Fahrenheit 9/11: Documentary or Propaganda?

Task: A

1. Write a brief introduction to the documentary film

Highest grossing documentary of all time, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary style film, directed by political commentator and american filmmaker Michael Moore. The purpose of the controversial film is to take a close look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror and it's coverage in the news media. The two hour documentary caused worldwide controversy and people how accurate it actually is. The film portrayed that American corporate media were just 'cheerleaders' when it came to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and they didn't actually provide accurate, real or objective analysis of the rationale for the war or the resulting casualties there. The documentary was originally debuted at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival and caused the longest standing ovation is the festivals history after receiving a 20 minute standing ovation. Showing that although the documentary did cause a lot of controversy and mixed opinions it also generated a lot of success, even winning a Palme d'Or award.


2. Who is Michael Moore and what other documentaries has he been associated with?

American filmmaker, social critic, author and political activist, Michael Moore is one of the most successful men in the business. He is the producer and director of 2004 sensation Fahrenheit which was awarded the highest-grossing documentary of all time, aswell as the winner of the Palme d'Or award (Cannes Film Festivals highest award). He also had great success with 2002 film Bowling for Columbine, which was based around the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 and what caused it, the background environment in which the harrowing event took place, other gun violence and the nature of violence in the United States. Another achievement from Michael Moore was the 2007 hit Sicko which focused on health care in the US, health insurance and also the pharmaceutical industry. This documentary accomplished the Academy Award for Documentary Feature aswell as appearing in the top ten highest-grossing documentaries after creating the film on a $9 million budget but grossed around $24.5 million.

Task B 

1. Watch the trailer for Fahrenheit 911 again and answer the following questions : www.farenheit911.com or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zf2nCiBJLo

2. What is the opening statement? How does this suggest how much influence the government has?

The trailer of the documentary starts with a outrageous and shocking statement. Congressman Jim McDermott is quoted saying 'You can make people do anything if they're afraid'. This statement is hard hitting as it allows the audience to be directly told how it is and sets the tone of the 2 hour long film. This statement portrays the US government in a bad light, although its not obviously referring to the government but because of what the topic is about it makes it pretty obvious to the audience. This suggests that the government does and will always have the power in their hands, they make the decisions and the general public really have no say. This also suggests that the government are very influential, the only two groups who really are protected are the police and government which means they can pretty much do whatever they want whether they are even obeying the laws themselves. Automatically people will obey the rules set by the government and nobody rarely question that which with this statement shows they can control civilians and force them to do what they say as the powerful they have brings fear.

3. What information is given about the U.S. Government and the Bin Laden family in the opening segment. 

The trailer pretty much straight away starts with informing the audience about the U.S Government and Osama Bin Laden (aswell as his family). The documentary shows video footage, informative facts and documents all referring to the government and there relation to Osama Bin Laden. Firstly the trailer shows us how airplanes and airports have been affected after the 9/11 attacks and how they've been grounded due to this. But the controversy begins after the audience is shown through documents which clearly showed George W Bush' name that Bin Laden and his family all were catered with private airplanes around the time which is slightly odd as to why they'd be flown around in private planes as they are a known serious terrorist threat. Which hints that potentially 9/11 was a complete set up by the government and purposely done. Straight away the audience is aware that this documentary's role is to bring hidden theories to the public eye and to suggest the corruption behind it and whether theirs more to the 9/11 attacks then what the public is aware of. 

4. What is implied about President Bush in the opening segment (first 25 seconds)? Describe how the film implies this?

President Bush is not shown in the best light throughout this documentary and a lot of his hidden mistakes are brought to public attention. But one of the most shocking discoveries (discovered in the first 25 seconds) is that the president himself actually ordered for Osama Bin Laden and all his family to be flown through american on their own private plane despite every other American airplane being grounded. Which makes the viewers question Bush' attention and why this wasn't made public knowledge. This implies that the government are hiding important information from the public which is wrong and scary. Is Bush really trying to protect america or destroy it? is he keeping his friends (America) close and his enemy's (Osama Bin Laden) closer? or is he just really sided with the enemy?. All questions which the viewers could relate to after the implication of this film.

