Michael Moore's Docudramas vs. Conservative Rebuttals

Introduction: Docudrama, Ideology, and Michael Moore

Two successful, award-winning docudrama films — Bowling for Columbine (2002) and Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), directed by the left-leaning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore — have, on balance, positively impacted the reputation of docudrama as a film genre. That impact rests on a combination of hard-hitting subject matter and strong entertainment value, even where absolute factual accuracy is in question. Moore also directed the earlier, equally successful docudrama Roger and Me (1989). In comparison, two strongly "anti-Michael Moore" docudrama films — FahrenHype 9/11, described as "a documentary which refutes and debunks 'facts' made by Michael Moore in his hit film Fahrenheit 9/11" (FahrenHype 9/11, 2004), and Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die — both of which explicitly argue against Moore's assertions about the George W. Bush administration, are less successful and do not increase the credibility of the docudrama genre nearly to the extent that Moore's films do.

This essay analyzes the reasons for the relative success and effectiveness of Moore's Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, and explores why these docudramas in particular have helped increase the credibility of the genre, while politically-oriented conservative counterparts such as FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 have not enhanced the reputation of docudrama nearly as much.

Both Moore's films and the anti-Moore docudramas they inspired are driven by political ideology: in Moore's case, a liberal one; in the case of the others, a conservative one. As Gianetti (1999) defines ideology as it applies to filmmaking:

"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 9/11 is "explicit" (p. 397) — like that of, say, JFK, Boyz n the Hood, or Moore's own Roger and Me (Gianetti, pp. 397–398) — in that it is a straightforward indictment of President George W. Bush's leadership from September 11, 2001 to 2004. The film was also explicitly intended for release during election year 2004, as a means of potentially costing Bush votes in his presidential re-election campaign.

Fahrenheit 9/11: Left-Wing Ideology and Cinematic Impact

Michael Moore's docudrama film Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) provides a thoughtful — if admittedly biased — in-depth critical look at President George W. Bush's leadership of the United States, from the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., through the presidential election season of 2004. The film takes its name from a combination of Ray Bradbury's science fiction novel Fahrenheit 451 and the date of the 2001 attacks themselves. It is highly entertaining, but it also carries a distinct ideological perspective that the Republican makers and financers of FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 are obviously very critical of, as seen within their own docudramas intended to provide an ideological counterpoint to Moore's politically liberal worldview.

Moore's film implies, overall, "that a society's resources should be distributed in roughly equal portions" (Gianetti, p. 402) — but in fact, they are not. George W. Bush's administration, with assistance from the Saudis, multinational corporations, and other large interests, is shown as having directed most of the world's wealth and resources toward itself and its allies, leaving very little for the relative "have-nots" of the world. The film also documents extensive preferential treatment by the Bush administration for other powerful "haves," in sharp contrast to the average American filmgoer. For example, members of Osama bin Laden's wealthy family are shown being given U.S. government-chartered flights back to Saudi Arabia in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, in what Moore frames as a government effort to protect them.

Fahrenheit 9/11 also implies a close prior and ongoing business association between the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia and members of the Bush family, including George W. Bush himself. As Gianetti further explains, when describing right-wing political perspectives as depicted in film: "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'" (p. 400). Moore consistently emphasizes Bush's powerful family ties — the fact that his father was President before him, that the elder Bush still wields great influence over the Saudis, and that the Bush family maintains close relations with other dynastic families such as the bin Ladens and the Saudi royal family.

In one memorable sequence, Moore even jokes about how fond the Bush family is of Saudi Arabia's charismatic former Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, to the point of calling him "Bandar Bush" and entertaining him as though he were an actual family member. These moments exemplify what Gianetti describes as the right wing's typical emphasis on lineage over the left's greater emphasis on equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law. This is the essential distinction between Moore and the wealthy, powerful individuals he depicts in Fahrenheit 9/11 — and also the essential difference between Moore and the makers of the conservative rebuttal films FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11.

Several of the opening shots and sequences of Fahrenheit 9/11 imply that George W. Bush was practically anointed to the presidency rather than having earned it — a suggestion Moore reinforces by pointing to the contested results of the 2000 presidential election in Florida, where Bush's brother Jeb was Governor. When the September 11 attacks occur, Bush appears ill-suited and ill-equipped to lead, in Moore's telling, precisely because his path to the presidency rested on family connections rather than individually proven abilities or merits.

Within Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore uses footage that is simultaneously disturbing and darkly humorous: President Bush is shown, immediately after being informed of the September 11 attacks, continuing to read the children's book My Pet Goat to a group of Florida elementary school students while gazing blankly into the distance for at least five full minutes. Moore clearly intends this sequence to illustrate that, despite coming from a powerful and privileged family, Bush is unfit — on his own — to serve as President. In yet another sequence, Moore shows a meeting of the Carlyle Group and implicates George H.W. Bush as one of its members, suggesting that the Bush family has competed successfully in the global marketplace and now occupies a leading economic position — including within Saudi Arabian oil interests — while millions of others go without even basic necessities.

