The Documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 - Essay Example

Media event Case Study: Documentary – “Fahrenheit 9/11” Introduction In his 2004 documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11”, director Michael Moore interprets the events that occurred in the United States after September 11 2001. He alleges that the presidential administration, headed by George W. Bush, used this event to promote its agenda for unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this documentary, Moore “turns a sceptical lens on President George W. Bush and his inner circle, who ignored the Saudi connection to 9/11 and instead rushed headlong towards war on Iraq.” (Moore, 2003: back cover) “Fahrenheit 9/11” was both a critical and commercial success, winning the top award at the 2004 Cannes film festival (CBS NEWS, 2005) and becoming the highest income-earner in the history of documentary film. (TIME Magazine, 2004) Moore’s views seem to be shared by many viewers. At Amazon.com, one viewer says “I saw this film very recently and was stunned. Shocked. Michael Moores work was thorough, concise, and extraordinary.” (Amazon.com, 2005) Not only this, but both domestic mainstream media, and international media of different regimes realized and reported its importance. However, many analysts point out that Moore’s opinion is subjective and prejudiced. An example of this is J. Dewey’s 2004 analysis which claims that Moore’s documentary violates the truth in more than 50 instances and goes on to say: “Moore knowingly uses some information to support his view, which in context does not lend such support.” (Dewey, 2004) Moreover, Moore found it difficult to get publishing companies interested in “Fahrenheit 911” because of its controversial contents. Eventually, due to Moore’s perseverance this controversial documentary became both commercially and critically successful. The controversy of both the documentary and the events that it interprets make this a good case study to define the nature of a media event. In this essay, first I will define the concept of the documentary and then define a media event and explain why the documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” is one. Next, I will give some background information about Michael Moore, and about the September 11 event. Following this I will examine “Fahrenheit 9/11” from the commercial, public, and media points of view. Finally I will examine critiques of the film before concluding. Defining the Documentary Generally speaking, every film is a documentary. However, more specifically the documentary is a tangible representation of the world as seen through the eyes of the director. (Nichols, 2001:1) British film director and producer John Grierson was the first to explore the concept of the documentary as a “creative treatment of actuality”, in 1926. (Corner, 1996:1) Nowadays the documentary is defined as “any mode of communication which, in addressing an audience, documents events or situations… Usually based upon recorded or observable fact, the documentary may aim for objective or propaganda.” (Watson, 2000: 96) The director of the documentary filters information through their own perspective: “creative treatment of actuality” means that a documentary is not necessarily an accurate representation of facts but is simply one person’s interpretation of them. In “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Michael Moore filtered the events of the September 11 air crash through his own distinct perspective – most prominently, his political beliefs – to shape a photographic record of his thoughts, views, and ideas of this incident and its aftermath. “Fahrenheit 9/11” as a Media Event A media event is simply an event that attracts prominent or sustained coverage by news organizations, whether incidentally (as in the case of the 9/11 events) or on purpose (as in the case of Moore’s documentary). Moore clearly wanted his film to become a media event – his intention was that as many people as possible see “Fahrenheit 9/11” before the 2004 United States presidential elections. Accordingly, it was intentionally a controversial piece of work, designed to generate discussion and publicity. This by no means undermines the significance of the work or the power of the images in the film but it must be remembered that Moore chose every frame of the film and every word of the voiceover with the intention of creating a specific overall image. There are some truths there, but Moore’s film is not neutral, and critics have noted that many of his “truths” are only true because they have been taken out of context. In the case of the September 11 air crash, different organizations of the American media and international media may report the same event from subtly or markedly different angles. What appears in the media is filtered by the media of each nation through their dominant ideologies, as defined by politics, power structure, culture, and economic interests. (Lee, 2000:277) What appears in the media both influences and is influenced by all of these factors. In this way, Moore’s film is no different from mainstream media, from government propaganda, or from anti-government propaganda. In fact, Moore’s film is no different from any other type of media. All forms of media are selective, are biased in some way, and rarely if ever are they truly neutral. Every piece of information that we receive is selectively filtered through