Fahrenheit 9/11 - True documentary or just clever manipulation?

A dissertation by Tom-Daniel Laugerud, BA (hons) Digital Film and Television production, Swansea Metropolitan University (2013) .

Statement of Research

Topic outline

This dissertation will examine how a film can be classed as a documentary and what it is perceived to be.

1. The first chapter will aim to define the documentary genre.
2. The second chapter will look at how this can be applies to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
3. The third chapter will look at how the film is received and will end in a discussion, connecting all three chapters.

Bill Nichols’s Introduction to Documentary and Representing Reality will be essential to this dissertation. The interest in this topic comes from a personal passion for documentary film and is very much relevant to my desired career path. 

1. Introduction  

1.1 The issue

In 2004 Michael More was awarded the Cannes Golden Palm (French: Palme d’Or) for the best film, of that years selection, Fahrenheit 9/11. Following this award, the Golden Palm committee’s leader, Quentin Tarantino, had to publically assure people that the award was not a political statement from the festival. It has to be mentioned that Moore through his obvious political messages deals with one of the most important topics in recent history. The award may also be seen as a logical choice, at least in Europe, because of many Europeans sceptical attitude toward the films central topic; the invasion of Iraq. Moore has never denied the films political message and has on several occasions, stated that the main purpose was to influence the coming presidential election (USA president elections of 2004). One of the purposes for this dissertation has been to research what means Moore has used to establish the films voice and political message. The film mainly focuses on Bush and its administration.

Fig. 2 - Moore flag: Moore has with the documentary films Roger and Me (1989) and Bowling for Columbine (2002) established himself as a political commentator and activist in the USA, where he takes the fight to the big guys.

With Roger and Me (which told about the close sure of General Motors factory in Moore’s hometown Flint, Michigan), Moore is taking on the fight on behalf of his hometown, to shed some light on the injustice in society. Moore tells the story of the average Americans fight against the big system. The multinational billion dollar companies, the powerful weapons lobby group or the political administration itself – with Moore present no one can feel safe.

Furthermore it must be said that Moore, with Fahrenheit 9/11, wanted to bring the documentary film into the cinemas. In USA, the Fahrenheit 9/11’s box office figures were considerably higher than those of many blockbusters films at the time. Naturally, the film received much publicity both in American and international press. It wasn’t only the premiere itself, but also the award in Cannes which especially put the film on the press’s agenda. Several critics/reviewers pointed out Moore’s ability to create enormous attention around the documentary genre and at the same time altering the template or limits of it.

1.2 Definition of issue

An analysis of Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 will answer the following questions:

Looking into Bill Nichols definitions of different documentary types, where does Moore’s film fall under? What means and effects does Moore use when it comes to establish his own role in the film? The analysis will end in a discussion on; if the use of creative elements can characterise the film as a creative documentary or political propaganda. What does it mean to Moores film that the manipulation is out in the open? When comes to the last question, this will lead into a discussion to see if the manipulation is a style, which some critics have blatantly described as political propaganda. A style which some has compared to Leni Riefenstahl  , who produced the pro-Nazi Triumph of the Will (1934) showing a flattering view of Hitler.

Based on the analysis, the discussion will deal with the reception the film received in the press: What did the critics say, and what did they not say? Also looking into what is perceived to be documentary, which is what the critics base their opinion and assumptions on. 

1.3 The theoretical starting point

The documentary films topic is big. So is the literature about it, which tries to capture and discuss the specific characteristics of the genre. 

Bill Nichols is a central figure for this dissertation. One of his most famous books was the Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary, which Nichols wrote in 1991. This book is described by John Corner as one the most central pieces of literature in the understanding of modern documentary film. In the book Nichols defines four types (modes), in which documentary film can represent the reality through. Later on in his book Introduction to Documentary (2001) he adds two more, making it six modes. Here Nichols develops his theory and opinion from 1991, and the book act like a supplement to Representing Reality, but it’s also in some places a re-write of his previous thesis. Introduction to Documentary is therefore chosen as a key player to both the analysis and discussion which follows. In parts of the dissertation it has proven prudent to supplement Nichols thoughts with John Corners perspective on documentaries. In Corners book The Art of Record: A Critical Introduction to Documentary (1996) he presents an analysis of one of Moore’s previous films, Roger and Me. That analysis has been a good source of inspiration when it comes to setting up a template for the following analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11.

2. The documentary films’ possibilities and modes

The Oxford dictionary defines documentary as a film using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013). 

Several people are critical to the documentary film as a genre and question if not it’s just “a fiction (un)like any other” (Corner, 1996: 4).

2.1 The historical identification of the genre

In 1926 the British producer and film theorist John Grierson wrote in his review of Robert Flaherty’s Moana about the films “documentary value” . And with this review, a new genre was presented. In his review of the film Moana, Grierson for the first time introduces the term documentary. He simply says that the film “has documentary value”. The review does not contain a definition of documentary – this Grierson publishes later through his writings. Grierson saw it as his task to research this further; what the documentary genre was. He defined documentary film as “a creative treatment of reality”, which has been the foundation of many of the genres theories since. John Corner mentions, in the foreword of The Art of Record, that film theory have moved on in two separate directions since Grierson; those that were advocates for the genre’s possibilities, and those that wished to warn about the genre’s shortcomings and dangers (Corner, 1996: 16). Corner describes Grierson as the big idealist of the genre, whom found it to be superior compared to two previous forms or styles: Hollywood fiction blockbusters and the conventional fact shows/clips (for example newsreels).

