This article was downloaded by: [University College Falmouth ] On: 26 August 2014, At: 06:53 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Popular Film and Television Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjpf20 Not a Stupid White Man: The Democratic Context of Michael Moore's Documentaries Anna Misiak a a Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Anna Misiak (2005) Not a Stupid White Man: The Democratic Context of Michael Moore's Documentaries, Journal of Popular Film and Television, 33:3, 160-168, DOI: 10.3200/JPFT.33.4.160-168 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JPFT.33.4.160-168
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions PERSPECTIVES
a Stupid White Man The Democratic Context of Michael Moore’s Documentaries
By ANNA MISIAK
Abstract: The author presents the tempts to ignite an essential democrat- award-winning director Michael ic impulse among American citizens. Moore as a social phenomenon. His He assumes the role of a provocateur controversial documentary works and who raises the consciousness of his public speeches are shown in the con- audiences and offers a polemical voice text of American democracy. Moore’s to the power elite. Whereas Moore’s output is seen through the prism of advocates recognize his output as an Downloaded by [University College Falmouth ] at 06:53 26 August 2014 cultural hegemony as described by admirable practical realization of the Gramsci. free speech principle, his adversaries often perceive him as a menace to de- Key words: democracy; documentary; mocratic procedures. Considering the Moore, Michael; political discourse nationwide dispute and the popularity of his movies around the world, the di- he controversial documentaries rector should be acknowledged as a by Michael Moore have pro- significant phenomenon on the Ameri- Tvoked public debate on social can political scene at the dawn of the and political matters since the end of twenty-first century. the 1980s. With his films, books In 1988, Michael Moore released capitalism toward Flint’s growing (Dude, Where’s My Country?, Down- his first documentary Roger and Me. It poverty level (Georgakas and Saltz 4). size This! Random Threats from an held the automobile industry responsi- Then, for a short while, Moore worked Unarmed American, Adventures in a ble for the impoverishment in the di- for television and even managed to TV Nation, Stupid White Men . . . and rector’s hometown of Flint, Michigan. produce the feature Canadian Bacon Other Sorry Excuses for the State of Roger Smith of General Motors sym- (1995). Real popularity, however, es- the Nation), and speeches, Moore at- bolized the indifference of corporate caped him until Bowling for Colum- 160 Downloaded by [University College Falmouth ] at 06:53 26 August 2014
Michael Moore takes on the war in Iraq in Fahrenheit 9/11.
bine (2002), an investigative story that Moore two very prestigious awards: remembered well for the words, “We takes viewers on a tour from the origin the Special Prize of the fifty-fifth live in fictitious times. We live in the and consequence of omnipresent vio- Cannes Film Festival and an Academy time where we have fictitious election lence in America through the April Award in 2003. That Oscar night, he results that elect a fictitious president. 1999 shootings at Columbine High took the occasion to pronounce his po- We live in a time where we have a man School in Colorado. litical opinions in an aggressive and sending us to war for fictitious rea- The “violence” documentary earned loud manner. His acceptance speech is sons. . . . Shame on you, Mr. Bush. 161 162 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television
Shame on you.”1 Immediately, Moore he would be persistent until “this man The director does not present the was accused of exploiting the situa- [George W. Bush] is out of office.” counterpoint in a shallow way. His tion. Expressing his profound discontent- analyses are preceded by careful Later, during the post-Oscar press ment with corporate capitalism, the preparatory work. He makes an effort conference, he attempted to justify his American Right, corruption, and poli- to trace media information, people’s acceptance speech by declaring, “I’m tics in general, Moore has chosen to reactions, and archival materials. an American.” And when asked by a make his point of view clear through Most of all, he is interested in the facts surprised journalist, “That’s it?” the documentary form. Nevertheless, not widely known to the public, and Moore replied, “That’s a lot.” Then he his movies are not just imitations of certainly Moore deserves credit for continued, “I love my country. I love the political realities as he sees them. his hard work as a researcher. He democracy.” Undoubtedly, these All through his work in the cinematic should be recognized not only as a words demonstrate the essence of his field, the director attempts to instruct filmmaker but also, and maybe most attitude and provide a reason for all of the American public. His movies are important, as an investigative journal- his undertakings. Moore portrays him- rooted in the tradition of reflexive doc- ist, who potently reveals the underly- self as a devoted believer in American ing events of