Well, this is probably the fourth or fifth time I have seen this movie, and every time it has gotten the same reaction from me. Honestly, I love the way the film is structured; it does try to hide the opinion of Moore, and it definitely does not strive from its main points. Nor does it have any qualms about NOT stating the opposing side, or mixing together pieces of fact from actual news (the speeches) or Moore's experience (his time outside of the embassy).
Anyways, focusing on a specific example of the opening of the film (WTC attack), the way Moore portrays it is interesting to note. He does not show any of the visual cues, nor the famous video imaging of the towers being hit one by one. In my opinion I greatly thank Moore, as for all of us that were watching the news that day (me) or had the misfortune of being in NYC (also me), seeing that clip over and over again was not only repetitive but also unnecessary, both in terms of sadness and in the fact that they should "stop showing it" [sorry, I just cannot think of the word I need now]. Moreover, because of that very fact that the sounds are now so ingrained in our society, it is superfluous to show the scenes again.
With that I will wrap up my post for now, but I will say more in class... For me, I see this as one of the most important documentaries (in addition to An Inconvenient Truth, even if it has factual errors) as it exposes a critical side to an event that everyone is trying to put past them, which though it can initially be bad, is always a good thing in the long run.
-Miheer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your post makes me wonder how many -- especially kids, and especially in the NYC area -- were numbed by seeing the repetition of the planes on 9/ 11... and how many were overstimulated by it. (Research suggests that children may be capable of obtaining post-traumatic stress disorder by watching/ hearing about something on TV, etc.) I also think it was an extremely sensitive touch on Moore's part, because we probably didn't need to see the planes again to be reminded of the feeling of that day -- though it does seem an obvious move in 2004, as people might have been even more exhausted then of having seen the planes so many times -- and it might be seen as disrespectful, or just wrong, even, to keep showing such a tragic event with no clear purpose (to the showing).
ReplyDeleteI liked his decision to black out the video. It really gets the viewer thinking about where they were. It sort of forces a memory recall about where you saw the footage, where you were, etc, and that sparks an emotional response right from the start. However I wonder if he should have included video to make the film more cohesive from a historical perspective. I know kids as old as my lil' cousin, maybe 10 years old, who are clueless about what happened. He obviously doesn't remember the footage from 9/11 like we do. Would somebody with limited knowledge of the 9/11 events understand what was going on? It makes me think that F9/11 isn't a film for future generations, it was meant to speak to the people who lived through 9/11. I think the way Michael Moore designed the film reflects that.
ReplyDelete