Beneath the Surface of Moore's Opinion: An Invitation to Perspectives, Techniques, and Reactions in Fahrenheit 9/11 Erica Franklin
People tend to assume that Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, is mostly just an anti-Bush rant with Moore's intention being to persuade the audience to adapt to his point-of-view against President Bush. Throughout the film, Moore's opinion is strengthened with authentic news footage, Presidential speeches, and specific interviews all aimed at supporting his bias. However, there are many parts of the film that don't deal specifically with President Bush at all. Instead, Moore concentrates heavily on the opinions and beliefs of others regardless if they support Bush. What is Moore seeking to do through portraying points-of-view that don't necessarily agree with his? Through the use of genuine news clips, personal interviews, and camera techniques, Moore's intention is far broader than just bashing Bush. Moore seeks to present a larger range of ideas, problems, and opinions. Successful in evoking a response, whether pro-Bush or not, Moore causes viewers to question their government throughout the film. By portraying a variety of perspectives and points-of-view which may or may not support Moore's biased stance, the audience is exposed to opinions, perspectives, and reactions not directed solely towards President Bush and his administration. In Scene 4, Moore causes all viewers to remember the infamous day, September 11, 2001. It is in this scene that Moore depicts various points-of-view, a technique that forms relationships between the audience and characters within the scene. Moore opens the scene in complete blackness followed by the sound of the first plane crashing into the first Twin Tower. The audience is immediately exposed to sirens and hysteria. A news anchor remarks, “We have something that has happened here at the World Trade Center. We noticed a flame…an awful lot of smoke.” Various on-lookers exclaim in shock, “This is horrible”; “Oh, my God! Oh my God.”; “Let's go! Let's go, back! Come on, Let's go!” By inviting the audience to hear the plane crash and the sudden spectator reactions, Moore is essentially creating a scene that most audience members could not conjure for themselves had they not been physically present during the attack. Fading from the darkness, the first point-of-view is recognized is that of a black woman's sudden reaction. With facial expressions characterized by cringes and horror-struck astonishment, Moore carefully evokes a feeling of terror. She exclaims, “Save their souls, Lord. Oh, they're jumping!” which Moore uses to generate an immediate picture in the audience's head, that of the innocent jumping from the Towers. Moore's techniques continue, as silence begins with light music and bells dinging, consequently reminding viewers of the annual bell ringing which recognizes every victim of the tragedy. Without ever showing the World Trade Center, the plane's positions, or innocent victims jumping out of windows Moore draws every viewer back to that specific day. His use of slow-motion raining debris and hustling feet adds to the intensity of the response. As Scene 4 continues, Moore inserts his voice to strengthen not only the reality, but the consequences of September 11. As the camera rolls slowly along a mass of flyers showing pictures of lost loved ones, Moore states, “nearly 3,000 people died…were killed in the largest foreign attack ever on American soil.” The scene ends with a young lady trying to keep her tears down: “If anyone has any idea or they've seen him or knows where he is, to call us [far shot of picture]. He's got too little babies. Two little babies [close shot].” Moore's use of the far and close shots also adds to the intensity, as the audience is exposed to a picture of a smiling father that's now missing. Moore exposes the audience to real people, real pictures and real suffering family members through their reactions. Moore forces the audience to draw themselves back to the day the tragedy occurred. Accompanied by only blackness and silence, Moore's stylistic techniques leave room for the audience to interpret. In succession the audience sees the black woman, the old man crying, the firefighters, the officials and the men in suits. In silence, Moore reveals a couple praying on the sidewalk, a teenage couple hugging in the middle of the street, and a woman sobbing alone. Moore's technique of grouping these people together following the plane crashes producing a tone of unity, inviting the audience to respond in an impulse to protect. This `impulse to protect' parallels the emotion that no one wants this act of terror to repeat itself, reminding the audience of the important responsibility of American soldiers. All of these factors contribute to the fact that Moore's seeking a response. He finds it important that September 11th, 2001 be held in everyone's preconscious, that one should never keep this event far from memory. In analyzing Moore's intent, some may argue that Moore's goal is to put the audience in a sorrowful mood, preparing them for the following scene of Bush in Florida during the time of the attacks. Not only that, Moore's intent may be for viewers to jump from heartfelt to angry when they see Bush continue to read My Pet Goat, knowing the towers have both been attacked (followed by Bush's nervous, flinching facial expressions). However, it's striking that throughout the powerful Twin Towers scene there's no evidence that Moore bashes Bush. Moore's objective is much deeper. He sets the tone of this scene with silence, blackness, and music which all contribute to a sense of seriousness. Because most audiences did not experience first-hand responses of the tragedy, Moore invites the audience into the perspectives of the eye witnesses, the bystanders, and victims of lost loved ones. He constructs a scene not solely based upon media footage and radio coverage, but which provides direct, realistic human experience. Scene 24 is one of the most thought-provoking scenes in Fahrenheit 9/11, with Moore causing viewers to question their beliefs on war. Moore not only relays his opinion, but he outlines the point-of-view of a mother with two children serving in