5. What impression is given about the war in Iraq? What evidence shows you who is driving this war and the reasons why? 

The evidence shown in the documentary is against the US Government and their involvement in the Iraq wars. The impression is that the US Government has far to much involvement and it makes some people suspicious as to whats the governments real attentions. The documentary achieves well at backing up statements with evidence which always makes something seem more reliable if evidence is shown as well as the point. Evidence is immediately shown against the US Government and business owners influence on the Iraq war. Multiple politicians come forward discussing situations which happened, one important statement was the value of Iraq oil and how important it is for America. Many soldiers are being forced to fight for them purely for money purposes which could be seen as ethically wrong. One person was quoted saying 'it's good for business, bad for people' which really means money is more important then lives. A horrifyingly real view on today's society but also another bad look on the US government; the only thing really there bothered about is money and business. What has the world come to when money and business is seen as higher importance then the well being and life of people.

6. What kind of music is chosen to back this opening segment of the trailer (until the words “bad for the people”)? And what does it communicate to you? How is this a contradiction to what is being said?

Music is used throughout the opening segment of the trailer which usually would add tension and build up. However the type of music played is contradictive and doesn't match the story which is being visually shown. The music is up beat and positive whereas on the screen conflict, terror and controversy is shown. This technique is used to cause slight confusion and make you think more about what's happening. Also in a way if the director used extremely dramatic music it would feel as if your being forced to agree with the conspiracy theories brought up in the documentary and look as if its trying to hard to be persuasive. However after a powerful quote is said 'bad for people' the music automatically switches to a more hard hitting sound which relates to the topics discussed. The music is similar to something from an action film which could symbolize this whole situation between the government and Bin Laden; its being played out like an action film whereas its not something from a Hollywood blockbuster its real life. The music does contradict the footage shown but I think that's purposely done to mock Bush, especially when he says something as the music's making a joke out of him, portraying him to be slightly stupid at times. 

7. What information is given about the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act is discussed a lot and is used to show how the U.S government really isn't taking the act seriously at all. Which is another example of the government being portrayed badly. It shows that the most serious issues is still not being taken seriously which makes the viewers wonder if the government aren't even taking this seriously what else could they be mocking. The government are shown as being the most powerful people in the world which would fury others if they aren't taking their powerful position sincerely. The documentary also highlights how we were told the bill was printed in the middle of the night but was allegedly not even read, however its been told that it would give police 'almost unlimited power' suggesting how dangerous the new law can be and the abuse it may suffer.

8. What is communicated about President Bush in this last segment? How does the trailer communicate that?

The last segment of the trailer again shows President Bush in a bad light, but after watching the trailer some would question if that's a bad thing. It may not be fair to way up the positives aswell as the negatives Bush has done, but this documentary's main purpose was to unmask hidden secrets not explore the whole of his career. Also everything which was discussed was all fact, so that shows this documentary hasn't manipulated things he has said to look a certain way. Some things in the documentary does portray Bush to look genuinely concerned about the issues in Iraq like when he discusses people at war, how they are doing and the things they are doing to try and help. But moments later hes shown discussing his talent for golf which makes him look as if hes acting a certain way for situations; when the topic of war is brought up he puts on his serious face when the topics finished being discussed its back to stupidity. This also is an example of how he uses his power to show authority. Another slip up from Bush was when he openly said 'some people call you the elite, I call you my base' essentially saying he cares a lot more about the rich and that both the rich and himself depend on each other to have their positions. Which is why the rich are always seen as being the important groups as basically there seen as the governments money soldiers. Also explains why he was in the government for so long, he had the rich people power behind him. Either way the documentary is always going to be criticized as it targeted an extremely strong topic, which often many people would fear to publicly criticize as the government will forever be one of the most powerful objects in society. It has been accused of as a form of brainwashing and blamed for propaganda as the statements are so hard-hitting and exposing but after watching the trailer I felt it wasn't forcing opinions on people but purely making unaware people aware.