political and social mat- democratic values, and this faith spurs All through his work in ters. What constitutes the core of him to action. From the very begin- Moore’s story of America is usually ning of his movie career, he puts for- the cinematic field, the portrayed in the form of superficial ward criticism of contemporary Amer- and incoherent glimpses on television ican politics and society. According to director attempts to and in the press. He depicts the other Moore, democracy is not limited sole- side, usually the darker one, of poli- ly to the electoral process but should instruct the American tics and society. be practiced to achieve a high level of Moore’s filmic vision of contempo- egalitarianism in American society. public. His movies are rary America comprises the facts that Moore’s incendiary film Fahrenheit in most cases are not publicized by 9/11 (2004) disparages the capacity of rooted in the mainstream media. Through shifting Republicans to perform governmental tradition of reflexive focus to undisclosed political nuances, duties. Dealing with the presidency of Moore contrives the strategy of pro- George W. Bush, terrorism, war in documentary. jecting his pictures as personal state- Iraq, and the war’s social and political ments. Instead of speaking as an om- implications, the production instigated niscient narrator, he seeks to capture much public debate. The social dispu- umentary. The theoretical standpoint the imagination of spectators by voic- tation heated up after the director was for this mode of filmmaking is ing his subjective concerns. Not only awarded the Palme d’Or (given for the grounded in the works of Bertolt does he send the message, “Look, this first time to a documentary filmmaker Brecht, Jean-Luc Godard’s postulates, is what really happens, and in most since Jacques Costeau’s The Silent and 1970s British Screen journal arti- cases you are not aware of it,” but usu- World in 1956) and continued with the cles. Very popular among leftist film- ally he indirectly adds, “This is what I difficulties Moore experienced with makers and theoreticians, reflexive found out about the situation.” Fur- the film’s American distribution. documentaries serve the intention of thermore, he appears as one of the
Downloaded by [University College Falmouth ] at 06:53 26 August 2014 Michael Moore came a long way challenging the probity of the social characters in his movies, not for the from Roger and Me through Bowling and political order of our times’ capi- simple sake of showing off but to em- for Columbine to Fahrenheit 9/11. He talistic and democratic systems. phasize that the films are manifesta- never conceals that he assumes to ful- As Izod and Kilborn write, “The po- tions of his convictions. He titles his fill a mission through his documen- litical dimension of the reflexive proj- film Roger and Me, protests in front of taries, but, while remonstrating with ect lies partly in the way such films Kmart with some of the victims of the the failures of corporate capitalism, he imply that people’s memory percep- Columbine shooting, and tries to per- appeared to be a social critic. Now tion and interpretation of events are suade congressmen to send their kids with Fahrenheit 9/11, he has fully distorted by the stereotypes . . . that to war as soldiers—these are just a turned into a political agitator. Al- circulate in our culture” (430). On cin- few instances of his strong on-screen though the movie’s purpose is to direct ematic grounds, this is exactly the appearances that form a large part of viewers’ attention toward hidden facts, point expressed by Moore. As a de- his rhetorical strategy. he wished this film would awaken the clared leftist (Rosenbaum 96), Moore Moore’s documentaries are, as crit- political consciousness of the public. attempts to discourage his audience ics call them, “first person tour[s]” By presenting the Bush administra- from accepting the predominant point (Sharrett and Luhr 36). Commenting tion’s abuse of power, he aimed at in- of view by casting doubt on prevalent on Bowling for Columbine, Klawans fluencing the result of the 2004 presi- assumptions about political and social notices, “On the surface, the director’s dential elections. As he often stressed, problems in contemporary America. latest documentary diatribe is about The Democratic Context of Michael Moore’s Documentaries 163
Moore’s image, which he always puts in the center of his work, is un- questionably appealing to some view- ers. He looks like one of the good old boys from the neighborhood. Com- pared with polished presenters of TV news, he appears to be one of the vic- tims of the system he discusses in his productions. As two critics have char- acterized, “the reason for his success in the mainstream venues is his big persona—a big potbellied slob from the American heartland in a baseball cap who looks like he buys his clothes in Kmart and sleeps in them” (Sharrett and Luhr 36). Still, some of Moore’s adversaries denounce his movie char- acter as nothing more than a working- class stereotype of his middle-class vi- sion. Nevertheless, most agree that the image of the director certainly widens the path of his social reach, but still it does not explain his widespread popu- larity.
