Effect of Michael Moore's documentaries on documentary film credibility

Fahrenheit 911 & Bowling for Columbine

Vs Fahrenhype 911 & Celsius 411

The Docudrama Films Fahrenheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine vs. The Docudrama Films FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die and their Comparative Influences on the Reputation of Docudrama as a Film Genre

Two successful award-winning docudrama films, Bowling for Columbine (2002) and Fahrenheit 911 (2004) directed by the left-leaning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, who also directed the earlier, equally successful, docudrama Roger and Me (1989), have, in my opinion, in general positively impacted the reputation of docudrama as a film genre, based on a combination of their hard-hitting impacts and their entertainment value, even if not on their absolute accuracy. In comparison, two strongly "anti-Michael Moore" docudrama films, FahrenHype 9/11, "A documentary which refutes and debunks 'facts' made by Michael Moore in his hit film "Fahrenheit 9/11" (FahrenHype 9/11

2004) (V) and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die, both of which explicitly argue against assertions about the George W. Bush administration by Moore in Fahrenheit 911, are less successful, and do not increase the credibility of the docudrama film genre nearly to the extent that Michael Moore's own various docudramas have done. In this essay, I will analyze reasons for the relative success and effectiveness of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911, and will also explore why these docudramas in particular have helped increase the credibility of docudrama, while other politically-oriented docudramas, including Moore "refutations" like FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die, have not enhanced the reputation of film docudrama nearly as much.

Michael Moore's docudrama film Fahrenheit 911 (2004) thoughtfully (although, also, in a biased way) takes an in-depth critical look at President George W. Bush's faulty, conservative agenda-driven leadership of the United States, from the time of the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., until the presidential election season of 2004. This film (which takes its name from a combination of Ray Bradbury's science fiction novel Fahrenheit 411, and the date of the 2001 terrorist attacks themselves, September 11, 2001), is highly entertaining to watch, but it also contains a distinct ideological perspective of which the Republican makers and financers of FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die are obviously very critical, as can be seen within their own docudrama films that are intended to provide an ideological counterpoint to Michael Moore's politically liberal perspective, as seen in Fahrenheit 911 in particular.

Clearly a distinctly leftist ideology is evident in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911 (and other films by Moore, e.g., Bowling for Columbine), and it is this particular liberal ideology of Moore's against which the more politically conservative makers of FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die, react forcefully within their own 2004 election season docudramas.

Both Michael Moore's films and the anti-Michael Moore docudramas they inspire, are driven by political ideology: in the case of Moore's films a liberal one, and in the case of the others, a conservative one. As Gianetti (1999) defines 'ideology', e.g., as presented in Michael Moore's docudramas and other docudramas:

Ideology is usually defined as a body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual group, class, or culture. The term is generally associated with party politics and platforms, but it can also mean a given set of values that are implicit in any human enterprise -- including filmmaking.

Virtually every movie presents us with role models, ideal ways of behaving, negative traits, and an implied morality depending on the filmmaker's sense of right and wrong. In short, every film has a slant, a given ideological perspective that privileges certain characters institutions, behaviors, and motives as attractive, and downgrades an opposing set as repellant. (p. 396)

Further, the ideology of Moore's Fahrenheit 911 is "explicit" (p. 397) like that of, say, JFK, Boys N. The Hood, or (another Michael Moore film) Roger and Me (Gianetti, pp. 397-398), in that it is a straightforward indictment of the Presidential leadership of President George W. Bush, from September 11, 2001 to 2004. The film was also explicitly intended for release during election year 2004, as a way of hopefully costing George W. Bush needed votes in his presidential re-election campaign.

Despite the flaws of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, however, especially Moore's own obvious political biases as a filmmaker, and his manipulation of various facts and circumstances to suit his own political ends, FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die are not nearly as effective, either on their own as films, or as explicit counterpoints to Moore's political viewpoint. This is because, first, their central artistic and creative concepts, even as reflected by heir respective titles, simply feed off of Moore's original docudrama concept, rather than being originally-inspired creations in their own right.

