First off, I think Michael Moore's intention need to be laid out on the table. He is not trying to tell the story of the first term of the Bush presidency, he is not trying to tell a story at all. There is not artistic intention in any way. The one point that Moore has is to get people mad. To get people to ask themselves, who let this guy into office? More importantly then that, who let him do all these “horrible” things that he did? Then, when come to the realization that it was us, the voting public, we will be compelled to vote against him for a second term in office.
That said, Moore does an excellent job of pulling off. He keeps us questioning Bushes actions to the point that we don't have time to stop and wonder what Bush's intentions are. Every we stop to think about what something means, Moore retorts with an so expertly crafted, that we can't help but accept it as fact. This film genius as long as you don't know any of it before stepping into the theater.
As for the structure of the film, there are two distinct halves. The first half we Bush as the blithering idiot who goes on vacation and reads children's books rather than do real work. Once, the events of 9/11 unfold, an act believed to be too grotesque to show on screen, Bush becomes the evil mastermind, using scare tactics to do as he wants around the world. Of course, while these two halves are very much contradictory, in the heat of the film we are to on edge care.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like the attention that you call to the structure of the film, Adam -- the 2 different portrayals of Bush. Of course, this was a constant issue (and still is) for those who were/ are very critical of his presidency: was he a doofus or cleverly evil? Because it *does* seem conflicting to be both. But while this may not just be an issue for Moore, it is an issue for him nonetheless, for I'm not sure of any clear attempt on his part to explain it.
ReplyDeleteI'm just curious. Which side of Bush do you think stuck out more? I thought that the idiotic side caught my attention more. I know he left office with a ridiculously low approval rating. Do you think this could have had any influence on it?
ReplyDeleteI agree that Michael Moore does a very good job at pulling this documentary off. I did not know much about September 11th because we were so young, and I feel like I learned a good deal while watching this. I know that much of it is biased, but what was shown seemed to be fact.
That is an interesting question Hannah, I think the first commentary on Bush stuck out more because it compliments the second so well. First, Moore, very effectively, discredits Bush as a presidential blunder, and combines it with the evil politician persona. It's scary though, because he's the man in charge and a man balancing a country and his own endeavors (whatever they may be) requires serious intellect, that of which Moore has argued does not exist. I cannot help but picture Bush as an evil Mr. Magoo for the duration of this film.
ReplyDelete