national, cultural, organizational, or personal ideologies that influence the content of information packets and influence how they are perceived. According to Dayan and Katz, a media event may fall into one of three categories: a contest, a conquest or a coronation. (Lee, 2000:297) A “contest” media event generates excitement and publicity over the process of competition, while a “conquest” is focused more on one charismatic person who gains a public following from the media event. (Dayan and Katz, 1992:36) As a media event Moore’s film falls into these two categories – the publicity surrounding the film’s prestigious Palme d’Or win at Cannes, and the fact that the film won at all, certainly contributed to its commercial success. And Moore does have charisma, and was certainly an important part of the media event that his film created. He has won a fairly large following in the United States and around the world and his films and politics are discussed in many chat rooms and message boards on the internet. Michael Moore Michael Moore is an American film director, author and social commentator, known for his outspoken criticism of the Bush administration. (Wikipedia, 2005) He focuses on social issues and expresses critical views which are reflected in his films. For example, Moores 2002 film “Bowling for Columbine” examines the “culture of guns and violence” that has grown up in the United States. (Wikipedia, 2005) Moore was praised for documenting a subject which had been ignored by mainstream media but there were also accusations of inaccuracy and distortion in his interpretation of the Columbine incident. Such accusations have been repeated in connection with “Fahrenheit 9/11” Moore’s documentaries have not been limited to obscure subjects. The events of 9/11 were covered by mainstream media for weeks and months before Moore added his own interpretation to the mix. While some found Moore’s views offensive, the power and unique perspective of Moore’s documentary earned him the top honour at the Cannes Film Festival and the documentary eventually earned a total of $US200 million in revenue. (Wikipedia, 2005) The Events of 11th September 2001 A series of suicide attacks against key buildings in the United States were carried out on September 11, 2001 by members of a network of Sunni Islamist terrorists. According to a 9/11 Office Commission Report, nineteen men affiliated with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda simultaneously hijacked four U.S. airliners. Two were crashed into the World Trade Centre in Manhattan, New York City – one into each of the two tallest towers, about 18 minutes apart – shortly after which both towers collapsed. The third aircraft was crashed into the U.S. Department of Defense headquarters, the Pentagon, in Arlington County, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed into a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, 80 miles (129 km) east of Pittsburgh, following passenger resistance. The official count records a total of 2,986 deaths as a result of the attacks. (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004:1-315) Collectively these attacks are the most devastating suicide bomb attacks in the history of the United States. The events of 9/11 have had profound economic, social, political, cultural and military consequences in the United States and other parts of the world. (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004: 334) Critical, Commercial, and Media reactions to “Fahrenheit 9/11” According to Mirror reporter Ryan Parry in 2004, Moore’s film was so powerful it had the potential to influence the outcome of the next U.S. presidential election. Parry cited ten reasons why the film made the Bush administration uncomfortable about how the 9/11 incident was handled. (Parry, 2004) Among other things, Moore claims that the Bush administration deliberately created a “culture of fear” to encourage men to enlist in the Army. Three aspects of the film and reactions to it are examined to determine why it was so influential and how these aspects contribute to the film’s status as a media event. Firstly, “Fahrenheit 9/11” was both a critical and a commercial success. In May 2004, it won the prestigious Palme dOr at the Cannes Film Festival. According to Michael Moore’s official website statistics, the film grossed $US 23.9 million in ticket sales in its first weekend. (MichaelMoore.com, 2005) Combined with his previous documentaries, the success of “Fahrenheit 9/11” convinced investors and audiences that the documentary film-making market and sphere of influence was larger than previously thought. Fiction films have always been given more funding and have been more popular with audiences than documentary films however the success of Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” will likely increase the interest of audiences and investors in documentary films. The film also made a considerable profit from global screenings. For example, in the United Kingdom, “Fahrenheit 9/11” broke the opening weekend record for a documentary film, and grossed over ₤1.3 million. Another of Moore’s films, “Bowling for Columbine”, was the previous record holder and grossed ₤157,898 in the first weekend. Similarly, in Australia, ticket sales of “Fahrenheit 9/11” grossed $AUS 760,000 in the first weekend of screenings, well ahead of two other famous documentary films, “The Real Cancun” and “Super Size Me”. (Centre for Media & Democracy, 2005) In