TASK C 

1. Summarize using the examples that you have seen so far (and any others you have watched) how documentaries can be used to persuade an audience. Are these types of documentaries subjective or objective?

Documentaries use multiple persuasive techniques as a way of influencing the audience. Often documentaries do not present us with real life, instead they construct a particular version of the real world. Documentaries use specific film techniques to inform, convince and persuade, as a means to position viewers to respond in specific ways. In Fahrenheit 9/11 some techniques were used but a lot of information which was explained was purely facts and informing the audience knowledge which they may not of been aware of before. Emotional appeal was one technique used, this is when the filmmakers use fear, joy or anger to appeal and sway their viewers. Also as a way of adding climax or excitement to the documentary. Michael Moore did this in Fahrenheit 9/11 through revealing George W Bush organised Osama Bin Laden and his family a private airplane during the time of 9/11 which instantly strikes fear into the audience as suggestion that maybe the distressing terrorist attack was all set up by the government. Repetition was also used, repetition is used a lot in documentaries as it can reinforce the message from the filmmaker and also the repetition can emphasis what was said. Michael Moore does this by repeatedly making points about the governments involvement in the 9/11. Appeal to authority is also used, this is when a filmmaker mentions an important event or person to add importance to his/her argument. This was done when congressman Jim Mcdermott was quoted saying 'You can make people do anything if they're afraid', backing up the opinions of the governments misuse of power. Aswell quotes from President Bush backs up the filmmakers opinions. The last technique used was irony which is when something contains more than one meaning, often in the form of sarcasm and a pun. It's often used to add humor or to emphasize an implied meaning under the surface. Michael Moore showed this through the mocking of George W Bush and manipulating certain's things he said to make him look slightly stupid. For example when Bush was discussing the Iraq war Moore manipulated the scene as after Bush said something serious he 'supposedly' referred to his personal life which was mostly edited that way to put Bush in a bad light. Another documentary which uses persuasive techniques is Benefit Street, a channel 4 documentary which exposes what life really is like on benefit's. The filmmakers of Benefit Street are trying to show a new side of benefit users, a side which hasn't really been shown before. Emotional appeal was used throughout the documentary series, one example was when ex drug addict Sam discussed her two children being taken away from her and her fight to get them back, the filmmaker purposely made this scene more distressing by the use of angles (looking down on her to make her seem smaller; fragile and helpless) and adding upsetting music in the background to go with the mood of the scene. Repetition was also used throughout Benefit Street, mostly the repeated message of the benefits these people were given just isn't enough to live on. The use of repeating this messages emphasizes how important this is to the documentary. These types of documentaries are subjective, I believe this because a subjective documentary has to show either a story, opinion or agenda but it still must be based around fact and have counter opinions. Interviews also back up subjective documentaries and both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Benefit Street use interviews throughout. Also the filmmakers have both manipulated their documentaries to back up their opinions. With Fahrenheit 9/11 a lot of the trailer was opinions backed up with fact to make the information shown seem more believable. Also in Benefit Street certain scenes seemed overly dramatized and not so much of a real look on the participants lives. This was done with Becky and Mark's constant struggle with their young son Callum, the scenes were showing repeated struggles the couple had which looked slightly manipulated as surely not every day could be so difficult.

Case Study: Benefit Street

Benefit Street Analysis

In today's lesson we watched a 15 minute clip of controversial channel 4 documentary Benefit Street where 5% of the street were employed and the rest were claiming benefits. 

What type of documentary is this and give three examples that back this up.