Further, both "anti-Fahrenheit 911" films, FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die, lack either Michael Moore's exquisitely sensitive dramatic timing (e.g., in Roger and Me, Moore's and his film crew's lengthy wait, in vain, for Roger Smith at GM Headquarters in Detroit) and Moore's sense of good-natured yet outraged irony (e.g., the showing of George W. Bush's and his family's cozy relationship with the Saudis in Fahrenheit 911, even to the point of the Bush family's calling Saudi Prince Bandar "Bandar Bush"). In instances like these, even if much of Moore's audience(s) realizes it is being manipulated, the audience goes along with the manipulation for its sheer entertainment value. Moore, as filmmaker and interviewer (or in the case of Roger Smith and various elusive others, would-be interviewer) seems also not to take himself all that seriously, in any of his films (although he does take his subject matter itself very seriously). This ability on Moore's part to implicitly poke fun at himself, if not his subject matter, also encourages film audiences to cut Moore himself some interpretative slack that they might not give to a more self-important documentary filmmaker.

Michael Moore, as a filmmaker and as a human being, also displays both a sense of humor and an essentially good heart, despite his obvious political biases. These qualities of Moore's filmmaking and personality make Moore's docudramas fun and entertaining to watch, even if one does not completely agree with Moore politically. There is also a strong sense, in Moore films like Fahrenheit 911; Bowling for Columbine; and Roger and Me, that Moore himself both represents and supports the "underdog" in America, e.g., the powerless; non-privileged; non-moneyed American who has been scared, tricked, or otherwise manipulated into supporting the war in Iraq based on a supposed tie to 911 terrorism; or the soon-to-be-jobless GM worker.

In comparison neither FahrenHype 9/11 nor Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die, seems to either speak to the "underdog" in America as Michael Moore's documentary films do, or to have been made by especially good-hearted, well-intended, or self-deprecating people. Both of these more conservative documentary films therefore come across as being relatively shallow and callow compared to Moore's, even as one also realizes Moore's films are at least equally manipulative.

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 implies, overall, "that a society's resources should be distributed in roughly equal portions" (p. 402). But in fact, they are not.

George W. Bush's Presidential administration, with help from the Saudis; multi-national corporations; and other big interests, instead have grabbed up most of the world's wealth and resources for themselves and their own special interests, and left very little for the relative "have-nots" of the world. The film Fahrenheit 911 also shows extensive preferential treatment, on the part of George W. Bush's Presidential administration in particular, for the other "haves" of the world (as opposed to the relative "have-nots" of the world like the average American filmgoer), people with whom the average American film viewer most likely finds it extremely hard to identify. For example, members of international terrorist Osama Bin Laden's wealthy family are shown being given U.S. government-chartered flights back to Saudi Arabia after the 911 terrorist attacks, in a U.S. government effort to "protect" them ("FahrenHype 9/11

2004) (V)").

Moore's film Fahrenheit 911 also implies a close previous (and ongoing) business association between the hugely wealthy Bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia and members of George W. Bush's own wealthy and privileged family, including George W. Bush himself.

Further, George W. Bush and his family, and the wealthy individuals and groups with whom they associate, are portrayed in Fahrenheit 911 as being characteristically right-wing in their own ideological perspectives. As Gianetti further points out, in terms of human political perspectives as depicted in film:

Leftists believe that human behavior is learned and can be changed by proper environmental incentives. Antisocial behavior is largely the result of poverty, prejudice, lack of education, and low social status rather than human nature or lack of character...

Rightists believe that character is largely inborn and genetically inherited.

Hence the emphasis of many right-wingers on lineage and the advantage of coming from "a good family"...

In Michael Moore's depiction of George W. Bush's Presidential administration within Fahrenheit 911, Moore often emphasizes Bush's influential and powerful family ties; the fact that Bush's father was President before him and still wields great influence over the Saudis, and that Bush's father and other Bush relatives, along with the younger Bush, still have close relations with other, similarly dynastic families, such as the Bin Ladens of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Royal family.

In one other part of the film Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore even jokes about how the Bush family is so fond of Saudi Arabia's charismatic one-time Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, that they call him "Bandar Bush," and entertain him when he visits the United States as if he were an actual family member. These parts of the film exemplify what Gianetti describes as the right-wing's typical emphasis on family ties, or "lineage," over the left's greater emphasis on equality of all human beings, including the belief, by the left, in everyone's right to equal opportunities and treatment, within society and under the law. This, then, is the distinction between Michael Moore himself and the wealthy and powerful individuals whose self-serving, hypocritical actions he depicts in Fahrenheit 911. Further, it is also the essential difference between Moore and the makers of and participants in the comparatively much more politically conservative docudrama films FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die.

Several of the opening shots and sequences of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 imply that George W. Bush was practically anointed to the U.S. Presidency, rather than having earned the right to be President on his own. Moore further suggests that the Presidency is a position George W. Bush ought not to occupy, based on family ties alone, starting with the questionable results of the Presidential election of 2000, especially in Florida, where Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, was Governor.

