Fahrenheit 9/11

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

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Fahrenheit 9/11

Recently uploaded

Fahrenheit 9/11