oger and Me is structured around R the social conflicts that are creat- ed by capitalist America. What may be seen as desirable on the corporate and governmental levels generates pro- found negative consequences for the individual citizen and consumer. The American dream and the myth of equal opportunity fail to materialize in Michael Moore takes this film because of the actions of on American gun General Motors, which, due to reorga- violence in Bowling nization, cuts jobs, resulting in impov- for Columbine. erished neighborhoods. Those who fall victim to this process are left be-
Downloaded by [University College Falmouth ] at 06:53 26 August 2014 America at its worst. But ultimately, commercial success. Roger and Me hind with no help from either the gov- the film reveals as much about the man grossed over $7 million (Cohan and ernment or GM. Neither democratic who made it” (32). Moore’s personal Crowdus 25), Bowling for Columbine nor capitalist ideology offers a solu- appearance serves a strong advantage $21.5 million (“Hollywood Abuzz”), tion for them; moreover, they usually in his polemic with mainstream media. and Fahrenheit 9/11 $113 million become the neglected part of the The information media are impersonal (Box Office Charts), and it became the American population. and pretend to be objective. Moore’s first documentary to reach number one Similar social critiques constitute a documentaries surpass them in terms at the box office during its opening conspicuous part of Moore’s newer not only of content but also of form. weekend. In their study on the docu- productions. His analysis of violence The director-as-participant plays ex- mentary, Izod and Kilborn state, “The in Bowling for Columbine shows how traordinarily well, particularly when reflexive mode has aroused greater in- the collective causes of government he points out the drawbacks of main- terest among observers of documen- and capitalism clash with the rights of stream media. The encounter between tary than among most members of the American individuals, producing para- viewers and the filmmaker is empha- public” (430). The numbers quoted doxical ideological and social effects sized, presenting Moore as a supposed certainly challenge this assumption. that victimize a large part of society. surrogate of his audience. Moore has forged movies that accom- The violence originates on the political Michael Moore’s self-appearances modate both his political goals and level (solving international problems contribute to his celebrity value and still grasp an audience’s attention. with bombings) and is supported by 164 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television
corporations producing weapons. fictional totalitarian regime and ac- regime as an apposite piece of con- These larger patterns are further linked tions of contemporary American lead- temporary America’s characteristics. to the right to carry a gun and associat- ers, the director of Fahrenheit 9/11 ad- The director issues a strong caution, ed with juvenile crime. Moore sees the duces the Orwellian vision through his warning citizens of potential outcomes fear that is produced by politicians and own interpretation of previously pro- of the current administration’s policy. corporations (including the media) at duced fictional works on the subject. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens with the voice- the root of violence among youngsters. The title obviously refers to Fahren- over narration, “Was it just a dream?” In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore moves a heit 451. Ray Bradbury’s novel and and then the whole film provides the step further. He aims at stimulating François Truffaut’s movie adaptation answer: What is happening in Ameri- political democratic activity on the depict a future society in which books can politics after 9/11 is dangerous to part of American citizens. By appeal- are banned. The fictional world is society and democracy. The worst ing to the dignity of the American peo- ruled by a government that prohibits nightmare of literary and cinematic ple, he points to the government’s ex- all printed materials and, therefore, at- masters may come true if the society is ploitation of the lower classes. Al- tempts to control thinking. The Brad- lulled by the sweet deceptive voices of though Moore does not directly refer bury/Truffaut social vision resembled politicians. to any masters of social or political Moore’s examination of the politi- thought, as a radical leftist, he situates The director issues a cal reality leads him to a very pes- himself in the Marxian tradition and simistic diagnosis. He draws a parallel all through his cinematic activity ful- strong caution, warning between past European dictatorships fills the incentives of Antonio Gram- (especially totalitarian) and the current sci—the philosophical patron of the citizens of potential American administration. It is a not- American left. Gramsci regards the so-subtle allusion. According to politi- great role of the intellectual elite in outcomes of the current cal scientists (Arendt; Friedrich and awakening political consciousness of Brzezinski 3–13), terror is the con- the masses who need to acknowledge administration’s policy. stituent element of any totalitarian their interests to further pronounce regime. Fear is generated around a them in the public debate. To convince George Orwell’s 1984 in terms of its supposed enemy. Fahrenheit 9/11 de- the people to take