Fahrenheit 9/11

ANALYSIS

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 American documentary film, written and directed by Michael Moore. The film became one of the highest grossing documentaries of all time and not unlike much of Moore’s previous work, the film generated massive controversy in addition to disputes over the accuracy of the piece. The film is a mixed performative documentary, meaning that it rejects elements of objectivity and focuses on creating an emotional expression through the director’s personal involvement. In addition to this the film has aspects of the participatory mode as it has created a link between the subjects of the film and the filmmaker, including their interactions.The film had a cinematic release between May and June 2004 and critically looks into the War on Terror in the USA, George W Bush’s presidency and the media coverage at the time.

Moore introduces this scene to us by describing the coastal borderlines of Oregon. We are shown extreme long shots of Oregon's landscape to establish the area. These visuals in addition to the soundtrack and voice-over create a peaceful atmosphere, which is ironic as the subject of this scene is about Home Land security. Moore creates a sense of vulnerability to emphasise the failure of the American Government, who “due to budget cut backs” are not protecting the pacific coastline. Moore deliberately chooses to show the audience landscape shots without any people in them to highlight the singularity of the only trouper on patrol (in the lower picture). The shot pans slowly from the landscape to the lone officer, drawing attention to the expanse of the border adding to Moore’s point of a lack of security. Moore is using these elements to build his own agenda; that there is no external threat and that the American people are being lied to and the Government are deliberately provoking fear.

Analysis of Scene 10: Fortress America

We next hear an interview between Moore and the officer. Moore uses PoV shots from inside the police car to connect the audience with the officer encouraging empathy and increasing realism. As we view the same things as the officer does we are put in a personal position to identify with the subject and Moore himself. This also makes a more memorable sequence and creates more of an impact on building his agenda and humanising the issue.

The interview then switches back to a shot of the officer on the coast. We are given the impression that he is unsure of what to do, increasing the sense of the ridiculousness of the situation. His body language suggests that he too does not agree with only having one officer on patrol for the whole of the Oregon coastline. Again, Moore uses the background landscape to put the officer in a position of vulnerability and isolation.


Here we are told that another officer had to come in on his day off to “catch up on some paperwork”. Moore’s voiceover throughout the documentary explains and adds detail to visuals he shows us. He also has a slight satirical tone and implies sarcasm and irony to undermine the American Government's decisions, which as ‘voice of God’ narration is usually deemed believable elicits his preferred reading of the narrative to be true. Moore repeats the phrase “cut backs” to emphasise his point. We see the officer in casual clothing, making him more relatable to the audience however implies a lack of police effort, adding to Moore’s agenda. The shot then changes to a mid-close up. This is deliberately more direct and engaging to the audience as we can see the officer’s body language and facial expressions which too display his feeling of ridiculousness of the situation, especially when her laughs about the dispatch phone. The phone is showed to us using a handheld PoV shot, positioning the audience as the subject having to use the broken phone, again feeding Moore’s line of argument.


Moore introduces iconic archival footage to undermine the claims of external threat and to visualise what the “real plan was”. He shows us intercutting images of shots of missiles with Bush preparing for his speech. Moore does this to demonstrate the process of which America is preparing for war. The footage of Bush and his stylist contrasts heavily with the military war footage which may be to undermine Bush as the audience gets the impression that he isn’t actually doing anything in comparison to the military, who are preparing to fight.The mise-en-scene of Bush’s broadcast is significant in representing institutional power. He wears a business-like suit and a republican red tie. He is centred in the shot with two flags framing him, in addition to the framed family photos attempting to make a personal connection with the people of America. Using this footage, Moore may be trying to display the iconic myth of a leader and the falseness of this broadcast, again adding to his line of argument that the President is lacking in sincerity.


The shot then jumps to images of ordinary Iraqi citizens. We are given a sense of normality from the sequence as Moore has chosen footage that we can identify with in our own cultures i.e. children playing, getting married etc. Moore dates the shots to indicate the irony of Bush’s agenda. In addition to this, on top of the sequence we are given a voice-over of Bush’s speech, speaking about what they plan to do to give “Iraq freedom” as the people of Iraq are in “grave danger”. This, along with these visuals places doubt in our minds about what he is saying and whether it is truthful or not. We are shown shots of children playing before the shots of the bombings. Moore may be implying that the “targets” that Bush speaks of are all Iraqi citizens, as “mass bombs don’t have targets”.


Moore sequences archive footage of the bombings on Iraq in 2003, of which the imagery displays utter colossal damage. The shots shock the audience as they seem almost apocalyptic, over the top cinematic. Moore’s voice-over contrasts this as it is calm and composed representing objectivity and performing a speech-like monologue. His use of triadic structure; “A nation that never attacked the United States...” compares to Bush’s speech possibly to signify the differences between them, for example, Moore is compassionate towards these people whereas our impression of Bush has been dehumanised.The sequences jumps to a shocking extreme close-up of a dead child. Moore chooses to show intensely personal unsanitised footage does this to immediately draw a emotive response from the audience to support his agenda. The explicit shots to follow demonstrate the destruction that the bombings have caused, again representing Moore’s line of argument.


Moore intensifies this emotional response by introducing interviews with the US Army in Baghdad. It seems that Moore may be twisting their words to make them seem heartless, however he manages to stereotype the whole US Army, extending back to Bush. The solders make excuses for killing innocent civilians, compare it to playing a video game and enjoy the rush of getting “fired up” – a euphemism for killing the enemy. These statements all add to the sense of a lack of compassion from the army and makes the audience question who the real terrorists are. They also talk about the music they like to listen to when killing, to which Moore plays the soundtrack over the top of horrific visuals of dead Iraqi citizens. This ultimately links back to help build the argument that the American people have been brainwashed by the President to agree with what he says is true.


Fahrenheit 9/11

Education

Transcript of Fahrenheit 9/11