“Grierson finds documentary superior to the former in so far as it engages with the real rather than encouraging fantasy and superior to the latter in so far as it works imaginatively and dramatically, rather than confining itself to the limited aesthetics of the newsreel (…)”. (Corner, 1996: 11)

Grierson is trying to convey a new genre that will allow creative possibilities, but at the same time helping it evolve from its current simple form, what he calls lecture film. This can also be seen as an expansion of Griersons previous definition, a creative treatment of reality. Though Grierson wanted a new genre with creative possibilities, not everything could be allowed. He underlines that fact that a documentary is only a creative treatment of reality and therefore must retain pieces from the real world. From Griersons definitions one can find three basic and essential characteristics of a documentary as a genre:

• The creative beginning
• The treatment (the processing/structuring of the material)
• The factual (the historical elements of reality)

2.2 The characteristics of documentary film

With the creative treatment, Grierson is covering the tools or means that are used by the documentary artist to gain a specific goal. Those means will be covered later through the use of Nichols understanding of the genre. The processing or structuring of the film will be treated and explained through the six modes, which Nichols has divided the genre into. These have developed from the early ages of the documentary film in the 1920s up until today. Later these modes will be used to place or categorise Fahrenheit 9/11, but like Nichols points out, one can rarely view these modes in a pure form. Meaning, that one film may use or fall under several modes. 

“The order of presentation for these six modes corresponds roughly to the chronology of their introduction. It may therefore seem to provide a history of documentary film, but it does so only imperfectly. (…) The characteristics of a given mode function as a dominant in a given film: they give structure to the overall film, but they do not dictate or determine every aspect of its organisation.” (Nichols, 2001: 100) 

As you will see in the analysis that follows, Moore leans towards several modes with his style, either directly or indirectly. The analysis will answer what Moore achieves will his style.

Nichols notes that documentary film is recognised by its particular way of relating to the world. “But documentary is not a reproduction of reality, it’s a representation of the world we already occupy.” (Nichols, 2001: 20) According to Nichols, you can easier define documentary by approaching it from different angles: institutions, practitioners, texts (films and videos) and audience (Nichols, 2001: 22).

These terms can be used as a way to introduce the idea that a documentary is a documentary, if it can be seen as one. With institution, he means that the genre is often interpreted in relation to the specific context, which is set by the medium and the people using it. Nichols emphasises the importance of the medium which the film shown, has a great impact on how it is shaped and the perspective it takes. As a result, a film will automatically adapt itself to the social conventions it is presented within, in what is shown and discussed. The following analysis will discuss if Moore is a part of shifting these boundaries.

With practitioners Nichols notes that the active filmmaker greatly is a part of shaping the genre. The individual author (filmmaker) will often be critical towards the institution and its conventions, which a genre is made up of. “It confirms the historical variability if the form: our understanding of what is a documentary changes as those who make documentaries change their idea of what it is they make.” (Nichols, 2001: 26) 

With the text term Nichols is deliberately trying not to trap the entire genre. The documentary film is characterised by a special type of documentarian logic. Very often the texts are rhetorically organised around a central argument. Therefore they are recognised from the lack of a narrative structure and are instead structured around a specific perspective of for example an historical event. This structure is especially achieved through, amongst other things, evidentiary editing, which focuses on getting the argument presented in the story. “(…) evidentiary editing organizes cuts within a scene to present the impression of a single, convincing argument supported by logic.” (Nichols, 2001: 30) From this one could say that documentaries rarely display continuity in the editing. The text term forms the basis for the six modes – see section 2.3.1.

Finally Nichols is focusing on the way the filmmaker relates to his audience. Here it is significant to mention the expectations each film is met with. These expectations are, to a large extent, linked with the way the historical world is represented. “We continue to assume that the indexical linkage of sound and image to what it records attests to the film’s engagement with a world that is not entirely of its own design.” (Nichols, 2001: 36) Therefore Nichols is indicating an expectation, which is that the filmmaker complies with the rules that the genre is establishing. The receiver has an expectation, that the film deals with the real world and that the purpose is for the viewer to gain more knowledge of this world. The expectation of becoming more knowledgeable stimulates the viewer’s epistephilia – desire for knowledge. These conventions are often hidden in the genre, and as the discussion of the reception of Fahrenheit 9/11 will show, it can be different from receiver to receiver.

2.3.1 Modes and possibilities

“In documentary film and video, we can identify six modes of representation that function something like sub-genres of the documentary film genre itself: poetic, expository, participatory, observational, reflexive, performative.” (Nichols, 2001: 99) 

Through different modes, Nichols is trying as an overall goal, to categorise the different documentaries.

The poetic mode

In the 1920s Flaherty was one of the people that established the poetic mode. With his film Nanook of the North (1922) and Moana (1927) he helped put the esthetical means in focus.

Fig. 4 - Nanook: Through his film, Flaherty follows the man Nanook and the life of an Eskimo. There are many examples that Flaherty staged several of the events in the film to create the desired emotional response. The Eskimos were dressed in their traditional costumes, which they normally didn’t use, and some of the interior shots from the igloo were staged outside because of the simple reason that there weren’t enough light.

The poetic mode uses the rhetorical element (persuasion) and instead tries to replicate a certain way reality is perceived. Poetic mode focuses more on the emotional aspect of it, by allowing the viewer to observe a series of carefully selected shots. As a starting point, the story must be realistic, but just like Flaherty’s Nanook Of The North shows, that does not rule out staging or planning events to a certain degree. The poetic mode may seem more allusive and often use editing to get the viewer to associate certain images with a mood or tone, rather than to make a specific argument about a topic. The purpose of this can be seen as a means to produce a desired and specific emotional response in the viewer. Certain images can trigger specific emotions and by being aware of this, the filmmaker can control the emotional path. In order for it to still be a documentary, the film must retain some material from reality, but that can be interpreted in different ways.