action, intellectuals level of extreme manipulation and picts its contemporary American are encouraged to critically state prob- control. So does Moore’s Fahrenheit equivalent: The government raises and lems and put them into an accessible 9/11. In fact, the intertextual reference lowers security levels, keeping aver- form (Krzemien-Ojak 15–17). After to 1984 is directly pronounced by the age citizens frightened. This section of all, according to Gramsci, civil society narrator toward the end of the film: the movie is concluded with George is the sphere of struggle for people’s W. Bush stating that dictatorship conscience. George Orwell once wrote: It’s not a would be much easier. The words of matter of whether the war is not real, or While making Fahrenheit 9/11, if it is, victory is not possible. The war the president obviously are taken out Moore assumed he had some power: is not meant to be won, it is meant to be of context, but the frequent security The nation should exercise its right to continuous. Hierarchical society is only alerts are real. Fahrenheit 9/11 sends a deny legitimacy of the government possible on the basis of poverty and ig- stern warning that democracy is a del- and hold the president accountable for norance. This new version is the past icate system and needs to be guarded and no different past can ever have ex-
Downloaded by [University College Falmouth ] at 06:53 26 August 2014 his actions. Moore cherished this isted. In principle the war effort is al- at all costs. Gramscian desire to spur masses into ways planned to keep society on the Moore demonstrates the menace action with expectation of fulfillment. brink of starvation. The war is waged by that comes with George W. Bush’s ad- He progressed from the presentation the ruling group against its own subjects ministration, which he presents as not of the capitalist failure, from passive and its object is not the victory over ei- being legitimate enough to govern a ther Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the criticism, to the use of the media per- very structure of society intact. free nation. For Moore, Bush is repre- sona, which he uses in his fight for the sentative of the Republican power elite political cause, in his struggle for The passage is not a precise quote that abuses the rights of the American America. from Orwell but a paraphrase of a sec- people. Both the war on terrorism and The simple form in which Moore tion from chapter 9 of the original: “It the war in Iraq serve the sole purpose disguises his social message serves does not matter whether the war is ac- of empowering those who rule either precisely the purpose of educating the tually happening, and, since no deci- financially (direct income from oil) or masses—the Gramscian goal of an in- sive victory is possible, it does not politically (as defenders of the nation). tellectual elite. Although he presents matter whether the war is going well International conflicts are artificially quite sophisticated social criticism, it or badly. All that is needed is that a created to keep the elite in a position is put in simple language and, there- state of war should exist” (Orwell). of power. fore, is accessible to almost anyone. Moore regards Orwell’s remarks on The closest to direct reference to To sharpen the parallel between the the essence of a fictional totalitarian Gramsci is introduced in Moore’s dis- The Democratic Context of Michael Moore’s Documentaries 165
cussion of the political and economic rom the very beginning of his doc- The most obvious instance is Fahren- elite. Fahrenheit 9/11 bares the egoism Fumentary career, Moore’s rhetoric heit 9/11, in which clips from classical of the ruling class and its immoral ex- drew attention of his adversaries. Just Westerns provide an ironic commen- ploitation of those who occupy lower after the festival screenings of Roger tary on the current administration. strata of the social hierarchy. The cli- and Me in New York and Toronto in Catching audiences’ attention, it max of the discussion appears toward 1989, Moore was accused by various serves its function. Although some the end of the movie. To prove his Michigan newspapers of chronologi- critics take it as an explanation, others point, Moore presents a fragment of cal manipulation of facts. It was pro- perceive it as a violation of documen- George W. Bush’s speech: “This is an nounced that he made the government tary ethics. impressive crowd: haves and have- Regarding Roger and Me, Pauline mores. Some people call it ‘elite.’ I call Moore’s message . . . Kael put forward heavy charges in The it ‘my base.’ ” Moore’s message, New Yorker. She found it unethical to which complies with the Gramscian emerges clearly: The present the poor and lower class vic- spirit of bringing social conflicts to the tims of the corporate reorganization as public eye, emerges clearly: The only only goal of those who comic characters (92). However, most goal of those who rule is to accumu- critics see such accusations as unrea- late both financial and political power rule is to accumulate sonable, as the egalitarian approach of at the high cost of abusing average both financial and Roger and Me justifies comic presen- American citizens. tation (Plantiga 49). The satirist-ironic According to Gramsci, the intellec- political power at the mood is another bow toward the audi- tuals should raise the consciousness of ence to make their reception more en- the public by critically stating