Benefit Street is an example of expository documentary. One example is the narrator speaking over the documentary which gave the audience a better insight into what was happening, it also gave the audience more information about the episode; before it went to a different family the narrator would give the audience some beforehand knowledge like explaining who these new characters were, there family and employment status so you already have some understanding of what is happening. Another example would be the changing of locations, sticking with one location wouldn't give a range of opinions as it be documenting the same people, switching from 'White Dee' who was described as the 'Mother of James Turner Street' would although continue the theme of the documentary (giving a depressed and harsh look of life on benefits) she would still have a more positive look on life. Whereas ex heroin addict Sam really showed the audience how dark and harrowing being on benefit's really can be. The documentary followed her walking the streets at midnight to get her monthly benefit pay check and debate whether or not she should splurge her long awaited money on drugs. This scene was shot with Sam walking down a dark alley and some random person asking her 'if she wants any' (referring to drugs) this adds drama and shows how real this documentary is. Another scene which highlighted the contrast of people living on James Turner Street was when Sam read a letter to the cameraman which explained her losing her two children; both a very heartbreaking and shocking scene. The last example which shows Benefit Street being a expository documentary was the interview scenes between the characters and cameramen. The participants openly explained life on the streets and the daily struggles they have to go. They also showed real life actions which would happen on a daily basis therefore again makes the documentary expository.

Who are the main subjects of the documentary? List and sum up the most important participants.

In Benefit Street there are multiple main characters which try and portray life on the street as real as possible. One main character was White Dee (actual name Deirdre Kelly). 43 year old mother of two Dee whom is a popular figure on the street, caused a big impact on the documentary, her flamboyant personality and warm reception to fellow benefit claimers made her an instant hit with viewers. The majority of participants on Benefit Street portray a difficult life which for the outside world (the viewers) its not what you'd really expect. So the main characters 'job' is to show what life really is like on benefits but also at the same time express there struggles and there own story. Throughout the documentary White Dee would often open up to the viewers by telling stories about life, problems she's been through and her place in the street, all of this combines to her importance in the documentary. Making her overall the most important participant. Another important person on Benefit Street is Sam, who is a former heroin and crack addict trying to regain custody of her son after he was taken away because of her heroin addiction. Sam's impact on the channel 4 documentary was to show the extent addiction can go and brings a sympathetic view to the show. The audience feels compassion towards Sam and her story making her a very important participant. Other important characters are Becky and Mark who are a young couple struggling to raise their two young children. The scenes with the couple consist of them dealing with their four year son Callum's difficult ways which a lot of the audience can relate it. Becky and Mark both show how difficult life can be on benefit's and also having to raise two young children making them important participants as they are showing a different side of Benefit Street, not everything is so lighthearted and casual. Potentially displaying the media perception of people on benefit isn't really as true as it is and this documentary using genuine people is a good representation.

How does this documentary make you feel towards the subjects?

This documentary makes me feel mixed emotions towards the subject for many reasons. At first I felt irritated by how the participants showed themselves, I thought their careless and reckless behaviour really didn't help peoples prejudged opinions. Certain scene's made me question whether this documentary was as true as it makes out to be as some scenes were so shocking you feel it must of been manipulated to look that way. One example of this was the parts between Becky, Mark and Callum, all of the young couples scenes involved them trying to deal with their disobedient son which makes you think surely not everyday could be this difficult and is this documentary just showing a heightened and extreme version. Another emotion I feel towards this documentary is astounded, how its possible for people to live in such a way and want to actually expose it to the British public in my opinion is shocking. Scenes like Sam debating whether to spend her monthly benefit's allowance on class A drugs is extremely astonishing and for people not aware of this style of living its very eye opening.

What issues are raised in the documentary?

A lot of issues are raised in this documentary, specifically money related. One big issue is whether people are given enough benefit to be able to live a comfortable life. Characters in Benefit Street argued that the benefits they get given are not enough, even to live the most basic life. A lot of people who aren't on benefit's would find this topic frustrating as if you haven't got a serious reason to be unemployed then why would you expect to be given more money for not actually doing anything. However this documentary shows the other side of the story and lets the participants have their chance to speak, which doesn't happen a lot. So this documentary is good at raising issues. Other issues raised in the documentary are poverty, neglect, crime, addiction, abuse, hopelessness, the abject living conditions some unemployed people and their children are living in. Which all the make the documentary very thought provoking and eye opening.