a nutshell, “Fahrenheit 9/11” was received on an unprecedented scale for a documentary film, being both a critical and commercial success. Secondly, in terms of audience’s reaction, “Fahrenheit 9/11” was highly controversial in that it presented a different picture of what happened before, during, and after the September 11 incident. It presents footage of the war that shows American viewers a perspective they had probably given little consideration to. For instance, the film has a powerful and affecting scene of an Iraqi woman distraught over the death of her relatives. She grieves over her loss, screams their innocence and curses the United States. According to Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, given the thousands of Iraqis killed in the past 14 months, it is likely that many people have similar views of the United States. (Cole, 2005) “Fahrenheit 9/11” presented American with the human face of this war, possibly a concept which had not previously occurred to some. Of course, any government that sends its men to war would prefer them not to think too much about the humanity of the opposing side, and the “human cost” of war for both the United States and Iraq is something that Moore’s film focuses on heavily. However, audiences and critics alike would do well to remember that Moore is notoriously anti-Bush and that “Fahrenheit 9/11” itself should be viewed as propaganda rather than as fact. If viewers take the film at face value, they might think George Bush is a fraudulent and possibly corrupt president, motivated by grudge, greed and thirst for power to wage war on Iraq. (BBC, 2004) “Fahrenheit 9/11” gives audiences a chance to hear an alternative to the United States government’s propaganda. It presents a mixture of firm evidence, interesting information, moving scenes and tenuous theories. Again, it must be remembered that Michael Moore is strongly anti-Bush and would like nothing better than to see him removed from office. The nature of the media is that it is rarely truly neutral, and often strongly biased. For example the film shows footage of Bushs response during the first seven minutes after being notified that the World Trade Centre had been attacked. At the time Bush was given the news, he was in a classroom full of children, reading them a story. In Moore’s film, the footage shows Bush continuing to read the story for several minutes after hearing the news. Bush later stated that he finished reading the story because he did not want to risk scaring the children, however in Moore’s film the voiceover ridicules Bush for his lack of action, suggesting that he had no idea what to do after hearing the news because his advisors were not present. (Source Watch 2005) Moore’s treatment here is typical of the way he portrays Bush and the Bush administration in the film and is one reason why the film is criticised by some as one-sided propaganda. Thirdly, in terms of the reaction of the media, “Fahrenheit 9/11” is unique in the documentary genre in that it has focused on an aspect of America that was a focus of mainstream media for a lengthy period of time, whereas typical feature-length documentaries more often than not focus on subjects which do not receive much mainstream media attention. Moore’s work is unique also because it has been well-received by the mainstream media, by critics, and by the viewing public. Many mainstream media organisations both in the US and UK have pointed out the power of Moore’s film. For instance, the Washington Post said: “Its the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion. Even though there are many things here that we have already learned, Moore puts it all together. Its a look back that feels like a new gaze forward.” (BBC, 2004) Another British broadsheet, the Daily Telegraph, said: “Its a storming work of tempered polemic, gripping from start to last, that uses the war in Iraq as a starting point for offering a largely convincing class-based analysis of contemporary America.” (BBC, 2004) Criticism of the film often focuses on Moore’s obviously anti-Bush stance and the fact that the documentary is far from objective. All three of these elements contribute to the film’s status as a media event. The “contest” of the Cannes film festival and the controversy created by the film’s contents and by Moore himself (the “conquest”) generated enough initial publicity to ensure that a large number of people would be eager to see the film. The media’s reaction to Moore’s film also helped fan the flames of controversy and increase the public’s interest in seeing the film. This of course was Moore’s purpose all along as his main intention was that people see the film prior to the 2004 Presidential elections, to learn the “truth” before they were called upon to vote. In essence, with Moore’s film the nature of the content created its own publicity. Each review or mention on television added to this no matter whether it was positive or negative. Moore designed and filmed “Fahrenheit 9/11” with the intent that it would be a media event, and it was. Critique The world premiere of “Fahrenheit 9/11” was at Cannes, in a domestic environment. After the release, the most pointed criticism of the film often came from politicians, but criticism is certainly not limited to this section of viewers. The film is of course dismissed by the Republican Party as “propaganda”, and is praised by critics of the Bush administration. (Source Watch, 2005) Many