Moore Undermines His Own Point

Remove all ads!

I had initially considered posting this in the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread, but I wanted to comment more on Moore than the movie itself, and how this may (or I suspect may not) affect the upcoming election, so I deemed it deserved it's own topic. Before I begin I should also mention that I support Kerry, so one would expect I would give this film glowing reviews, which I will not. In fact, I hope to show that Moore actually undermines his point in presenting it in the manner that he does.

For those few who are as of yet uninitiated, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary-like movie directed, written and produced by Michael Moore, that has the primary purpose of undermining, if not outright smearing the Bush presidency.

I think it is fair to say that Moore hopes to influence voters in the fall election to vote against Bush. However, the manner in which he attempts to do this in his movie is entirely misdirected. First of all, to call this movie a documentary is a complete understatement at the very least, and possibly a misrepresentation of the facts at most. This is because interspersed throughout the parts of the movie that can be loosely charactized as a documentary, Moore engages in a smear campaign. He never passes up an opportunity to take a potshot at Bush, attempting to make him look stupid, or to present him as a hillbilly Texas gunslinger, and that's where Moore goes wrong.

I totally expected that it would be a heavy-handed look at the Bush presidency, and in that it definitely accomplished its mission. However, I feel that Moore would have given more support to his points if he got rid of the potshots. The elbow-rubbing of the Bush family with the bin Laden family (although not with Osoma (now spelled Usama?) himself) is both factually accurate, and generally well presented. Pointing out that bin Laden's family was within the U.S. and allowed to leave the U.S. shortly after the attacks is also a case where the administration dropped the ball.

However, Moore does everything but outright call Bush a idiotic dope. If you want to make people see where Bush went wrong, then attack the issues, not the person. Engaging in nothing less than an ad hominem attack commits a logical fallacy, and will have to generate a few raised eyebrows from any free-thinking individual regardless of whether or not they are liberal or conservative. Furthermore, it leaves you with no doubt in your mind that Moore dislikes Bush personally, and so it comes off as a wholly emotional reaction from Moore, which isn't going to win much support for Kerry either.

So, does this movie do anything to affect Bush either way? I can possibly even see this movie backfiring and giving support for Bush from the independent, undecided voters. They are the ones who will decide this election, and the movie is so one-sided, most rationally thinking people will assume that many parts are simply false.

So what are other people's thoughts? Could this movie have been better if it was presented in something other than a personal attack? Or is the purpose of this movie simply to rile up the people who are already decided that they are voting against Bush? I don't know. To me, if you have already decided that you are voting for Bush, or voting for Kerry, this movie will have little or no impact on you changing your mind. However, it's so heavy-handed that it may actually turn off people from the more moderate, independent community of voters.

 

I have not seen it yet so my thoughts might be wildly off but I was under the impression that most of the ad hominen attacks on Bush in Fahrenheit 9/11 are made of Bush himself, ie footage of Bush making a fool of himself in one way or another.

Moore saying bad things about Bush is probably not very constructive but I reckon showing Bush doing and saying stupid things is showing things as they are, atleast at the moment of the footage.

[ July 06, 2004, 17:58: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

There are cases where this is true, but some of them - such as on his ranch in Texas - are taken entirely out of context.

 

Moore himself describes the movie as an op-ed piece; he has not (to my knowledge) described it as a documentary. It is marketed and advertised as such, though.

I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on the issues presented.

 

Actually, I consider myself a moderate (tending to be a little bit to the left, I will admit) and I do not think other moderates will be turned away by Moore's presentation. I think Moore's main points are these...

1. The Bush Family has close ties to the bin Laden Family (those ties allowed the bin Ladens to leave the U.S. when others were not allowed to travel).

2. Oil is Bush's motivation for invading Iraq.

3. Bush favors the elite above everyone else.

4. The military is full of good people from the lower classes.

5. The military is suffering needlessly in Iraq from poor leadership and that leadership should be changed for the good of the troops.

6. Bush acts like an idiot.

I do not agree with all of these completely and I think Moore takes some of them too far. For example, the graphic scenes of violence were not really necessary.

Now, I do think he undermines number 4 in that scene where some of the troops are talking about what music they play when they go into battle (it had a lot of profanity and made the soldiers look like idiots, which does not encourage sympathy).

Aldeth, if I understand you, you would say number 6 undermines the entire movie. I would disagree because that is there for two groups: the educated liberals and the younger voters (say, 18-25). I think the latter group in particular might be more inclined to vote against Bush because of the attacks on Bush's intelligence and that would motivate more of them to actually go out and vote. In this respect, I think he made the correct decision for his agenda. There are quite a few people in that age range that could vote, but do not. He is trying to get that group to vote against Bush.

I do not think that Moore is really trying to advance Kerry's cause. I think Moore is trying to destroy Bush's cause. He would rather have had someone else as the democratic candidate.

Also, to make myself clear, I do not really think Kerry would be a great president. However, I do think that Bush cannot be allowed to have another term. The real problem is that I cannot vote yet, so I have no control over the issue. If I could, I would grudgingly vote for Kerry.

 

You bring up some interesting points there Gavin.

I do agree with your statement that the movie is not forwarding Kerry's cause, but rather hurting Bush's cause. However, in a two party system, that's a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" arguement. The literal interpretation of that statement is factual, but I think it's more of a semantic point.

I still have reservations as to the independent and moderate reaction to the movie. I have doubt that this movie will appeal to the educated liberals and youth of the country, as you said. However, these people weren't in Bush's camp to begin with. By definition, educated liberals are already decided that they are voting against Bush, and the youth tend to vote democratic if they vote at all.

It's like I said initially, if you're already decided, it's unlikely that this movie is going to change your mind. So I really think there are two main questions that need to be asked - one that I brought up and one that you implied:

1. It is likely that the independents and moderates will decide this election, so what is their overall reaction to the film - positive or negative?

2. It's the youth of our country that goes to see the most movies, and also the youth of the country that votes the least. Can this movie encourage enough younger voters to go out to the polls?

 

One thing to consider is that a movie like this one really only gets to the people who arent very into politics and who dont pay much attention to it most of the time. The moderates among them may very well be overrun by Moore's propaganda. In contrast, the middle men who are in to politics and who keeps a jour are likely watch the movie with a critical eye and weigh the movie like any other piece of propaganda. I think that Moore probably scares off some of the more "ignorant" moderates from voting for Bush II and the ones in the know will make an informed choice after evaluating the movie for what it is.