Page 382 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

Pol t cal Documentary: Fahrenheit 9/11 and the 2004 Elect on | 1

time. But many critics worry that Moore’s tilt towards entertaining means a tilt
away from the factual. Indeed, this kind of anxiety often allows Moore’s politi-
cal opponents to dismiss his films out-of-hand, a tactic the Bush administration
used when White House communications director Dan Bartlett told the press,
“If I wanted to see a good fiction movie, I might go see Shrek or something, but
I doubt I’ll be seeing Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Fahrenheit 9/11’s popular success also raises questions about a related phe-
nomenon. Michael Moore is not only a filmmaker—he is a celebrity, a movie
star, and a political “brand name.” This, of course, has its advantages. Fahren-
heit’s boffo box-office was driven by legions of Moore fans. Indeed, many critics
credited Moore’s popularity alone for stoking interest in other political docu-
mentaries that year. There are, however, downsides to celebrity. Moore has be-
come so personally connected to his films that, oftentimes, critics can’t seem
to separate the filmmaker from his argument. At the end of the day, Moore’s
personal, entertaining style might have allowed his political opponents to en-
gage in a tactic of discrediting the filmmaker rather than the film. This issue has
haunted other political documentaries with recognizable personalities, such as
Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me and the Al Gore film on global warming, An
Inconvenient Truth (2006).
The most contentious debate that surrounded Fahrenheit 9/11 and, to a lesser
extent, all the political documentaries that came out in 2004, was over what po-
litical effect these films might have on the voting public. Here, of course, “po-
litical effect” was understood in the most narrow sense of the term, namely:
election results. Could a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 actually sway the election? Of
course, the results of the 2004 election did not swing Moore’s way, and Bush’s
victory led many critics to a rather damning conclusion: that the film was merely
“preaching to the choir.” This accusation is often directed against political docu-
mentary, and indeed, many on the right were eager to repeat it. Some gleefully
argued that not only did Fahrenheit 9/11 fail in its mission to unseat the Presi-
dent, but it actually aided in his victory. Does the election’s outcome mean that
we should view Fahrenheit 9/11 as a failure? The rationale behind such declara-
tions is specious, however, for it asks us to conclude that if Moore had not made
his film, Bush would have lost, and that one documentary could wield enough
power to be the deciding factor in a national election.

whaT arE wE Looking For?
Perhaps the most relevant question to ask, then, when considering the recent
popularity of political films, is: “Just what do we expect from a documentary?”
Should a documentary be a film that attempts to achieve some kind of measur-
able social effect? Or should it be a film that simply adds constructively to the
public discourse? Should documentaries be emotionally compelling and cine-
matically entertaining? Or should they be “sober” affairs geared towards serious
deliberation? Should a documentary strive to maintain a sense of neutrality and
objectivity? Or should it admit its biases up front and present us with a compel-
ling argument? The heated controversy over Fahrenheit 9/11 suggests that these