Conservative groups have tried to limit the public’s access to the film to limit its potential political impact. However instead of preventing the film being screened, the efforts of these Conservative groups have mostly resulted only in fuelling the controversy over the film, and attracting more attention both from the public and the mainstream media. (Source Watch, 2005) It’s not only politicians that think this documentary is extreme. Columnist Christopher Hitchens wrote a review of the film entitled Unfairenheit 9/11. Hitchens writes that “Fahrenheit 9/11” is based on “a big lie and a big misrepresentation” (Hitchens 2004) and that to describe the film as “dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.” (Hitchens 2004) Hitchens’ critique is based on what he says is Moore’s habit of leaving important information out of the film, and of distorting the information that he has included. This critique is, of course, biased propaganda, just as Moore’s film is, just as Moore accuses material released by the United States’ government of being. And again, the nature of the “Fahrenheit 9/11” media event is such that all publicity, positive or negative, is good publicity. Every review, good or bad, makes the film more well-known and more controversial and gets more people to see it and talk about it. Conclusion Michael Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a perfect example of a media event. It both creates and feeds upon the news media, and it is both based upon a media event and is in itself a media event. Moore created a unique documentary that was both a critical and commercial success, and was based on an issue that mainstream media focused on for several months. Moore’s documentary won a prestigious film award, created new revenue records for the documentary genre, and while it has not had the effect Moore hoped – Bush won the 2004 election – it has still been an influential piece of work. As well as this, “Fahrenheit 9/11” highlights the fact that media is not neutral regardless of who creates it. As a reaction to government propaganda, Michael Moore created a piece of anti-propaganda propaganda, and many of the reactions to his film are themselves propaganda. Moore’s documentary was created through the filter of his own interests and political beliefs, just as all media is created through the interests and beliefs of an individual, organisation, or country. References Amazon.com. (2005) Fahrenheit 9/11 [online available from: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JNEI/104-7360939-1335951?v=glance&n=130&v=glance Accessed 7 November 2005] BBC (2004) Press reviews: Fahrenheit 9/11 [online available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3724195.stm Accessed 11 November 2005] CBS News. (2004) “Fahrenheit” Wins At Cannes [online, available from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/17/entertainment/cannes/main617890.shtml Accessed 7 November 2005] Center for Media & Democracy (2005) Fahrenheit 9/11 [online available from: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fahrenheit_9/11 Accessed 11 November] Cole, Juan (2005) quoted by Source Watch Fahrenheit 911 [online available from: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fahrenheit_9/11 Accessed 11 November 2005] Corner, John. (1996) The Art of Record: A Critical Introduction to Documentary. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Dayan, Daniel and Elihu Katz (1992) Media Events: The Live Broadcasting History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Dewey, J, J. (2004) Moores “Fahrenheit 9/11” is fraught with lies [online available from: http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Bush/Fahrenheit911_lies/ Accessed 7 November 2005] Hitchens, Christopher. (2004). Unfairenheit 9/11: The Lies of Michael Moore. [online available from http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/ Accessed May 31, 2006] Lee, Chin-Chuan; Chan Joseph Man; Pan Zhongdang; Y.K.So, Clement (2000) “National Prisms of a Global ‘Media Event’” in Curran James & Gurevitch Michael edited Mass Media and Society (3rd edition, 1st published in 1991) London: Arnold MichaelMoore.com (2005) Math and “Fahrenheit 9/11” [online available from: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/fahrenheit911/teachersguide/index.php?section=6 Accessed 11 November 2005] Nichols Bill (2001) Introduction to Documentary Bloomington/ Indianapolis: Indiana University Press Parry Ryan (2004) 10 Reasons Bush Wants to Ban Moore Film [online available from: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14257121&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=10-reasons-bush-wants-to-ban-moore-film-name_page.html Accessed 11 November 2005] Source Watch (2005) Fahrenheit 911 [online available from: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fahrenheit_9/11 Accessed 11 November 2005] TIME Magazine, (2004) The World According To Michael [online available from: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,994626,00.html Accessed 8 November 2005] U.S. Government Printing Office (2004) The 9-11 Commission Report--Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, ISBN: 0-16-072304-3 Watson, James and Hill, Anne. (2000) Dictionary of Media & Communication Studies 5th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Wikipedia. (2005) Michael Moore [online available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore Accessed 8 November 2005] Read More