When the editors of the New York Times stated that the Sinclair Group's apparent determination to screen the anti-Kerry documentary Stolen Honor in a prime time news slot was akin to a major network forcing its affiliates to screen Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 as news, they were creating a problematic distinction. Where do they believe the line falls between news and documentary? At what point does documentary-style editorializing go beyond the factual and who gets to make that decision? It also belies a certain naiveté about the more powerful subtlety of network news which, on the face of it, appears to be nonpartisan. In reality, it skews the audience's perception in a more subliminal manner.
The fact that many more people are thinking about these things at all is a testament to the power Fahrenheit 9/11 has unwittingly wielded since its theatrical release earlier this year. Documentaries have stopped being purely the stuff of PBS, art-house cinemas and the film festival circuit and have started making money. And while this may be the result of an extremely angry nation, it has done much to bring non-fiction filmmaking into the light and also to stretch the very definition of "documentary." In the late 80s and early 90s, several films, including Errol Morris's The Thin Blue Line and Michael Moore's Roger & Me, were not considered documentaries by the American Motion Picture Academy (the folks who decide what gets nominated for Academy Awards). Now, audiences are talking about documentary techniques, recognizing propaganda and looking at the role of Hollywood and the interference of the White House in the whole cycle. Thanks to DVD distribution successes like Robert Greenwald's, filmmakers have a hope that even if their films don't make it to the cinema, they might still make it to the people.
Seeing the fortunes to be made, both financial and political, the right wing has decided to join in. When network news became powerful, up came Fox. When people flocked to see Fahrenheit 9/11, it was time to start making documentaries. Recently, two conservative film festivals have surfaced - the Liberty Film Festival in Hollywood and the Renaissance Film Festival in Dallas. For conservatives, these films offer an opportunity to feel represented in what they perceive to be a largely liberal trade. These films, or at least a small representative sampling of them, should be seen. If the polls (and internet chat rooms) are to be believed, nearly half of America agrees at least in some way with them. Presumably, you live in this country. If you find yourself leaning more towards the left, watching these films is in many ways far less threatening than an hour with Fox.
The cornerstone of this conservative documentary filmmaking rush is an entire genre that could be labeled the "anti-Moore" movement. One such title, FahrenHYPE 9/11 was released on DVD on the same day as its inspiration and has been available as a balancing tool for the right in many video stores, including Blockbuster. While carried in much smaller numbers (if at all), it has met with some success. Other widely reviewed titles in this movement include (but are in no way limited to) Celsius 41.11, Michael Moore Hates America and Michael & Me.
In FahrenHYPE 9/11, the underlying message is spelled out early on - this is an anti-Moore, pro-Bush film by and for converted Democrats. Interviewees include former Democratic Mayor of New York City Ed Koch, Clinton advisor Dick Morris, Democratic campaigner and actor Ron Silver, the Independence Institute's Steve Emerson, Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 author Dave Kopel and perennial "right of right" favorite Ann Coulter.
The film structures itself largely around a statement Moore made at a public appearance, shown in grainy handheld footage, that "there is no terrorist threat." He goes on to say, "Yes, there have been horrific acts of terrorism, and yes, there will be acts of terrorism again. But that doesn't mean that there is some massive terrorist threat." His statement is repeated and countered throughout the film. Whether you are swayed by the film or not is largely dependent on whether you agree with this statement. It is an assertion full of promised misinterpretation. It largely agrees with Maureen Dowd's recent assessment of the situation on The Daily Show - that you cannot wage a war against a technique. Moore is not saying that there aren't existent terrorists that pose a threat to the United States. What he's against is the universally accepted concept that they pose a massive unified ongoing threat that we should fear from day to day and can classify as a specific enemy. In FahrenHYPE, the word "terrorist" is synonymous with "Islamic extremist," and the most vociferous commentators are New York Jews that lived through the terrorist attacks of September 11th and sincerely fear this threat.
From the outset, the tone is highly personal. Ron Silver's voice (not identified at the time) addresses Moore directly, mirroring the "Was it all a dream?" opening of Fahrenheit 9/11. "I understand Michael," he sneers, "You're just upset because you campaigned for Nader who cost Gore the election." Considering Silver was heavily involved in the Gore campaign, the audience might be tempted to counter, "I understand Ron, you're just upset because..." Later he insists that a certain wing of the Democrats (Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean being his prime examples) are closer to Lindbergh and America First than their own party, drawing a parallel between the latter's vaguely Nazi-supporting isolationism and the named Democrats' stance against the invasion of Iraq.
The events of September 11th are used to advantage throughout. We are treated to a montage full of black and white footage and the sonorous strains of "Amazing Grace" before being led through a twenty-minute argument for fearing Islamists.
When the documentary does address Fahrenheit 9/11 directly, the film focuses mostly on its namesake's propagandistic bent and misrepresentation of interviewees and soldiers. These have been the complaints most loudly voiced on both sides of the fence, particularly by documentary filmmakers themselves (documentary legend Alfred Maysles actually appears in Michael Moore Hates America).
The argument against the first point is that Fahrenheit 9/11, unlike its conservative successors, never particularly purports to be anything other than opinion. As for it using bad techniques, so what? There is room for many different types of filmmaking, and inevitably, the filmmakers should face criticism for their choices. According to FahrenHYPE 9/11, Moore is an enemy of America because he is making documentaries which fall into a specific category of propaganda, one that aims to demoralize the enemy by telling them that what they're fighting for is useless, largely for cynical causes, and that they're losing the battle. They fail to acknowledge that what they are themselves doing is making its exact counterpoint, an even more traditional form of propaganda which promotes the home team's cause while bolstering faith in the war effort, often through fear and vilification of the "enemy." FahrenHYPE takes the next, far more dangerous step of aligning Moore with the terrorists, saying that they "rely on Michael Moore to make movies like this." By association, Americans that agree with Moore and encourage him through box office receipts are, somehow, complicit.