The expository mode

The expository mode use more rhetorical techniques and ways to make points about the subject matter, a direct approach. With an informational and factual approach, this mode often approaches the viewer directly through the use commentary soundtrack: Either by the “voice of God” approach, where the narrator is heard, but never seen. Or by the “voice of authority”, where the narrator is both seen and heard. Both approaches often use professional and richly toned male voices. This often gives the impression of authority and credibility. The expository mode tries to portray a sense of objectivity and logic. By using an authorial voiceover, it gives the impression that the narrator is “above” the subject matter. This again creates the impression of objectivity and distance and creates trust with the viewer, believing that what the narrator is describing is the truth through factual argumentation. This is not so unlike news presenters, whose jobs are to present the truth. It seems to apply common sense and logic thinking to the topic. However, like Nichols underlines, the use of this is relative. Furthermore, the arguments validity is also relative to the time it is presented or viewed in.

“The basic argument may still have merit, but counts as common sense may change considerably.” (Nichols, 2001: 109) 

Fig. 6 – Expectation of framework: The film If You Love This Planet (1982), which assumes the viewer has a basic knowledge of planet and environment (the framework) and can therefore present an argument.

An essential point to the expository mode is that it does not question the framework of which the argument is presented within. Framework, as in being the values, beliefs and conventions of the society which the documentary is presented within. The basis for each documentary is dependent on this; that the viewer understands, and almost takes for granted, the framework. From here an argument may be presented. Had the framework not been there, the argument and goal would have been lost even before the film had started. 

The observational mode

Fig. 7 – Bolex H16 camera: An important contributing factor to the observational mode happened in the 1960s, with the invention handheld 16mm cameras. Finally it became possible to record sound and image at the same time, synchronised. The size of the camera also became considerably reduced, which made it possible to shoot only with one crew member. 

One often regards the observational mode as the pure documentary mode and often contains little or no voiceover, sound effects, title sequences or traditional journalistic interviews There is little direct interference from the filmmaker’s side. One focuses on the capturing the spontaneous as it happens, when it happens.

But what about indirect interference? Even though there is only a one-man crew, simply by the camera just being present, how will the presence of the camera affect the people participating? It might only be small changes in a person’s behaviour, like body language, but that is still a difference.

Some films that seem purely observational can sometimes alter events and become a part of history. 

Fig. 8a, 8b, 8c – Nazi Triumph: During World War II, the Nazi party used enormous resources to make propaganda films. Even the films showing military parades from a single static camera, was to a certain degree somewhat staged.

Leni Riefenstahl is probably most known for her film “Triumph of the Will” (1934), which portrayed the German National Socialist (Nazi party) Party’s Nuremberg rally. After a series of text based titles, it appears as if the camera has taken on a purely observational role, showing troop inspections, images of Hitler and speeches, a “fly-on-the-wall” effect. Alas, very little of the events seen would happened the way they did, had it not been for the Nazi Party’s determination to have their greatness documented. So even here the camera changes the course of history. One has to wonder whether the parade had been equally spectacular and grand had the camera not been there.

The participatory mode

The participatory mode (sometimes referred to as the “interactive mode”), is a documentary mode where the filmmaker don’t just document, but actively interacts with the subject matter. Whereas the observational documentary tries to show how it would to be a part of a situation, the participating documentary tries show how it is to be a filmmaker in a given situation and also, how the presence of the camera influences the subject matter. An early example of this, is Dziga Vertovs The Man with a Movie Camera (1929), which very much uses this approach. 

“The filmmaker steps out from behind the cloak of voice-over commentary, steps away from the poetic meditation, steps down from a fly-on-the-wall perch, and become a social actor (almost) like any other.” (Nichols, 2001: 116) 

However, very often it is the filmmaker that controls the camera, which Nichols is indicating with the “almost”. This mode can often be seen in the French Cinéma Vérité and Russian/Soviet Kino-Pravda style, which both emphasises the truth element in a film. However, this shall not be perceived as the absolute truth, but as a truth in the moment it happens. Because we only see what we see, because the filmmaker and camera is present. The filmmaker acts as both the investigator (aka anthropologist) and as the reflective responsible person, which describes what we see (what he sees).

Fig. 9 – Eviction: Nichols uses Moores film Roger and Me (1989) as an example of the participatory mode. Moore is directly involved with the subject matter (also proved by the “Me” in the title) and by doing so, events unfold in a specific way.

By actively engaging in the subject matter, the filmmaker is changing the course of the documentary. Also by being this directly involved with the documentary, the filmmaker is creating a direct bond between him and the viewers. The film deals with present events, which the filmmaker is a part of, and only a limited historical background is presented. Though this can happen in participatory documentaries, where its purpose is to scrutinise a historical event. This sometimes happens as a result of a desire to view the historical event in a wider perspective. 

The reflexive mode

This mode first and foremost relates to the medium itself, but also shifting the main focus towards the viewer. Also, this mode can be seen as counter reaction to the realism styles this genre has been influenced by. Though still classed as a non-fiction style, documentaries using the reflexive mode often portray features similar to fiction style film. Reflexive documentary films focuses on how and what becomes the result from the process. With this style, which was established in the 1980s, both the template and contents is reflected upon. This allows for a sort of dialog or understanding between the filmmaker and the viewer, so that the viewer can consider the genres possibilities. Nichols points out that this style puts the foundation of documentary film under scrutiny. “At its best, reflexive documentary prods the viewer to a heightened form of consciousness about her relation to a documentary and what it represents.” (Nichols, 2001: 128) Therefore this mode does not try to contribute with new information for viewer, but rather making the viewer aware of the information available and the way it is presented through the media, which again is dependent on the political affiliations a news company might have. With Far from Poland (1984) the filmmaker, Jill Godmilow , is trying to describe Poland’s issues with limited access to both the country and any archive material, like pictures, films and newspapers. As a result, the whole film addresses the issue of representation or presence in documentary film making. However, the limitations of the film is shown and therefore the level of credibility and truth is set, keeping in line with the participating mode where the viewer makes ups his/hers own mind.

