Page 381 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

0 | Pol t cal Documentary: Fahrenheit 9/11 and the 2004 Elect on

made a name for himself with the success of Roger & Me (1989), his irreverent
look at the disastrous effects the GM plant closings of the mid-1980s had on his
home town of Flint, Michigan. His style of filmmaking incorporates a number of
“reflexive” techniques. Moore, himself, appears on-screen and provides a first-
person voice-over. He routinely provokes the events he films, rather than simply
recording what he sees, such as when he and his cameras “ambush” corporate
and public officials, producing results that are both humorous and uncomfort-
able. And he often employs an ironic editing scheme, in which carefully chosen
music or the insertion of old film and television clips provide an extra layer of
“commentary” to the visuals we see on screen. Through these and other tech-
niques, Moore displays a style that is unquestionably political and unapologeti-
cally personal. This being the case, when it was revealed that Moore’s next film
would take on the president and the war in Iraq, film critics and political pundits
alike took notice. Fahrenheit 9/11 became a controversy before it even opened in
the United States. The vociferous debate it spawned brings up a number of ques-
tions regarding the place of political documentary in contemporary culture.
As is often the case, the question of whether or not documentaries should
be political was front and center. Critics of Moore predictably labeled the film a
piece of propaganda. At best, they complained that Moore presented his infor-
mation in a biased manner that ignored the “other side” and was geared more
towards stoking viewers’ emotions than presenting them with the facts. At worst,
they called Fahrenheit a “pack of lies” and labeled Moore a traitor. Supporters de-
fended Moore by citing ideas such as the freedom of speech and artistic license.
Some argued that while Fahrenheit itself was not balanced, Moore’s interpretation
of events offered a much-needed counterpoint to the version usually given by
the news media. Meanwhile, Moore defended himself by hiring a “war room”
of lawyers to combat claims of inaccuracy, and answered accusations of bias by
describing his film as a cinematic “op-ed” piece. But while Fahrenheit 9/11 did
much to provoke a widespread public discussion about political documentary,
it was apparent that traditional notions of what counted as a documentary re-
mained intact. For instance, while both supporters and detractors felt the need to
bicker over Moore’s committed stance on political issues, they often championed
films displaying a more “neutral” aesthetic, such as the “verite”-style films Con-
trol Room (2004) and Gunner Palace (2005).
Questions over the political nature of Fahrenheit 9/11 were not the only de-
bates that surrounded Moore and his film. Many critics worried about the way
in which Moore’s narrative-driven, humorous style may have tainted a tradi-
tionally sober discourse with “show-biz” values. Should documentaries about
serious issues be entertaining? Moore’s answer to this question is an unequiv-
ocal “Yes!” He has often railed about the fact that, traditionally, documentary
has hampered its own ability to provoke social change by maintaining a set of
conventions that are didactic and boring—a style he refers to as the “illustrated
lecture.” Moore’s use of dry wit and conventional storytelling are geared to-
wards making films that are both informative and fun. And it’s a tactic that has
worked: Moore’s films have continued to outsell each other at the box office, and
he currently holds the top three spots for most successful documentaries of all