the so- high cost of abusing joyable. The laughter is generated not cial and political problems. An aver- average American only to ridicule but also to produce age citizen may sense them; however, catharsis. We can laugh at the charac- he or she may face some difficulties citizens. ters, but then the difficult feelings of recognizing the exploitation suffered. uneasiness and shame come, which While discussing the drawbacks of certainly provoke more profound re- Bush’s administration, Moore empha- and the corporate capitalists look evil flections. Similar is the function of sizes logical links between the depict- through changing the sequence of real comic elements in Fahrenheit 9/11. ed events. Fahrenheit 9/11 is divided events. Eventually, it was the major Although one of its goals is to poke into sections. The narration units are reason that Roger and Me was not fun at the incompetent power elite and, usually summed up by a voice-over to nominated for an Academy Award most of all, at President Bush, the draw viewers’ attention to the core of (Harkness 130). To defend his docu- catharsis still appears: If it is really the problem. For instance, the section mentary method, in an interview for this way, it is not funny. The social and discussing the government’s unethical Film Comment, Moore stated, political message is always at the top reasoning for waging the war that pro- It’s not fiction. But what if we say it’s a of Moore’s stylistic endeavors. duces depravation of the soldiers is documentary told with a narrative style. With Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore was concluded, “Immoral behavior breeds I tried to tell a documentary in a way blamed for having created a shocking immoral behavior. When the President they don’t usually get told. The reason image of American social and political why people don’t watch documentaries
Downloaded by [University College Falmouth ] at 06:53 26 August 2014 commits the immoral act of sending reality through careful manipulation of is they are so bogged down with “Now otherwise good kids to the war based in 1980 . . . then in ’82 five thousand facts. The critical debate that this con- on a lie, this is what you get.” Simul- were called back . . . in ’84 ten thousand troversial film instigated revolved taneously, pictures of soldiers making were laid off . . . but then in ’86.”. . . If around past accusations of violating racist, sexual comments about a dead you want to tell the Flint story, there’s documentary ethics. Because of that, Iraqi appear on the screen. Such voice- the Flint story. (Jacobson 23) Fahrenheit 9/11 produced enough over commentaries serve a double The numbers and strict order of events media noise, and the director did not function: First, they allow the viewer may be interesting for an economist or need to add his outrageous speeches to to see the underlying links between a sociologist, but they are not what the the brouhaha to stir up a wider recog- juxtaposed facts, revealing their strik- viewer used to the mainstream Holly- nition of his picture. ing pertinence to the overall image of wood cinema—Moore’s target audi- In Cannes in 2004, Moore’s accep- reality emerging from the movie; sec- ence—expects. Moore offers a presen- tance speech addressed the festival ond, they appeal to emotions of the au- tation of difficult political and social jury, “I have a sneaking suspicion that dience regardless of their educational problems relying on his spectators’ what you have done here and the re- background, which is another realiza- watching habits. First, he attempts to sponse from everyone at the festival, tion of Gramscian postulates for creat- produce an interesting story. More- you will assure that the American peo- ing an easily accessible, politically en- over, sometimes he directly makes ref- ple will see this film. . . . You’ve put a gaged discourse. erence to iconic Hollywood genres: huge light on this and many people 166 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television
want the truth . . . (“Palme d’Or”). history to be called a liar for his sub- On May 5, 2004, when Michael This reaction was far from Moore’s jectivity. But, after all, should an ob- Moore was to screen Fahrenheit 9/11 Oscar spontaneity, and, significantly, jective presentation of facts be the ul- in Cannes, it was reported that Dis- he did not make any direct political timate purpose of shooting a docu- ney—the parent company of Miramax comments. Nevertheless, not only the mentary? The best answer to this ques- (the movie investor)— refused to re- press but also the Republican power tion comes from two critics writing in lease the movie (Thomson C01). Dis- elite that is so severely rebuked in the Cineaste: ney wanted to avoid any involvement movie quickly responded to Moore’s [Michael Moore] somehow violates the in the controversial project. An en- cinematic provocations. aspirations of objective documentary gagement in the public debate touch- Although George W. Bush ignored filmmaking (as if film history hasn’t ex- ing on social and political conflicts Moore’s movie (he refused an invita- posed this delusion decades ago or that could hurt the overall box office of the tion to the premiere in Texas) and the he fails to tell both sides of the story) company. Immediately, Disney execu- which would make his work about as White House announced the movie compelling as network television. Such tives were accused of making a politi- was “so outrageously