Then, when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 take place, Bush appears ill suited and ill equipped to lead, within Moore's documentary, since he had been placed into the U.S. Presidency based on family ties, rather than on his own individually-proven abilities, skills, or merits. While Michael Moore does take a great deal of creative license in establishing these ideas, there was, even in 2004, arguably sufficient disillusionment with Bush as President among (self-selected) political docudrama film audiences that year, that many people who saw and liked the film likely readily accepted Moore's often-manipulative fact-twisting, or perhaps even failed altogether to see that Moore's "evidence" was not always solid.

Further, Moore's film audience for Fahrenheit 911 could likely identify, for the most part, with Moore's own less-than-VIP treatment at the hands of secret service agents and government officials, e.g., while filming with his crew outside the Saudi Arabian embassy; or while trying to speak candidly with a suddenly camera-shy Congressman about sending his own children to fight in Iraq, etc. Moore himself, as filmmaker; interviewer, and participant, is not after all a privileged individual like George W. Bush; his advisors, or members of Congress, and most average American moviegoers can therefore easily identify with Moore, as filmmaker; film interviewer, and participant. The same goes for Moore in his various other politically liberal docudramas critical of the power elite and their abuses of power, e.g., Roger and Me, and in some respects, Bowling for Columbine.

Other areas in which the political left wing (as represented by Michael Moore and his films) and the right wing (as represented by films like FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die, and their makers and participants) differ are in their beliefs about social progress and economic competition. As Gianetti further points out, for example:

People on the left believe that social progress is best achieved by a Cooperative effort on the part of all citizens toward a common goal... The Role of government is to guarantee the basic needs of life -- work, health, education, etc. -- and this can be most efficiently accomplished if everyone feels he or she is contributing to the common good.

Rightists emphasize open market principles and the need for competition to bring out the best in everyone... (pp. 406-407)

Within Fahrenheit 911 Michael Moore uses footage that is simultaneously disturbing and humorous, in which President George W. Bush is shown, immediately after hearing the news of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, continuing to read the children's book My Pet Goat to a group of Florida elementary school children, while also looking blankly off into the distance trying to figure out what to do next. The sequence of events leading up to that series of shots, in which Bush reads "My Pet Goat" and looks perplexed, for at least five full minutes, is obviously intended by Moore to illustrate that, even though Bush comes from a powerful, privileged family, he is still unfit, on his own, to be President.

In yet another part of Fahrenheit 911, Moore shows a meeting of the Carlyle Group, and President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, as one of its members, implying that the Bush family has competed successfully and won in the world marketplace, and now remains one of the leading economic "players" everywhere, including within Saudi Arabian oil interests, while so many others, throughout America and the world, go without even basic necessities.

Michael Moore's 2004 documentary film Fahrenheit 911 provides an eye- opening look at the Bush administration's many areas of neglect and incompetence, as well as some of its cozy but questionable business dealings, particularly with the Saudi royal family, the Bin Ladens, and others. However, it also has a clear left-wing bias, evidence of Michael Moore's own ideological perspective and way of looking at power, politics, society, and the world. It is this bias that the more conservative makers of FahrenHype 9/11

2004) (V) and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die seek, in particular, to attack.

Another of Michael Moore's award winning docudramas, Bowling for Columbine (2002) provides an eye-opening and disturbing look at the social problem of violence in the United States, particularly violence with guns. The film focuses on events leading up to the tragic Columbine High School shootings in particular; e.g., the atmosphere of Columbine High School and the mostly white, upper-middle-class community of Littleton, Colorado itself; the aftermath of the shootings, and social action taken, by Michael Moore himself, accompanied by two of the Columbine High School shooting victims, to urge K-Mart stores to stop carrying the brand of bullets used to shoot students at Columbine.

From a culturally critical perspective, Michael Moore effectively shows, within his docudrama Bowling for Columbine, how social institutions (e.g., the Littleton, Colorado community itself; the high school at which the shootings occurred) and social relationships (e.g., within the community; between students) alike had played unfortunately destructive roles leading up to the Columbine High School massacre (Chisholm). Michael Moore's documentary investigation into the Columbine tragedy also effectively presents the causes and consequences of a recurring social problem, gun violence, and how and why this problem exists and continues to increase in America, although not in other parts of the world.

