewpoint expressed, they cannot deny that the movie is both enjoyable and entertaining. Political art does not always have to be direct and factual. Different methods of representation are more convincing to different people, and the subtlety and humor of this movie are able to reach a larger audience of uninformed or indifferent people.

Mad Hot Ballroom, a documentary of a school-wide program for dancing. Every year there is a competition between the schools to see who has the best dancers. Well, this movie is harmless. It doesn’t have any vulgarity.  The music can be catchy. Kids are interviewed. But does this documentary confront any political issues? I think so.

The way the director made the documentary makes the political confrontation indirect yet direct. Why? Well, the documentary is focused on recording this dance program and shows how the children progress and what they think of it. This is simple. It may not spark any controversy. It’s neutral in that sense. Then there is the juxtaposition of the different living conditions of the school children: one girl was a room with a TV, bed, closet, study table, chair, and is able to pick out a dress from her closet, whereas, in another school, the teacher takes the students to go shopping in a store like Conway. This amplifies and brings attention to how different children live. In essence, the entire documentary is similar to a politician using finesse in his discourse.

Now, the film is neutral for the whole part. It shows the children learning to dance and different schools. It documents that one year. But then the children are interviewed, as well as the teachers. We see how the program benefits the children and the teachers. There was a dance teacher, her class received gold the previous year but did not get the grand prize, who said that the program helps the children reach their roots, their culture, and helps to keep them off the streets. I also believed that she implied that it also helps the children’s character. When the students are interviewed, the viewers heard from the students that they like the program and that it’s fun. In addition, the students can talk about serious topics: divorce, marriage, etc. This shows the viewer that they way the students live is different and the topics they talk about may shock us. By putting their inputs into the documentary, the director is showing that programs in the arts help students and that there should be more. Moreover, the director may also be promoting exercise (this may be pushing it) because the time the film was made the when the obesity epidemic was happening and it still is.

The main political issue, though, is the funding for programs in the arts. This documentary is promoting the arts and shows the profound effects it has in school children. There are schools that are cutting funding to programs in the arts because it doesn’t have as high a standard as science and math. This should not happen at all. The arts are as important as science and math in developing the human mind. It helps to stimulate the mind in different ways and helps it grow. Trying to get a well-balanced dose of everything is difficult, but when one of the needed dosages is taken out it becomes even harder to grow. The others have to try and take over, but it’s not that easy.

The arts, in general, are essential to our development. It helps us to imagine, think, and grow. Science and math do the same, but in a logical manner. The arts have a different, “uncensored” way (so to speak), of having ourselves explore.  They all work hand-in-hand. But by decreasing the funding for programs in one of the pillars, they are taking away a part of the child’s childhood. Having the arts is essential.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is an attack on conservatism…In a nutshell.

The movie touched on many important political issues. The first issue was the controversial presidential election of 2000. Michael Moore satirizes the outcome of that election, claiming that Fox determined the winner of the election, and Bush did not legitimately earn the position of President of the United States. In creating the film, Moore used live news coverage to prove his point that the news channel made Bush the winner, since people are more likely to believe him if he has “evidence” backing him up. He also discusses the ways in which Bush was connected to the news anchors and workmen of the news station, showing that he had an insider’s advantage.

Additionally, Michael Moore often only tells one side of the story. Partly as a result of the filmmaker’s choices and partly as a result of my liberal views, I was willing to accept that Bush did not do what was best for the country during tough times. After discussing the movie in class and hearing my classmates’ points of view, I realized that Michael Moore was a biased, but crafty filmmaker. He forces the viewer to accept his point of view, and takes advantage of the viewers who might be uninformed.

One example of this was his claim about Bush’s reaction to the World Trade Center attacks. He shows Bush reading to a group of kids on September 11, 2001. He continues reading nonchalantly even after he is told that the nation is under attack. What Michael Moore “forgets” to say is that Bush was told to stay where he was. It was unsafe for him to be in any location, and it was not appropriate to create turmoil for the children in the class. I am not saying that I am pro-Bush…I’m merely showing that Michael Moore was making a political statement by allowing his own political views to influence the “truths” in his movie.

In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore also depicts the impact of the war on the families of the soldiers. Michael Moore interviews Lila, who has both a son and a daughter involved in the war effort. He shows that the war in Iraq is, like many other wars, a poor man’s war. Many soldiers enlist because it’s the only way they will be able to pay for college, or because college is simply not an option. At first, Lila seems to be pro-war, and is very patriotic towards her country. After she learns of her son’s death, she becomes anti-Bush and finds herself in front of the White House protesting the war. Many of the soldiers, like Lila’s children, come from lower income neighborhoods plagued with high rates of unemployment. When Michael Moore went to Washington D.C. to ask senators to enlist their own children in the army, not one senator was willing to do so.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a movie that makes a clear political statement. Michael Moore is against the war, and does not think that Bush handled the attacks on World Trade Center in the proper way. He shows pictures of Bush with the soldiers, implying that Bush is only aware of the glorious aspects of the war. Bush gives his famous mission accomplished speech, and in the next clip, Moore shows violence in Iraq. He states that we have not found weapons of mass destruction, which was Bush’s initial reason for declaring war.

I definitely think that a viewer’s own political agenda would influence his opinion of the movie. On the same token, I don’t think it’s possible to watch the whole movie and not agree that Moore is a liberal who is not in favor of Bush. As a result of Moore’s strong opinions and real footage, he was probably able to convince many people of his own views, making this movie a form of political art.