Fig. 10 - Feminist documentaries: Joyce at Thirty-four (1972) and Growing Up Female (1970) tried, to an large extent, to question the discrimination that went on in society at the time.

Conversely, the reflexive mode can relate solely to political issues, such as the 1970s feminist documentary wave. Many of these films tried to problematize social conventions and political issues at the time. These films aim to view the society in a different way, where the desired effect is for the viewer to reflect over the issues at hand. The reflexive mode can, as an overall goal, seem to aim for an eye-opening experience in the viewer; either related to the medium itself or a particular way of perceiving the society and world.

The performative mode

Same as the poetic mode, the performative mode questions the concept of knowledge. It emphasises that the opinion, and therefore the meaning, is subjective. The purpose is to challenge the general views which are current in a society. “Performative documentary underscores the complexity of our knowledge of the world by emphasizing its subjective and affective dimensions.” (Nichols, 2001: 131) With this mode, which was established in the 1980s, the subjective aspect of it all is clear. We are invited to follow a person in order to put ourselves in that persons place. Therefore it’s trying to draw parallels between the individual level and the general view on the subject matter. “Performative documentary can act as a corrective to those films where “we speak about them to us”. They proclaim instead, that “We speak about ourselves to you,” or “We speak about ourselves to us.”” (Nichols, 2001: 133c.) This mode uses many of the avant-garde traditions, like experimental forms of expressions, and focuses less on the films expression than on the relation to it, which is described in the historical world. The performative documentarist tries all the time to remind the viewer, that the world is more than just the visual expressions the viewer normally interprets the film from.

Fig. 11 – Gay life: Riggs tries, through his film Tongues United (1989), to describe his personal experiences of being a black gay man in USA. With this film he wishes to question the conventions of society through the use of personal and subjective experiences and knowledge. Riggs uses poetry recitals and staged sequences to visualise his descriptions.

The performative mode does not use argumentative means. This mode does not try to convince the viewer, but addresses instead the emotional and expressional aspects of it. Like for example Marlon Riggs , which according to Nichols, uses autobiographic means, which in some parts resemble the participatory mode. As with many other performative mode documentaries, they are in the grey area between fiction and the real world. The referential value of this is played or acted out in order to focus on the personal expression, including the filmmakers’ subjective perspective and/or the personal commitment. Again, as with other films applying this mode, the voiceover or narration is very much important.

2.3.2 The voice in the documentary

Looking at Grieson’s previous definition, one can establish that the filmmakers (sender) relation or perspective of a subject matter is an essential part of the treatment. However, these are brand new measures in comparison to the former expository mode. The authority is found in the Voice of God voiceover, whereas the way Moore is positioning himself to the subject matter, can in many ways be said to be contributing to the removal of an authoritative sender and underline the subjective style. Therefore Nichols introduces the term voice. He talks about that the documentary film has “a voice of their own”. In what follow, we will look at how this is established.

A voice of their own

“The vision or style of a realist filmmaker emerges from the rhythms and textures of an imaginary world, from aspects of mise-en-scène, camera movement, sound, editing, and so on that seem at first natural, inevitable, or simply at the service of the story. The “vision” of the documentarist is more like a question of voice: how a personal point of view about the historical world manifests itself.” (Nichols, 1991: 165)

Nichols describes his term about the voice of the documentary in order to describe the conscious choices which lie behind the entire piece. As he emphasises in the quote above, the analyst can look at the choices made by the documentarist and his/her choices will often lead back to the subjective perspective, where the documentarist started the project. Therefore all clips, edits, interviews and other parts, will inevitably lead back to voice of the documentary.

The voice of the documentary is made up of and established through the means that are used to stage a specific perspective of the world. As an extension of that, the same argument can be presented with different voices, each of which becomes an expression of the documentarist involvement in each single topic. Simply put, the filmmaker’s position is established through all visual and auditive choices behind the finished piece. In the analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11 these means and tools will be explained even more.

Thus the voice leads directly back to the filmmaker. Nichols emphasises, that the voice of the text (film) is not only established verbally, but that it shows in all of the filmmakers decisions: in regards to the imagery, editing, sound, treatment (how the argument is set up), choice of material (archive or own footage for example) and the way it’s presented. The voice can be established either explicitly or implicitly. The explicit meaning lies in the words being said in addition to written statements or factual information. Establishing the voice implicitly is done through hints and indirect commentary that’s meant to nudge the viewer in a desired direction. (Nichols, 2001: 47) It should be noted that the filmmakers use of different means and elements, can greatly contribute to establishing a voice implicitly.

Fig. 12 - Marcus Tullius Cicero: "The influence of Cicero upon the history of European literature and ideas greatly exceeds that of any other prose writer in any language." (Cicero / Grant, 1971: 24)

With this, Nichols notes that the documentary genre act as an extension of rhetoric thoughts and values. It becomes more apparent, when one looks at the way the argument is presented. Roman philosopher Cicero divided the rhetorical structure of a speech into five parts, the canons of rhetoric: Invention (Latin, invention), disposition (arrangement) (Latin, dispositio), style (Latin, elocutio), memory (Latin, memoria) and delivery (Latin, pronuntiato). 