Moore's docudrama film Bowling for Columbine is above all an indictment of gun violence in America, with the tragedy at Columbine High School used by Moore as an example of how and why gun violence occurs in the United States, far too often, based on the easy accessibility of guns, to all who desire them. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore also critically explores the historical and sociological, and even the cinematic (e.g., the American Western as a film genre) roots of America's fascination with guns, and of many Americans' overwhelming desire for gun ownership, even tracing these back to the myths of the Wild West.

Along the way, Michael Moore also discovers and points out to his Bowling for Columbine audience, however, that:

conventional answers of easy availability of guns, violent national history, violent entertainment and even poverty are inadequate to explain this violence when other cultures share those same factors without the equivalent carnage. In order to arrive at a possible explanation, Michael Moore takes on deeper examination of America's culture of fear, bigotry and violence in a nation with widespread gun ownership. Furthermore, he seeks to investigate and confront the powerful elite political and corporate interests fanning this culture for their own unscrupulous gain. (Chisholm)

One portion of this film that was particularly memorable and revealing (by association) of the American psyche in particular, was when Michael Moore went up to Canada with his film crew and interviewed several average Canadians who seemed less afraid, and said they were less afraid, than were a similar number of average Americans he had interviewed for the film earlier. These two sets of interviews illustrated the point, very convincingly in fact, that America has much more general fear bred into its culture, in terms of the types of typical anxieties people feel just living life, than does neighboring Canada.

For that reason, Moore implies, many Americans have feel they need guns simply to protect themselves against the frightening dangerous human elements "out there," a feeling that then feeds on itself, thereby producing even more fear, and as a consequence even more gun ownership. In contrast, Canadians who were interviewed for Moore's docudrama Bowling for Columbine do not even lock their front doors, and most do not own guns or feel any personal need to own guns in order to protect them from a dangerous society. Moore convincingly explores, also, how the mythology of the Wild West (e.g., Western movies starring actors like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood) are so much a part of the American psyche, that myriad Americans actually also identify with guns and gun ownership as if it were needed in order to feel safe.

Similarly, Moore points out within Bowling for Columbine that the nightly news in America is characteristically filled, to a very great extent, with reports of crimes and violence. Such continuous coverage of crime and violence in America, as opposed to much less news coverage of such events in places like Europe or Canada, contributes to the overall feeling of general insecurity most Americans possess, especially as compared to people in other countries, where there are far fewer guns, much less fear, and far fewer crimes committed with guns. Columbine High School itself, located in the upscale suburb of Littleton, Colorado where parents of many students work building weapons for Lockheed, is a community that implicitly supports violence, based on the large number of community members who work there.

Moore makes the point that with parents who build weapons for a living, Columbine students are already somewhat inured to violence. Moreover, although the community is not that big, most students interviewed did not know the shooters well; the school seems to have had the impersonal atmosphere that characterizes many suburbs within the United States, where everyone knows a few people, groups, or families, of their choosing, but no one knows everyone, or even a great many people.

In such a social environment, students that the two shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, may have known, likely seemed unreal to them, as fellow human beings, just as Harris and Klebold themselves, who were not well-known to their victims, seemed unreal to them as well. Mass-depersonalization of other human beings implies Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine helps to create a society in which violence itself does not seem quite real, either to those who commit it, or to those whom it is committed against, unless we happen to know them personally. Since most people fear the unknown, most people in America therefore are socially conditioned within America to fear other people, even within their own communities, much more than they should. Such fear becomes, then, a convenient rationale for gun ownership in America, thereby creating the conditions of possibility for massacres like the one that happened at Columbine High School.

The most positive social statement to emerge from the movie Bowling at Columbine was that K-Mart decided to stop carrying the types of bullets used to shoot the Columbine students, after Michael Moore and his crew, accompanied by two students who were victims of the shootings, still healing from their wounds, confronted K-Mart executives at K-Mart corporate headquarters. This showed, in an interestingly ironic way, the power of the mass media to (in this case, at least) possibly help to decrease incidents of violence in America. Unfortunately, however, as Bowling for Columbine effectively points out, the mass media in the U.S. generally does just the opposite of that.

The counter-point (to Michael Moore's politically liberal docudrama Fahrenheit 911) politically conservative documentaries FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 - The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die are for the most part considerably less effective creatively, and less successful overall, in presenting their conservative political agendas interestingly and entertainingly to film audiences, even if those agendas themselves may be (arguably at least) as valid as Michael Moore's.

The politically conservative docudrama film FahrenHype 911, for example: