Quick reminders: Blogposts are now due Mondays by 5p. Comments on posts may be made any time up until classtime on Tuesday. Keep in mind that in order to receive credit, you must publish a post and post comment(s), and that blogging takes place every week that we have class (not just film weeks). With that said...
There is a lot to chew on with this film! Here are a number of considerations that you might respond to:
• What do you think about Moore’s technique in showing the World Trade Center attack? For example, the screen is black as the planes hit, and then we see only faces of observers, accompanied by lyrical music.
• What do you think about the portrayal of Bush early in the film (August 2001 until the planes hit)? Is it fair or not (think of the choices Moore makes in what he shows, the music, and so forth)? How does it affect how one sees the rest of the film? Regarding the shots of Bush reading to the children in Florida, The Onion’s Scott Tobias does think that they are unfair: ‘How could anyone be expected to process the news before witnessing its magnitude?’ he asks. I.e., is seven minutes of frozen uncertainty really so damnable or not understandable?
• Tobias claims that the film offers a ‘mixture of speculation and low blows’ and is ‘sloppy as cinema and dubious as journalism’. Why do you think that he says this, and do you agree? Is Bush simply an easy target? Even if the film’s claims are warranted, are they cheap shots? Is the attack one worth forging?
• A. O. Scott in The New York Times writes that ‘Mr. Moore uses archival video images, rapid-fire editing and playful musical cues to create an exaggerated, satirical likeness of his targets’ – though he continues, ‘The president and his team have obliged him by looking sinister and ridiculous on camera.’ If Scott is right here, is this a defensible strategy for a documentary?
• Most reviewers complain that the film is not cohesive enough or clearly-enough argued. Scott suggests this possible retort: ‘The film can be seen as an effort to wrest clarity from shock, anger and dismay, and if parts of it seem rash, overstated or muddled, well, so has the national mood.’ It is worth wondering, however, whether the average American viewer has the patience for the intricacies of the ties being suggested in the film – it is complex.
• Scott claims that the film offers ‘an extraordinary collage of ordinary American voices’. How do you think Moore picked these ‘voices’? How does he portray them? Is he successful in giving voice to the ‘ordinary’ person? If so, why might that be an advantage for his film?
• Speaking of ‘collage’, the film often exhibits extensive pasting together of images and sound – think, for example, of the comedic visual of Bush administration heads affixed to ‘Gunsmoke’ bodies. Do such techniques make the film less realistic or truthful?
• What do you think of Aufderheide’s analysis of the film? – Documentary Film (7): ‘Fahrenheit 9/11, a sardonic, anti-Iraq[-]war film, addressed the American public directly, as people whose government was acting in the public’s name… Moore is not a minion of the powerful as propagandists are. He was putting forward, as he had every right to, his own view about a shared reality, frankly acknowledging his perspective. Further, he was encouraging viewers to look critically at their government’s words and actions. (Potentially weakening this encouragement, however, was his calculated performance of working-class rage, which can lead viewers to see themselves not as social actors but merely as disempowered victims of the powerful.)’
No comments:
Post a Comment