Fahrenheit 9/11: Documentary or Propaganda?
Brief introductory...
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary film by American filmmaker and director and political commentator Michael Moore. The film takes a critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and its coverage in the news media. The film is the highest grossing documentary of all time. In the film, Moore contends that American corporate media were "cheerleaders" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and did not provide an accurate or objective analysis of the rationale for the war or the resultingcasualties there. The film generated intense controversy, including disputes over its accuracy. The film debuted at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival in the documentary film category and received a 20 minute standing ovation, among the longest standing ovations in the festival's history. The film was also awarded the Palme d'Or, the festival's highest award.
-www.wickipedia.com
Who is Michael Moore and what other documentaries has he been associated with?...
Who is Michael Moore and what other documentaries has he been associated with?...
Michael Moore is a documentary filmmaker, satirist, author, social critic and political activist. He is the director and producer of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Roger & Me, which are two of the most highest grossing american documentaries. Many of his other documentaries reached in the top ten highest documentaries and won academy award. Most of his written and cinematic work criticise globalisation, large corporations, assault weapon ownership, U.S Presidents Bill Clinton and george W. Bush, the Irag War, the American health care system and capitalism. Moore's association with documentaries within the directing and producing aspect include Roger & Me 1989, Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint 1992, Canadian Bacon 1995, The Big One 1997, Bowling for Columbine 2002, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko 2007 and Capitalism: A Love Story 2009.
-biography.com
-wickipedia.org
1 Fahrenheit 9/11
What is the opening statement? How does this suggest how much influence the government has.
What is the opening statement? How does this suggest how much influence the government has.
The opening statement of the film trailer is as follows 'You can make people do anything if they're afraid' a line said my Congressman Jim McDermott. I believe that this line is used to war of people. The documentary is trying to show the U.S Government in a bad light, and this line suggests to us that the government believe that they have the power to be able to do anything, whether they are abusing laws or not.
What information is given about the U.S.
Government and the Bin Laden family in the opening segment.
Within the first 20 seconds of the trailer for the documentary we are packed with, footage, information and documents about the U.S Government and there relation to Osama Bin Laden. The trailer first shows us that planes all over America have been grounded due to the 9/11 attacks however under George W. Bush' wish (we know this because documents highlight Bush's name), Osama Bin Laden and his family are to be flown in a private plane this kind of gives us a hint towards thinking that 9/11 was done on purpose? Already we see how the documentary is insinuating corruption...is there something more behind the 9/11 attacks?
Within the first 20 seconds of the trailer for the documentary we are packed with, footage, information and documents about the U.S Government and there relation to Osama Bin Laden. The trailer first shows us that planes all over America have been grounded due to the 9/11 attacks however under George W. Bush' wish (we know this because documents highlight Bush's name), Osama Bin Laden and his family are to be flown in a private plane this kind of gives us a hint towards thinking that 9/11 was done on purpose? Already we see how the documentary is insinuating corruption...is there something more behind the 9/11 attacks?
What is implied about President Bush in the opening segment (first 25 seconds)? Describe how the film implies this?
In the first 25 seconds it is implied that under George W. Bush's orders, Osama Bin Laden and his family are to be privately flown to America despite ALL American airlines being grounded. As the viewer this makes us question Bush's power against the US, and makes us want answers on why he would fly Bin Laden and his family out so soon. This also implies that Bush is with the enemy and not against.
What impression is given about the war in Iraq? What evidence shows you who is driving this war and the reasons why?
We see a lot of evidence against the US Government and there relation to the Iraq wars. Immediately evidence is shown against the US Government and business owners have influence on the war, we see many many politicians talking about how the oil in Iraq is so valuable, which they must have. Quoted from one man whom says 'whatever it costs,we must have it' therefore Americans are being pushed out there to fight for them who in the end don't really care until they get there money. We also see one man being interviewed who says, and I quote 'it's good for business, bad for people'... damming words but yet just more evidence of how the U.S Government only care for the money they take at the end of the day.
What kind of music is chosen to back this opening segment of the trailer (until the words “bad for the people”)? And what does it communicate to you? How is this a contradiction to what is being said?
6.