the military, as well as the perspectives of soldiers. The scene begins with Lila Lipscomb from Flint, Michigan, proudly displaying her American flag: “When I put my flag out, I can't allow it to touch the ground. Because I know the lives that were lost and the blood that was shed so that I could be here and have a flag.” A passionate, patriotic American, Lipscomb considers her strong military family to be “a part of the backbone of America…this country was founded on their backs.” Lipscomb voices her feelings on war protesters, outlining that to her it's “a slap in my face.” She shows off her multicultural cross, stating her belief that “all God's people come in many colors.” Moore articulates this scene around the point-of-view of a woman who is passionate for her country, supports war, and is devoutly proud to be an American. By outlining Mrs. Lipscomb's stance on war, Moore's having a conversation, minus his biased input. Moore's not pointing fingers at the government here, and neither is Mrs. Lipscomb. Through her outspoken support for the war/military, it's surprising that she, a devout democrat, isn't denouncing President Bush in this scene, nor is she laying blame on him. Although Moore may use this scene to set up for his following critique of Bush, Moore seems to be hinting at a broader idea. His use of Mrs. Lipscomb's proud Democratic stance and support for military efforts seem to illustrate the costs of war, reminding the audience of the importance of sending American troops for the right reasons, that the conditions of war must be clear and thoroughly necessary. Moore then switches perspectives to that of a soldier who has been in the military for years, to a young woman whose facing the possibility of being attacked any day, to a young man who doesn't understand why teenage boys in the streets hate them: “They hate us. Why, I'm not really sure.” Next, Moore inserts his opinion by stating, “Immoral behavior breeds immoral behavior. When a president commits the immoral act of sending otherwise good kids to war based on a lie… this is what you get.” It's interesting here that Moore uses the generic term “president” as opposed to assigning a specific person blame. It is evident that Moore is referring to Bush's decision to send American troops to Iraq in search of unfound weapons of mass destruction. His implied opinion here is justifiable in that over a thousand of innocent lives could have been saved had Bush not pushed for war, but again Moore is in search of a broader idea: the notion of a war's importance and a solder's worth. By saying “a president,” Moore specifically outlines that any president who sends troops to war on unnecessary, irrelevant grounds has made a mistake, a mistake detrimental to innocent lives. Moore's perspective poses the audience with challenging thoughts surrounding appropriate grounds for war and the deployment of troops. Moore then uses various points-of-view to support his perspective. He speaks with a soldier who believes he's in Iraq to help the people, yet there are Iraqi rebels who choose to retaliate. The soldier doesn't understand why the Iraqi people want to “shoot…kill…blow” at them. His purpose is to protect the starving Iraqi people and to instill a new government, yet they won't all accept him. Not feeling support for his service, he expresses his frustration: “I hate this country.” Moore ends the scene with a soldier's perspective on taking life in war. The soldier states, “I feel that apart of your soul is destroyed in taking another life…You cannot kill someone without killing a part of yourself.” He doesn't say war is wrong or that the President shouldn't have sent him there; he explains how he feels when he kills someone in war. Moore's use of all of the soldiers' points-of-view not only causes the audience to put themselves in a soldier's shoes, but it elicits respect for those willing to risk their lives for America's freedom. Critics may argue that Moore used these various soldiers and the mother's points-of-view to lay responsibility for war and death on President Bush. They may see Moore as eliciting a response from the viewer that soldiers are suffering because of Bush's decision. However, in these scenes Moore is the only person who clearly denounces Bush. Mrs. Lipscomb is a Democrat, yet she says nothing in relation to Bush or the job he's doing. She lays no blame upon him for war; instead she outspokenly supports the military efforts. The soldiers' opinions are their own, constituted by emotions, confusion, and beliefs. They're in no way blaming President Bush for anything throughout this scene. They are merely stating their points-of-view, whether that be for America or against. No one soldier criticizes the President, outlining that Moore's intention is to present various viewpoints. True, all of the soldiers including Mrs. Lipscomb may share Moore's opinion—we can't know for sure—but they do not voice their dissent directly towards President Bush. They vent their frustration on the government, on the war, killing, but not on the President. Fahrenheit 9/11 is undeniably Michael Moore's disagreement with President Bush. He sheds poor light on the President, forcing the audience to question their trust in Bush. However, persuasion isn't the only prevailing theory throughout the film, there's a larger idea embedded. In almost every scene, it's apparent that several diverse perspectives are depicted, not aimed at blaming Bush for war, deaths, or soldier's anguish. Instead, Moore creates an in-depth look at the points-of-views of on-lookers, victims, and even mothers. He highlights reactions through footage, blackness, silence, and death bells ringing, reminding all of that tragic day in history. Although Moore created his documentary with clips and quotes to support his bias, all perspectives did not dissent from the government or the President. These diverse perspectives, in turn, cause viewers to question their views on war, protesting, and consequently the government. Moore makes it easy for the audience to get inside the head of those being interviewed, escaping the realm of Moore v. Bush, but entering into the emotions of those experiencing death, patriotism, and children in the battlefield.
|