The invention defines both the authors’ subjective angle towards the subject matter, but also functions as a presentation of the arguments central proof/facts (building up an argument). The invention can be ethical, emotional or explaining. 

Through the disposition the material is structured according to the angle or perspective of the piece. This is where a processed version of the subject matter is composed. 

Style is the way in which the argument is presented, choice of words, sentence structures or figures of speech. Here Nichols especially draws some parallels between literary styles like essay, diary style etc. The style is also relevant to several of the modes mentioned above, like poetic and expository.

With memory one refers to the aspect of the original speech, which intended to make the individual speaker able to remember the subject matter, done through a series of specific techniques. Here Nichols uses the term to explain how the individual documentarist tries to imprint himself upon the public/general memory. At the same time, this refers to the way the listeners (viewers) memory is activated and the subject matter imprinted, in relation the on-going speech (documentary) and its context. (Nichols, 2001: 59)

“Delivery, I say, has the sole and supreme power in oratory; without it, a speaker of the highest mental capacity can be held in no esteem; while one of moderate abilities, with this qualification, may surpass even those of the highest talent.” – Cicero (Watson, 1970: 255)

The delivery refers to the way the argument is presented and what medium is used to present the argument. This term overlaps to a certain degree with style, but also involves eloquence and the way it is communicated. 

All (the canons of rhetoric) are incorporated into the documentary in different ways. One can then view and evaluate the filmmakers choices in a simple way, what works and what does not work. As the following analysis will show, Moore is very conscious about the choices he makes.

3. The analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11

3.1. The presentation of Fahrenheit 9/11

As a foundation of the understanding of this analysis, Moore’s key points will be outlined. On several occasions the analysis may refer to specific scenes, which can be found in appendix B, which functions as an overview of the film.

Fig. 13 - US election November 2000.

The exposition (build up) in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a solid argument against George W. Bush and the administration. The film starts off with clips of the Democrats (political party), with Al Gore in the front celebrating, thinking they had won the election in November 2000. Moore ironically jokes “Was it all just a dream?” (Scene 1) After, Moore challenges what would come to be the Republicans (political party) election victory. With this introduction Moore reveals the real agenda behind this film: Bush needs to go. If anyone were to ask Moore why this is, the film serves as an almost two hour argumentation why Bush is not the right man for the job; Bush is work-shy, he is showing a lack action and leadership during the 9/11 terror attack, both just after, where he were in a school, and in the days that followed.

3.2 Analysis

Michael Moore uses several of the modes and means Nichols describes. A part of Moore’s film is done in a pastiche style (building on others works) and other parts uses other modes. This analysis will discuss, among other things, what Moore achieves with this approach.

With the exposition (build up) in Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore, already from the start, establishes a distance from the classical expository documentary. We hear a clear voiceover commentary, but it does not follow the expository mode’s authority approach. Instead Moore establishes a clear subjective approach to the subject matter. In the exposition Moore uses a narrator approach, whose tone resembles a voice of God voice, but this authority is removed by two significant means. Moore talks about the people in clips in an ironic tone and at the same time he introduces his own real person in the story.

Fig. 14 – Thoughts: “Look there’s Ben Affleck, he is often in my dreams (…) and the Taxi-driver guy [Robert de Niro]” (scene 1).

The Ben Affleck reference can be seen as a way to set the mood and seriousness of the rest of the film. Why would a male American actor appear in Moores dreams? It’s seems ridiculous, which again is a part of establishing the satirical mood, which is present throughout the entire film. 

From the beginning, Moore ponders in a clear subjective style, which takes away the impression of authority in the voice. With an ironic approach to the events unfolding, he introduces himself in several ways. He is the narrator, who does not wish to hide his perspective on the subject matter he is presenting. Therefore Moore’s position is clear from the beginning, and in the following clip he reveals one of his main tools: music. When we look back at the election night in 2000, we are accompanied by merry banjo music, which gives the following news clips a humoristic impression. Furthermore Moore’s subjective style surfaces with one of his final comments about Bush’s version of the events passed, with the film being the counterpart/opposite: “This new version is the past and no new version can ever have existed.” (Scene 28) Both sides/angles are open to discussion: Moore has through the film presented his arguments and stands by his version, knowing full well that his political opponents will dismiss this version as unilateral.

Fig. 15a, 15b, 15c – Off-Air: In scene 3 we see a series of off-the-air images of Bush and his ministers, which both diminishes their authority by showing them as vulnerable, not ready, and at the same time these sequences shows that the version the TV medium is offering, very much is an arranged and edited reality.

One could argue, that Moore is processing/re-using the knowledge we all acquire through media, by using the power of media itself. In several parts, Moore applies the reflexive mode, which in one way emphasises the fragility of media and the danger of it. Numerous times, Moore only focuses on media’s role in all of this, which will be covered further down.

Manipulation or participation?

As the following discussion of the films reception will show, Moore is accused of being manipulative. This is of course true, or is it? One could say that manipulation means that by using certain elements, a message is hidden “between the lines” and that the film has a deeper agenda than what is being presented on an explicit level. To better understand this argument, Nichols writings on the participating documentary is essential. With the abovementioned terms, one could argue that Moore stays within the participating mode, which explains why it is not purely manipulation.

Fig. 16 - School: An example of this it the images of Bush, when he has just been told the nation is under attack (scene 4). Whilst Bush awaits the situation, Moore “assigns” (possible) thoughts to the president. By imaging what Bush might be thinking of, Moores establishes both his position to the subject matter and to objective – Bush.