What codes and conventions of documentary film-making are used here?

Some of the main codes and conventions used in Benefit's Street are a narrator, opinions, facts and rhetorical questions. The narrator plays a massive role in the documentary, throughout he is giving the audience an idea of whats going and whenever a new character is introduced the narrator would give a small summary about who this person is, their background ect. Without the role of a narrator the audience wouldn't have so much beforehand knowledge making it more easier to understand what this actual documentary is about. Opinions is another code and convention used, the majority of the characters in Benefit Street are extremely opinionated and aren't afraid to express a controversial comment. An example of this was when at the start of every episode an elderly man from the street says 'You see this street here, James Turner street - it was one of the best. Now it's one of the worst!', which is a powerful quote and sets the tone of the documentary. Facts and rhetorical questions are also used throughout Benefit Street. The residents would often say how the small income just isn't enough for people to live on which in there own is a fact. The main rhetorical question said was from Mark in his first introduction to the documentary, he says 'How are we supposed to live on £50 a week?', which makes the audience reflect on the struggles some people have to go through.

What style of interview is being used here?

The style of interview used in Benefit Street is direct and one on one. The theme is casual and isn't staged, as if the participant and the filmmaker are just having a normal conversation but its just being filmed at the same time. The location of the interviews are either at the participants homes or local areas around the street which makes the interview seemed relaxed and real; the scenes were so unstaged the viewers could feel as if they were actually apart of it. These types of interviews are effective as they allow the participants being filmed to speak directly about events and also to be prompted by the filmmakers questions. They also are effective, as documentary interviews give the viewers a sense of realism because they are set up in a way in which it looks as if the filmmaker has simply passed on the filmed footage to the viewers. However these style of interviews are often manipulated in a certain way. An interview can be filmed for hours but because only a few clips are needed the filmmaker (in this situation) would use the most controversial comments to make the documentary more interesting.

What is the purpose of this documentary? Do you think it achieves this?

The purpose of Benefit Street is to show a new perception of people who choose benefits over employment. For many years benefits have been a controversial topic and a lot of people have different opinions on it. Before the channel 4 documentary was aired only one side was really shown which made this documentary even more shocking. Another purpose was to show that life isn't really as easy it may be shown in the media. Specific characters like White Dee and Sam are examples of that, as through their tales of struggle and suffering you get instant sympathy for them both. Which I think is what one main purpose is; to understand these normal peoples lives and sympathize with them. Overall I do think Benefit Street has done that as I after I just watched a 15 minute clip I instantly felt mixed emotions. But specifically the purpose of the documentary, and although it has a lighthearted theme it isn't a joke and people do have to live like this.

This documentary caused a great deal of controversy. Why was it so controversial?

It caused such a great deal of controversy because people aren't used to seeing topics like this so straight up and real. A lot of people do prejudge this topic and just assume things through others opinions. One of positives which has come out of this documentary is that it allows the other part of the debate to express their argument and finally have their say. Due to it being such a controversial issue it may not have completely changed everyone's opinion, but it will have educated people a first hand experience of what it's really like. Others find it so shocking because there's never been a show similar to it in the past and usually people who live like this wouldn't want it publicized and do it get so much media attention. However this documentary isn't a poverty parade show, or though it has a lighthearted feel it isn't actually a joke and I feel its been portrayed as a distressing but touching documentary highlighting the lack of hope and opportunity which now blights entire communities. Another reason Benefit Street caused controversy was its participants outrageous behaviour. A few examples of some of the most jaw dropping moments was when a young couple on the street had to resort to a Food Bank to feed their two toddlers. The '50p Man' selling small beakers of coffee, sugar and washing powder for the residents who couldn't afford large quantities. Another unexpected moment was when former drug addict and alcoholic existed 8 weeks without electricity and survived 5 years without having a bath.