In the opening half of the trailer, we seem to hear music that in a way, doesn't quite match to what we are being shown on the screen. The music plays for something that should be a lot happier, perhaps fairytale like and jolly which contradicts everything we witness e.g Osama, grounded flights, war. Until the words 'bad for people' where the trailer starts to play more 'hard hitting' and powerful music also similar to the music you would perhaps see in an action/crime film. The music tries to portray a good image toward the U.S Government however what we're hearing from the people within in the trailer this is the complete opposite, at times when we here Bush make a practical joke or a politician spill out the truth about the Patriot Act, it all seems like a joke to them and us.
What information is given about the Patriot Act?
The large section on the Patriot Act is showing us overall that the U.S Government really don't take this whole act seriously. How politics and what matters is taken for a joke by the most powerful people in the world. The bill, which we are told was printed in the middle of the night was apparently not even read however we're being told that it will give 'police almost unlimited power' showing us just how much the new laws can and perhaps will be abused.
In the opening half of the trailer, we seem to hear music that in a way, doesn't quite match to what we are being shown on the screen. The music plays for something that should be a lot happier, perhaps fairytale like and jolly which contradicts everything we witness e.g Osama, grounded flights, war. Until the words 'bad for people' where the trailer starts to play more 'hard hitting' and powerful music also similar to the music you would perhaps see in an action/crime film. The music tries to portray a good image toward the U.S Government however what we're hearing from the people within in the trailer this is the complete opposite, at times when we here Bush make a practical joke or a politician spill out the truth about the Patriot Act, it all seems like a joke to them and us.
What information is given about the Patriot Act?
The large section on the Patriot Act is showing us overall that the U.S Government really don't take this whole act seriously. How politics and what matters is taken for a joke by the most powerful people in the world. The bill, which we are told was printed in the middle of the night was apparently not even read however we're being told that it will give 'police almost unlimited power' showing us just how much the new laws can and perhaps will be abused.
7.
What is communicated about President Bush in this last segment? How does the trailer communicate that?
In the last segment of the trailer George W. Bush is really shown within a bad light, and rightly so. The trailer does make him look bad however all in a honest way, the documentary shows only what Bush has said himself therefore giving no lies. For example in the very last moments of the trailer Bush is seen seriously talking about the people at war and how they are doing anything they can to try and help, however moments later, Bush says 'now watch this drive' in relation to him playing golf. Just one example of how Bush plays being a Government as a way to show off and being at the highest authourity. Another thing said by George W Bush was 'some people call you the elite, I call you my base' basically saying that his position depends on the rich business people and vice versa, the only reason this was said was so that George could keep his 'rich' people behind him, which kept him goverment for so long. Although all of this, the documentary was heavily criticized and this was because it heavily criticized the government, it was also said the the documentary was blamed for propaganda, people questioned whether the film trying to brainwash people into thinking that the Government was so bad.
What is communicated about President Bush in this last segment? How does the trailer communicate that?
In the last segment of the trailer George W. Bush is really shown within a bad light, and rightly so. The trailer does make him look bad however all in a honest way, the documentary shows only what Bush has said himself therefore giving no lies. For example in the very last moments of the trailer Bush is seen seriously talking about the people at war and how they are doing anything they can to try and help, however moments later, Bush says 'now watch this drive' in relation to him playing golf. Just one example of how Bush plays being a Government as a way to show off and being at the highest authourity. Another thing said by George W Bush was 'some people call you the elite, I call you my base' basically saying that his position depends on the rich business people and vice versa, the only reason this was said was so that George could keep his 'rich' people behind him, which kept him goverment for so long. Although all of this, the documentary was heavily criticized and this was because it heavily criticized the government, it was also said the the documentary was blamed for propaganda, people questioned whether the film trying to brainwash people into thinking that the Government was so bad.
Summarise using the examples that you have seen so far how documentaries can be used to persuade an audience. Are these types of documentaries subjective or objective?