With its narrator style Moore declares himself, from the very beginning, to be the films author and that is therefore necessary to understand the other elements he uses. Moore has no intention of hiding his position as the author/filmmaker. Through the narrator voice, Moore is constantly putting some distance between him and the events. Several images only make sense when Moore establishes it, either with the help of editing or opinionated commentary (Fig. 14). He is now the narrator, filmmaker and participant (social actor) in the fight. Furthermore Moore establishes several scenarios, in his favour, where the presence of the camera greatly influences the situation and how it unfolds. This approach, which Corners analysis shows, is more used in for example Roger and Me. About Moores style, Corner notes that:

“This combination of factors – anti-corporate polemic, comedy, autobiographical essay, exercise in ‘amateurism’ and ongoing saga of investigative reporting – produces an extraordinary film which is likely to be regarded as a major landmark in contemporary documentary, whatever the individual judgements as to its attractiveness, effectiveness or ethics.” (Corner, 1996: 156) 

Though the autobiographical style is less visible in Fahrenheit 9/11, it still could be said that it is an underlying element that is present in many of Moore’s films. At the same time Moore is bringing in an essential element with him from Roger and Me. The investigative journalistic style is happening, as we see it. A style which is a part of the overall approach Moore uses to show his argument. The topics are addressed, as they appear, and the argumentation (subjective as it is) takes shape in the form of an investigation. Which sometimes there is legit reason for in advance, but sometimes it might occur in the midst of things. Therefore the participatory mode is used in many parts, throughout the film.

Moore seems to like to take the camera with him (handheld) and investigate things right before those in power, which reflects the participatory mode. In scene 10 the confrontation only happens because of Moore’s presence; but by Moore knowing, that they know, that he knows, that they are watching him, he can then control the events, to a certain degree. Moore has invited with him an expert on national economy to talk about the Saudi Arabians assets and investments in the American economy. This also creates a certain credibility in the film, having an expert (a figure of authority) commentating on the topic. This interview takes place between the Watergate Hotel, Kennedy Center and the Saudi Arabian embassy. 

Fig. 17 - Embassy: It doesn’t take long before a representative (officer) of the Secret Service appears. Moore, naturally, let’s the camera keep rolling, when the officer asks Moore if he is making something he shouldn’t.

And despite the presence of surveillance (Secret Service) Moore keeps on investigating when he asks; “I didn’t realise that the Secret Service guards foreign embassies (…) did they give you any trouble, the Saudis” – Michael Moore (scene 10). Naturally the officer can’t comment on this, so then Moore simply openly says that must be seen as a “yes”. Moore interoperates (explicit) and shows it. He emphasises here his position, as the one of the films social actors and as the author; I’m filming, I’m telling and interoperating, but I do so openly in front of the camera so there can be no doubt. 

Elsewhere Moore walks on the street carrying out his self-proclaimed fight against the system. Moore interviews a former marine soldier, Corporal Henderson, who says that he under no circumstances wishes to return to Iraq, even though this means spending time in prison (scene 25). He (marine) can’t see any meaning with the war. Moore invites the marine to join him out in the field. When Moore learns that only one of the members of Congress has children deployed in the war, he decides to start a recruitment campaign. Moore and the former marine Corporal stands outside the Congress, trying to get members of Congress to enlist their children. Moore’s campaign is successful. No one will give up their children, but what is more important is that he gets to confront the decisions makers.

An important element of the participatory mode is handheld camera, which Moore uses frequently. In this sequence we also catch a glimpse of a boom pole in the frame, which helps to emphasise the authenticity of the cameras presence. Up against Nichols terms, this can be identified as a truth being revealed in the moment it happens.

Scene 28 is Moore’s final participatory element before he falls back to reflecting over the war meaning or lack thereof. With the narrator voice behind the entire films argumentation, there is no doubt who is the sender/author behind the film. 

Fig. 18 – Fooled: Moore emphasises his subjective angle with his last response to the opponent Bush, who says: “(…) fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again.” (Scene 28). Finally Moore agrees with Bush.

As discussed, Moore makes use of several of the modes, mainly the participatory mode, but also poetic and reflexive elements. At the same time removing the expository and observational mode, by Moore several places drawing attention to the medium and his position as an author/filmmaker. Based on Nichols understanding of the performative mode, Moore does not fall under it. The very foundation of Moore’s style is argumentation, which this mode rejects. With Nichols concepts it can furthermore be established how Moore manifests his perspective – his voice.

The voice behind Fahrenheit 9/11

Moore establishes the voice of the film primarily through the spoken word, but also through his use of means to underline this. In the previously mentioned introduction (scene 1) Moores tone (attitude/approach) is established verbally. From the beginning, Moore creates a sarcastic and ironic introduction to his topic, at the same times as he uses pictures and interviews to underline the seriousness.

Auditivily the voice of the documentary is established through a combination of live sound, sound recorded on location, and a conscious use of music which acts in favour of Moores opinion. Moores use of real audio, captured in the moment, establishes, sympathy in the film. 

Fig. 19a, 19b, 19c – N.Y. 9/11: In scene 4 the viewer is presented with a black screen and sound recordings from the 9/11 terror attack on New York. The images of that day are imprinted in everyone’s memory and are therefore not necessary. Afterwards he shows images of the streets of New York, where we see people’s reactions. The images are omitted in respect of the people and furthermore helps to establish Moore’s sympathy.

In the images that follow (after fig. 19a, 19b and 19c) they speak for themselves. A young American woman searching for a family dad. It’s the perspective of these people the viewer now follows. This is underlined by the music, which helps set the mood. Here Moore is leaning towards the poetic mode, but the voiceover delivers a piece of reality, which is a more fact based approach (observational mode). Furthermore Moore’s voice as a sender is emphasised by the visual style of the film. When Moore walks on the street the style is handheld, elsewhere the images are calm and neutral. Much of the material is from news broadcasts, which gives Moore a power of impact, which he would not achieved on the street. By using this approach, he applies what can be seen an accessible general knowledge.