Moore's film audience could readily identify with his own treatment at the hands of Secret Service agents and government officials — for instance, while filming outside the Saudi Arabian embassy, or while attempting to ask a suddenly camera-shy congressman whether he would send his own children to fight in Iraq. Moore himself is not a privileged individual like Bush, his advisors, or members of Congress, and most average American moviegoers can therefore easily identify with him as filmmaker, interviewer, and participant. The same dynamic operates in his other politically liberal docudramas, including Roger and Me and, to a lesser extent, Bowling for Columbine.

As Gianetti further notes regarding left-wing versus right-wing social and economic beliefs:

"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)

Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ultimately provides an eye-opening look at the Bush administration's areas of neglect and incompetence, as well as some of its questionable business dealings — particularly with the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladens. However, the film also carries a clear left-wing bias that reflects Moore's own ideological perspective on power, politics, society, and the world. It is precisely this bias that the conservative makers of FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 seek to attack.

Why Moore's Films Succeed Where Conservative Rebuttals Fail

Despite the flaws of Fahrenheit 9/11 — especially Moore's obvious political biases and his manipulation of facts and circumstances to suit his political ends — FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 are not nearly as effective, either on their own as films or as explicit counterpoints to Moore's viewpoint. This is partly because their central artistic and creative concepts, even as reflected by their respective titles, simply feed off Moore's original docudrama concept rather than constituting originally-inspired creative works in their own right.

Furthermore, both "anti-Fahrenheit 9/11" films lack Moore's exquisitely sensitive dramatic timing — for example, his and his crew's lengthy, ultimately futile wait for General Motors CEO Roger Smith at GM headquarters in Detroit in Roger and Me — and Moore's sense of good-natured yet outraged irony, such as the depiction of George W. Bush's and his family's cozy relationship with the Saudis in Fahrenheit 9/11. In instances like these, even if much of Moore's audience realizes it is being manipulated, it goes along with the manipulation for its sheer entertainment value. Moore, as filmmaker and interviewer, also does not appear to take himself all that seriously — though he does take his subject matter very seriously. This ability to implicitly poke fun at himself encourages audiences to extend Moore a degree of interpretive goodwill they might not grant a more self-important filmmaker.

Moore also displays both a sense of humor and an essentially good heart, despite his obvious political biases. These qualities make his docudramas fun and entertaining to watch even for viewers who do not completely agree with him politically. There is also a strong sense throughout Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, and Roger and Me that Moore himself both represents and champions the "underdog" in America — the powerless, non-privileged, non-moneyed American who has been scared, tricked, or otherwise manipulated, whether into supporting the war in Iraq on the basis of a supposed connection to the September 11 attacks, or into accepting the loss of a GM factory job.

In comparison, neither FahrenHype 9/11 nor Celsius 41.11 appears to speak to the "underdog" in America as Moore's films do, nor to have been made by especially good-hearted, self-deprecating, or well-intentioned people. Both conservative films therefore come across as relatively shallow and callow compared to Moore's — even as one also recognizes that Moore's films are at least equally manipulative.

Conclusion: Docudrama Credibility and Genre Reputation

In this essay I have explored the form, content, style, and tone of two well-known docudramas by Michael Moore — Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine — compared to two other docudramas, FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11, and analyzed reasons for the relative cinematic success, popularity, and professional prestige (including award recognition) of Moore's films. I have also explored why Moore's docudramas in particular have helped increase the credibility of the docudrama genre in recent years, while politically-oriented conservative counterparts — including the Moore "refutations" FahrenHype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 — have been neither as successful with audiences nor as effective in enhancing the reputation of the docudrama as a film form.

The key differences lie in Moore's ability to combine genuine entertainment value with political passion, his willingness to be self-deprecating, his instinct for irony and dramatic timing, and his consistent identification with the American underdog. These qualities generate audience goodwill and engagement that his conservative counterparts — more serious, more self-important, and less cinematically inventive — have consistently failed to replicate. In doing so, Moore's films have set a high and difficult-to-match standard for what political docudrama can be and can accomplish as a genre.

Works Cited

Bowling for Columbine. Dir. Michael Moore. 2002.

Celsius 41.11 – The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die. Dir. Kevin Knoblock. 2004.

"Celsius 41.11 – The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die." Wikipedia. May 13, 2006. Retrieved June 11, 2006.

Chisholm, Kenneth. "Plot Summary for Bowling for Columbine." IMDb. Retrieved June 11, 2006.

Fahrenheit 9/11. Dir. Michael Moore. 2004.

"FahrenHype 9/11 (2004) (V)." IMDb. Retrieved June 11, 2006.

FahrenHype 9/11. Dir. Alan Peterson. 2004.

"FahrenHype 9/11." Silver Screen Reviews. Retrieved June 11, 2006.

"FahrenHype 9/11." Wikipedia. May 16, 2006. Retrieved June 11, 2006.

Gianetti, L. Understanding Movies (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.

Zacharek, Stephanie. "Celsius 41.11." Salon. Retrieved June 11, 2006.