false, it [was] complaints reveal a conservative im- cally biased decision. not even worth a comment” (“Holly- pulse having nothing to do with ad- Disney publicly denied any political wood Abuzz”), the Republican Party dressing Moore’s real strengths and lim- allegiance, as chief executive and expressed its objections. On July 12, itations. (Sharrett and Luhr 36) media mogul Michael Eisner said, “The 2004, the Web site of the Republican If it is to be a powerful form of ex- company did not want a film in the National Committee posted excerpts pression, the documentary must show middle of the political process where from Slate, Newsweek, World Tribune, something more than what an average we’re such a nonpartisan company and and the Washington Post scorning viewer can see on television. Moore our guests, that participate in all of our Moore’s production for twisting and attractions, do not look for us to take bending the actual events. A longer ar- sides” (“Disney Blocking”). However, ticle titled “The Nine Lies of Fahren- [S]hould an objective Moore discerned other underlying rea- heit 9/11” presented a detailed account sons behind Disney’s decision. He as- of Moore’s presumable deceptions. presentation of facts sumed that the company feared losing The argument aimed at showing the its tax breaks in Florida once the film complete picture of facts that were just be the ultimate purpose offended the state governor, Jeb Bush, glimpsed in the movie. The first of its of shooting a who also appears in the film. Disney nine commentaries reads: dismissed this argument, and, much to National Security Advisor Condoleezza documentary? Moore’s disappointment, the executives Rice is depicted in the movie telling a held fast to not releasing the film. reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie be- In an interview that followed the de- tween Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” figured out that the specific difference cision, Moore asked a rhetorical ques- The scene deceptively shows the Ad- tion: “Should this be happening in a ministration directly blaming Saddam lies in storytelling techniques and sub- and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 jectivity. free and open society where the by taking her comments out of context. monied interests essentially call the Now read the entire statement made by t is not important to accept the rea- shots regarding the information that Ms. Rice to the reporter: soning of just one side of the con- the public is allowed to see?” (Ruten- “Oh, indeed there is a tie between I
Downloaded by [University College Falmouth ] at 06:53 26 August 2014 flict or the other. The most valuable berg). The director found himself in a Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow asset in the whole Fahrenheit 9/11 position resembling that of some of his himself and his regime involved in 9/11. controversy is the indirect interaction movie characters—trapped by the But if you think about what caused of the supporters and opponents of the powers of corporate capitalism ob- 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred current administration. Finally, the structing an execution of the democra- that led people to drive airplanes into elite in power heard the voice of their tic right to free expression. buildings in New York.” (“Nine Lies”) political adversary. Although Moore Still, Moore trusted in overcoming The author of the article meant it as a did not convince the ruling party and the limits that resulted from the clash revelation of Moore’s manipulation in was mostly discussed in connection to of capitalism and democracy. On May providing evidence for his movie’s his apparent lies, thanks to him, we 5, 2004, he posted a message on his point of view. However, the audiences observe democracy at work—the po- Web site: “Some people may be afraid did not take the Republican perspec- litical system that allows him to mani- of this movie because of what it will tive for granted. The defenders of fest his opinions with no limitations; show. But there’s nothing they can do Fahrenheit 9/11 referred to the history in fact, it is his indisputable Constitu- about it now because it’s done, it’s of documentary film and often quoted tional right. As the events concerning awesome and if I have anything to say the need to adapt facts to the narrative American distribution of Fahrenheit about it, you’ll see it this summer— demands of a nonfiction feature film. 9/11 have shown, this right can be because, after all, it’s a free country” Moore is not the first documentarist in challenged by the corporate powers. (Moore, “Disney”). The Democratic Context of Michael Moore’s Documentaries 167
Meanwhile, the public debate over former New York City mayor, “I went need for a counterbalance appears Fahrenheit 9/11 began. On May 10, to see ‘Fahrenheit 9/11.’ The movie is quite evident. If the political opposi- 2004, KCRW Radio in Los Angeles a well-done propaganda piece and tion stays quiet, the aggressive public aired its daily political discussion screed as has been reported by most relations–filtered promotion of the show Which Way L.A? with an episode critics. . . . The most significant of- government currently in power would titled “Is There Censorship in Film fense that movie commits is to cheap- inundate the public discourse. and Television?” which was critical in en the political debate . . . and rein- The main prerequisite of representa- tone not only of Disney but also, force the opinions on both sides.” Sim- tive democracy is based on an assump- among others, of Sinclair Broadcast- ilarly, a critic in Variety asks, “Is tion that an average citizen enjoys free ing’s decision not to show ABC’s Moore objective? Absolutely not” and equal access to any political de- Nightline program featuring the nam- (Nesselson 24). In contrast, Moore bate. However, most government and ing of American soldiers killed in Iraq. sees himself as a political agitator who corporate public relations activities in- On May 5, 2004, Senator Frank R. does not speak in the name of objec- terfere with such individual expres- Lautenberg called for Senate censor- tivity but seeks to convince the public sions. To maintain their influence on ship hearings in connection with the of his point of view. foreign and domestic policy, not only Disney and Sinclair decisions. In his Propaganda can be understood as a must the opponents of the government letter to the chairman of the Commit- method of directing people’s behavior in power produce information for the tee on Commerce, Science and Trans- under democratic circumstances. In public so as to confront the incum- portation, Lautenberg wrote, “I am Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore scrutinizes the bents’ political views, but they also concerned that Americans are facing controversial presidency of George W. need to make themselves understand- an emerging threat of political censor- Bush, and his work certainly is repre- able and popular to a wide and diverse ship—not from the government—but audience. During the 2004 presidential from some of our nation’s largest cor- election, Michael Moore succeeded in porations” (“Senator”). In his movies, Moore this charge with Fahrenheit 9/11. Although the public debate did not Moore’s documentaries perfectly fit conclude with an immediate response presents his subjective the current American public debate. from Congress, it voiced some citi- Articulating a leftist perspective, he zens’ considerations about media opinions, but at the preserves the equipoise of the political moguls attempting to limit civil liber- same time he speaks discourse. In his movies, Moore pre- ties in the United States, but most of sents his subjective opinions, but at the all it stimulated widespread interest in out for a part of the same time he speaks out for a part of Fahrenheit 9/11. Americans wanted to the American left. While filling the see the controversial movie and American left. leftist niche in the public debate, he protested Disney’s infringing on the manages to make his voice heard, and right of the public to access the film. in turn he hopes to convince not only Just when the public dissent intensi- sentative of propaganda, which in a declared leftists but the whole society fied, Miramax founders, Bob and Har- democracy should not always be con- of his perspective. As Ralph Dahren- vey Weinstein, bought the rights to sidered a dishonest and negative strat- dorf notes, democracy can operate Fahrenheit 9/11 from Disney and de- egy. Persuading voters during a politi- properly only if there is a dual effort of
Downloaded by [University College Falmouth ] at 06:53 26 August 2014 cided to distribute it through Lions cal campaign also shows only one side the authorities and citizens. Still, both Gate Films and IFC Films. Eventually, of an argument and, thus, is propagan- parties can be perceived as a threat to the movie opened on June 25, 2004 dist in nature (Pratkanis and Aronson). democracy: The government can pos- (Breznican). Propaganda does not need to imply sess too much power, whereas agitat- After the struggle for distribution of false information; it just supports a ing citizens can destabilize the system Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore’s strong faith particular point of view. Furthermore, (Jakubowicz 11–12). In the debate sur- in the democratic process came true. it is a part of every existing democrat- rounding Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore ac- He was able to perform his role as ed- ic system. cuses the power elite of forcing dicta- ucator, agitator, and social critic. Al- In any democracy, the government torial policy; at the same time, his de- though Moore could pronounce his is also granted the right to maintain its tractors claim he polarizes the nation partial victory on June 25, 2004, many own public relations institutions, and interferes with the country’s sta- people expressed further reservations which, through various links to main- bility. In hoping to mobilize public about his approach. Commonly, the di- stream media, have an impact on the opinion, Moore represents one citi- rector is accused of fashioning a prop- presentation of facts transmitted to the zen’s commitment to democratic val- aganda piece. In the United States and public (Pratkanis and Aronson). Hav- ues and their preservation. It is crucial Europe, many journalists and politi- ing recognized the political authorities to let both sides publicly express their cians found Fahrenheit 9/11 repug- as a key factor in shaping mainstream opposing points of view. The foremost nant. Most of them echo Ed Koch, the media communication practices, the threat to democracy resides in limiting 168 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television
any citizen the right to speak out freely 9/11.’ ” May 24, 2004. June 7, 2004 //www.george-orwell.org/1984/16. on any issue of great national interest.