The voice is clearly expressed in manipulative edited sequences. For example in scene 11, where Bush goes to war with his friends. The whole thing is told in a fiction style, which does not hide the manipulation factor, where he makes the war actions look like a cowboy film. Old images of Bush, Tony Blair and others are edited in a creative way, which to a high extent underlines Moore’s opinion of this war: It is ridiculous. Same with Bush’s comment “We’re gonna smoke them out…” (Scene 11), which is a part of Moores visual expression. Bush’s comment is then turned against him, with the cowboy sequence.

The argumentation is put before the authentic. There is no chronological order. All the clips are taken out on context, which furthermore only establishes an introduction, which works in his favour. It is only when Moore is out in the field with a handheld camera, a deeper introduction is made. Scene 28 gives the viewer an insight to what seems to be a hopeless quest to recruit soldiers, which can be seen as a hopeless fight against the government.

Fig. 20a, 20b - Congress: The deeper introduction made through the handheld approach can be seen in the interview with Lila Lipscomb (scene 26) and in the ending scene, where Moore confronts the members of Congress on the street (scene 28).

Moore carefully selects his material, so that it fits with the argumentation. If the material don’t have enough impact by itself a meaning is added with music, voiceover or editing. Even though Moore is establishing his voice explicit, one could argue that there is never a doubt that Moore is constructing the context and events. Furthermore, Moore’s use of the news broadcasts can be seen as a way of adding elements of the reflexive mode. As an author Moore questions the image’s objectivity, because they can be given many meanings, as Moore shows. Moore’s perspective of the media is very critical. The entire opening sequence (scene 1) forms a basis for a discussion of the media’s role in the ruling of the election. “Then something called Fox News Channel (…)” and “Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true (…)” can be seen as way of pointing out the fragility and credibility of the media industry.

Moore uses several rhetorical means in establishing his perspective. The approach is both emotional and demonstrative. He establishes sympathy with both the American people and the victims of the war. At the same time demonstrating through his argument, how bad things are. Moore is especially argumentative when he walk the streets a political activist (scene 14, 22, 28 etc.) Furthermore Moore establishes his position through a style, which draws on literary genres. The template of the documentary can be seen as an essay, in which Moore as the author builds up a clear argument. Moore establishes, describes, argues and reflects over its subject matter. Therefore the voice of the film is established in several ways, at the same time as Moore positions himself differently depending on the situation.

Positioning

Moore mainly tells the story from three different positions, which is established through the different means mentioned in the analysis above. Moore establishes himself as the omniscient narrator, which is consistent throughout the film. This voice is used both in the practical role to get the argumentation to add up, but also to speculate freely over for example Bush’s thoughts. With this use of an omniscient narrator, Moore contributes to emphasise his subjecting approach and remove the authority, which is often the case in the classical documentary film. This is finally shows, when the omniscient narrator goes too far in relation to its genre: It is reflected on a person’s thoughts. The conventions of the genre does not allow for this, which is a part of removing the narrators authority.

Fig. 21 – Saudi Arabia: An example of the way Moore formulates his questions can be seen in scene 10: “What percentage of our economy does that represent…? It seems like a lot (…)”. The questions are not well formulated, but the way the questions are asked is well thought out.

Another position is the participating reporter, which fights against the injustices in society. It is as this reporter, that Moore makes use of the participatory mode, which again emphasises the subjective approach to the subject matter. Finally Moore acts as the investigative journalist who tries to understand the structure, or rather the hierarchy, of society. Here Moore presents himself as himself and his own point of view as an ordinary American. With this position Moore establishes his sympathy and a type of connection with the people. Moore’s main aim is to expose the injustice between the large corporations (or the government) and the average American. Moore is using a language which the average American can understand and relate to. He is using the “people’s language”, which underlines his position and connection.

3.3 Summary

Moore’s style is overall participating. He establishes a tone, which is particularly subjective. Throughout the whole film the subjective approach and participation shines through. Moore manipulate, he takes clips out of the context, he places the real worlds politicians in cowboy film sequences; in short, he does everything that does not signal an objective approach to the subject matter. This is motivated both personally through Moore’s narration and also through Moore’s sympathy and position in relation to the films main audience: the American people. Several critics have called Moore’s style manipulative, but as the above analysis has shown, there are both levels of manipulation, covert and overt.

4. The reception of Fahrenheit 9/11

4.1 Gross income

After the premiere in the US theatres, and later other countries, the film received immense attention in the press. On each side stood critics (and politicians) with their own take on the film. The film was released on the 23rd of July 2004 (USA), which is close to 1st of July weekend, where many people travel home to be with their families. During its first opening weekend, 25th-27th, it had a gross income of $23,920,637 with screenings in 1725 theatres (Boxofficemojo.com, 2013). In total (both US and foreign) it had a gross income of $222,446,882. Many members of the public applauded the film, most for its different view of the President.

4.2 Analysis and reception – discussion

It is of course a great difference between an academic report and a review/editorial in the press. Still, it is important to address some of the points mentioned above. These can serve as a foundation for a discussion and as way to connect the analysis to the film. In this discussion I refer to appendix A., marked by (AX), where X is the relevant paragraph in the appendix.

