Sunday, September 13, 2009
Brendan Colon - Fahrenheit 9/11
Upon revisiting "Fahrenheit 9/11" mentally, from Tuesday night to now, I can honestly say that I am having difficulty sorting out what is considered a fair and unfair criticism in this film. I think one of the strongest points of this film is also related to its heavy criticism--it's card stacking of one-sided attacks and facts. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a bombardment of information from many different sources and because of this, I feel that much of its strength comes from the ubiquity of criticism it offers. Ubiquity in many mediums blurs the normal line of judgment of its target. This is why food is often advertised in mass quantities, why supermarkets are organized as they are, and why people who eat facing a buffet table eat, on average, about 30% more than those who eat facing away. Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore's very own 12-foot-tall pyramid of 7-Up, states so many facts, that he creates an argument by not allowing another to exist. Moore makes his documentaries with criticism in mind--he expects people to be weary. For this very reason, Moore purposely shuts down or discredits opposition before it is even stated. One tactic I noticed Moore employed was the de-emphasis on himself. It seemed like in many of the scenes where he did not talk or comment, it was like his very absence stated how Bush did not need any verbal criticism because without a guiding voice (Moore's very own), Bush could get himself into obvious trouble--which he did multiple times at press conferences and such. I believe these scenes are the lowest blows as many of Bush's verbal blunders are irrelevant to the condition of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is true, as you state, Brendan, that Moore was more in the background for this film than he had been in previous films (the little half-hearted scene where he reads the Patriot Act while being driven around in an ice-cream truck might have been better left out -- but it's the sort of thing he's most famous for doing). It does seem like Moore was perhaps so confident in his evidence that he allowed himself to fade into the background a bit.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I entirely follow your other point -- am I understanding you correctly that you're claiming that Moore created a whirlwind of information in order to keep the opposition on its heels? If so, it does seem like an effective tactic (whether or not it's wholly justified is another question).