The subject of interviewee manipulation is a trickier one. Both the subjects re-interviewed for FahrenHYPE were not aware at the time of the initial interviews where their words would end up. Their statements are taken out of context and left purposely unclear in order to demonstrate several of the film's points. Because Moore bought much of the footage from third parties, this seems like an ethical problem. In reality, these people's words were spoken with no political agenda, no idea of their future, and so, might be even more truthful than otherwise. Oregon State Trooper Andy Kenyon no doubt had to suffer his superiors after his negative comments about recent cutbacks, which he implied were federal when they are in fact controlled by the state. But his opinions of the time were just that - his opinions. The other interviewee is a more sensitive case. Army Specialist Peter Damon was interviewed by NBC's Brian Williams and spoke most poignantly about phantom limb pain. He was used as an example of a neglected soldier and his pain was also taken metaphorically. In reality, Damon is glad he joined the army and supports Bush. He's angry that his pain was taken out of context. But his pain was real and is truly representative of other returned soldiers' experiences. The saddest moment of the film is when he adds, "But the point is, I was describing to Brian Williams what the pain felt like if I wasn't on the medication, you know..." An uneasy balance that he may have to live with for the rest of his life.
George W. Bush: Faith in the White House is a different beast altogether and raises the curtain on another cross section of America that has been selectively erased from the consciousness of the liberal mind - the religious right. The Vancouver Film Festival was sage enough to program this gem after asking, "Where are all the pro-Bush films?" Of course, like many of these right-wing films, FITWH starts with a title card reading, "This documentary was produced independently and without any input from the White House, the Bush Administration or the Bush/Cheney election campaign. It is based on independent research." While this is technically true, the film was first screened at a private party for the National Federation of Republican Assemblies as part of the Republican Convention and many of the interviewees are Bush family friends, some with very close ties to the administration (one was even a Bush/Cheney campaign advisor until he was accused of sexually molesting an 18-year-old student). When, at the screening, evangelical property developer and FITWH executive producer Ted Beckett was asked about the problems in the Middle East he replied, "I see it basically as a conflict between Christians and the religion of Islam, which is a religion of hate."
That statement sets the tone of the piece which reinforces the Bush theory that it's best to rule unquestioningly from the Mouth of God.
From the outset, FITWH wants us to believe that it is a hard-hitting piece of journalism, that it chooses to ask Bush all the difficult questions about his faith. These questions are actually used as a rhetorical framing device, voiced by television personality Janet Parshall and accompanied by Hardball-style musical tension. For example, Parshall asks, "Could it be that this attitude of service is what propelled him into the White House or was it simply unbridled ambition, a need to follow in his father's footsteps? Would he carry that same conviction into the White House?" Unsurprisingly, the answer is always in the affirmative. The overarching question here is, "Is Bush Christian enough?" That the answer is inevitably "Yes!" will thrill some while leaving others cowering in the corner.
FITWH is loosely based on two non-fiction books - Tom Freiling's George W. Bush On God and Country and David Aikman's A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush. Bush's now familiar journey from hard drinker to The Chosen President is chronicled here in softly colored flashbacks and witness accounts. The most disturbing elements of the film for non- and center-Christians alike are sure to be the suggestions that the separation of church and state was not really intended by the founding fathers, that Bush's faith-based initiatives should be the first step on the road to bringing all of America back into the Christian fold, and that, while Bush already rules according to prompting from God, he could really afford to do this even more. There is no room for inquiry in the Christian future painted here - we should all, regardless of heritage, look only to God for guidance.
These two films share more similarities than just their simple lack of creative energy. The most disturbing element is their insistence that you're either with "us" or "with the terrorists." The world in their view is clear-cut, divided as it stands now between good and evil, between the Judeo-Christian world of "love" (despite the Crusades) and the Islamic world of "hate." They demonstrate the gaping chasm that, despite those pesky undecideds, is making the two sides of America simply despise each other. In circles where rational argument used to be based on several basic understandings - that war is bad and peace is good, that all people should have certain basic human rights, that the government should be held accountable - conversation is barely possible.
Having the intelligence to question and speak out for what you believe in, of all things, should never be considered un-American. That we have documentaries on both sides of the spectrum is an expression of a right that should always be protected. Unlike network news, they should not attempt to deny their bias. Regardless of whether you watch a conservative or a liberal documentary, chances are that it will probably just serve to solidify the opinions you already have. What Fahrenheit 9/11, Control Room and Horns and Halos have that Outfoxed lacks, as does FahrenHYPE 9/11 and FITWH, is genuine feeling for our humanity. Fahrenheit 9/11's strength lies not in its conspiratorial bluster but in Moore's ability to really capture a mother's feeling of abandonment by her government and the strength it took her her to reassess her own beliefs. In the end, while these political documentaries are important for the stories they tell of our current times, it's the films with a heart that will survive.
However, if the two conservative documentaries described above are to believed, and they truly represent large sections of the US, they will remain relevant after the election. If Kerry wins, to show what he's up against; if Bush wins, to show us what we're facing.
|
Your cart
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®,
a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.