It is highly debated whether many documentaries have been made in order to persuade the audience into thinking a certain way or backing a unpopular argument. This can be shown in the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. The film is solely based on the US Government's [George W. Bush at the time] bad reputation during and after the 9/11 attacks. The documentary primarily shows the government and politicians in a bad light. Because the film focuses only on this, the viewer is fixated into that one thing at the time of watching therefore only seeing the bad side of things and forgetting the good. Because the documentary is so powerful with its motives, as the viewer you seem to be unwillingly pushed into one opinion, good or bad. Similarly, we can see the through the Channel 4 documentary Benefit Street. The programme which follows the lives of a number of families on James Turner St, Birmingham, a street which is said to possibly have the most people living on Benefits in Britain, sparked much debate not only about its contents such as drug taking and shoplifting but on how the cast of the show were tricked and lied to throughout the making of the programme. The whole documentary focuses on the families of the street, all from different backgrounds, all with different stories but somehow ended up on the same st in Birmingham, each subject equally shocking the audience using powerful interviews and 'truthful' footage of interviews that took place in the homes of the families. At the time of watching the programme the viewers all seemed to have the same concluding opinion however it was not until after the first series finished that many news reports and interviews surfaced each saying one thing or other about how the cast were tricked and lied during filming and interviewing. One article taken from Birmingham Mail reports that the cast claim they were told they were taking part in a series about 'neighborly togetherness and community spirit' however the show paints a different picture, making the residents look like anti social benefits scroungers and irresponsible parents etc. And it's not only this that tricks us into thinking badly about people on Benefits, the show only shows a tiny percentage of the population however cleverly manages convince us into believing this is what the whole of the population of people on benefits are like, which is false.
These types of documentaries are called subjective, the purpose of a subjective documentary is to show an opinion, story or agenda, in one light, it must be based on fact however it is now necessary to give a voice to counter opinions, give proof of surrounding stories or any other wider approaches. Documentary makers can make subjective documentaries using different sorts of techniques one example would be the interviewing, As the producer, they can ask anything they wish within reason, they are able to gather all information they need to make the documentary they want to show to people. In editing and creating of the film, the maker can alter, change and cut out what people say in the interview to make it sound how they as the producer want however not what the interviewee wanted this can be used in a good wav or bad way depending on the film being created. Another example is what we see, in Benefit Street we are shows James Turner St with mess around the roads and gangs hanging around at night, this may not be how it is always but as the viewer we see it how it is and this gives us more of a reason to back up the opinion we are made to feel.
-www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t12829
-www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/benefits-street-tv-show-lied-647032
It is highly debated whether many documentaries have been made in order to persuade the audience into thinking a certain way or backing a unpopular argument. This can be shown in the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. The film is solely based on the US Government's [George W. Bush at the time] bad reputation during and after the 9/11 attacks. The documentary primarily shows the government and politicians in a bad light. Because the film focuses only on this, the viewer is fixated into that one thing at the time of watching therefore only seeing the bad side of things and forgetting the good. Because the documentary is so powerful with its motives, as the viewer you seem to be unwillingly pushed into one opinion, good or bad. Similarly, we can see the through the Channel 4 documentary Benefit Street. The programme which follows the lives of a number of families on James Turner St, Birmingham, a street which is said to possibly have the most people living on Benefits in Britain, sparked much debate not only about its contents such as drug taking and shoplifting but on how the cast of the show were tricked and lied to throughout the making of the programme. The whole documentary focuses on the families of the street, all from different backgrounds, all with different stories but somehow ended up on the same st in Birmingham, each subject equally shocking the audience using powerful interviews and 'truthful' footage of interviews that took place in the homes of the families. At the time of watching the programme the viewers all seemed to have the same concluding opinion however it was not until after the first series finished that many news reports and interviews surfaced each saying one thing or other about how the cast were tricked and lied during filming and interviewing. One article taken from Birmingham Mail reports that the cast claim they were told they were taking part in a series about 'neighborly togetherness and community spirit' however the show paints a different picture, making the residents look like anti social benefits scroungers and irresponsible parents etc. And it's not only this that tricks us into thinking badly about people on Benefits, the show only shows a tiny percentage of the population however cleverly manages convince us into believing this is what the whole of the population of people on benefits are like, which is false.
These types of documentaries are called subjective, the purpose of a subjective documentary is to show an opinion, story or agenda, in one light, it must be based on fact however it is now necessary to give a voice to counter opinions, give proof of surrounding stories or any other wider approaches. Documentary makers can make subjective documentaries using different sorts of techniques one example would be the interviewing, As the producer, they can ask anything they wish within reason, they are able to gather all information they need to make the documentary they want to show to people. In editing and creating of the film, the maker can alter, change and cut out what people say in the interview to make it sound how they as the producer want however not what the interviewee wanted this can be used in a good wav or bad way depending on the film being created. Another example is what we see, in Benefit Street we are shows James Turner St with mess around the roads and gangs hanging around at night, this may not be how it is always but as the viewer we see it how it is and this gives us more of a reason to back up the opinion we are made to feel.
-www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t12829
-www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/benefits-street-tv-show-lied-647032
No comments:
Post a Comment