Overall, the criticism does not seem to portray a balanced idea of the documentary film as a genre. There is a widespread consensus, amongst several, that Moore manipulates and that Fahrenheit 9/11 cannot be regarded as an objective documentary. But what is an objective documentary, which they keep drumming on about? From Nichols writings, the objective documentary seems to be a thing of the past. Despite this, Moore is compared to this by for example Edelsten (A1). According to Nichols, the closest we can get to this objectivity is through the observational mode, which serves as a contrast to the participatory mode; where the filmmaker stresses that the cameras mere presence would affect both the social actors and the films overall argument. Several critics try to trap Moore for his use of the subjective style. Edelsten (A1), Hitchens (A3), Monibiot (A4) and Sullivan (A6) express, in different degrees, how subjective approach Moore has taken. However, Moore’s texts are more than that. Moore participates explicit and implicit in his construction of the argument. Here Nichols description of the participatory mode, is the closest description we can come. This mode and the means used, does not relate to the content itself. Are all facts okay? Where does the information come from? Who are the so-called experts which Moore does not name etc. This I believe shouldn’t be addressed in this analysis, where Moore is the author (sender) – which is declared. It is up to others to check Moore’s factual information. Still, there is far between the documentary genre and pure manipulation. In Fahrenheit 9/11 the manipulation that occurs is explicit, it is out in the open.

The means and approach used, can be seen as a way for Moore to try to go down to his objects, George W. Bush, level. If one agree to the position the USA President has be given or not, can be discussed in a different project that focuses on the political aspect. This position between the sender and object in itself is manipulative, but it is Moore that establishes these positions. Explicit. He re-uses the same rhetorical means used by Bush. Therefore one could argue that Moore, with his participating style, enters the game on his opponent’s terms. A clear manipulation, yes, but because this is happening out in the open, it cannot be seen as pure and hidden manipulation, but rather a means to an end. One has to see this film as a subjective contribution to political debate on the subject matter. Furthermore, it is important to look Moore’s style and approach, when trying to classify the film. Though it is not an observational style documentary, it is still a film that depicts real life events.

When it comes to the reception of Fahrenheit 9/11, Nichols definitions play an important role; institutions, practitioners, texts (films and videos) and audience (mentioned in section 2.2). Moore challenges the media’s role. At the same time, with his style he shifts or alters the boundaries and limits of documentary film. The institution where the film is presented has a great impact on the reception it receives. Moore basis his approach on the institution the film will be presented in and the audience that will see it. The social conventions for understanding the argument is therefore present in the viewer. However, though a group of people might have similar social conventions, it might be differences between them. This can create problems for Moore, as his film can seem un-logical to other groups. The viewer (the receiver) might have a different understanding of the genre, a different template, than the sender (filmmaker). It is here the conflict can arise. This can, however, change over time. Therefore a genre will always be viewed differently, all depending on the cultural and social conventions of the time.

5. Conclusion

The conclusion is that Michael More is documentarist, because he uses means and conventions that reflect the genre. At the same time Moore emphasises the subjective aspect of it. He participates actively in his own argument and states with this participatory style, that it is Moore’s opinions. The edited clips are arranged so they fit into the argumentation. Therefore I believe that it is correct to use Nichols terms and research in an analysis of Moore’s work. Fahrenheit 9/11 mainly uses the participatory mode, but at the same time makes use of other modes. These are both used to benefit the films overall argument, but also as reflexive comments to both the genre and media in general. By Moore’s direct and indirect use of the genres conventions and modes, he is simultaneously influencing these. Moore acquires, naturally, both opponents and followers, but what is more important, is that he achieves a focus on the genre. The echo from this focus can be seen and heard in the reception of the film.

The reception seems to capture Moore’s subjective style, but has difficulties managing it. Therefore it becomes a fight between those that think Moore is manipulating; and those that really think the same, but accepts it, basically because they agree with Moore. It is of course limits to a review, as a form, but nevertheless it is important to discuss if the critics has the eyes to recognise the distinctive characteristics of the genre. This is an essential element in order to achieve a constructive critique and debate. This is present (amongst the reviewers), but you may have to look hard to find it. Thus Moore’s reflexive level and subjective approach, that can be classed a type of documentary, is not addressed. Some may argue that this partly self-inflicted, as Moore’s public portrayal of Bush, sets the level or template for most attacks against Moore. This brings us back to basic message in the footage used in of Moore’s film; it is not the footage itself that asks the majority of questions, it is the mode applied to it.

Appendix A

(A1) David Edelsten (Slate magazine) agrees with Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 on some points. For example, how perplexed and unable to act, George Bush seemed after being told about the 9/11 attacks. Also that he dealt a right blow to the politicians. Edelsten describes how this film has torn him both ways. He expresses that he doesn’t feel this be a full worthy documentary, which he defines “(…) as a work in which the director begins by turning on the camera and allowing the reality to speak for itself.” (Edelsten, 2004). It seems that Edelsten believes a true documentary to be what Nichols defines as observational, where there is little interference from the film maker. Furthermore Edelsten says that “(…) “Fahrenheit 9/11” is not a documentary for the ages, it is an act of counterpropaganda that has a boorish, bullying force.”(Edelsten, 2004) Edelsten believes that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a historical documentary, which can be viewed in ten, twenty years. It has to viewed in the present, with the current and relevant social conventions.

(A2) Shailagh Murray (The Wall Street Journal) focuses mainly on the audience present in Cameo theatre (USA), which to his surprise, is mainly men and women serving in the U.S. Army. He documents and interviews several of the audience members, with several saying that they wanted a different perspective on the President and on the war. A 26 year old man serving in the Army said “(…) I’ve got a lot more questions than answers now.” (Murray, 2004) Several of the members of audience shed a tear numerous occasions during the film. Murray goes on to say that “”Fahrenheit 9/11” is a harshly satirical and controversial portrait of the Bush presidency (…)” (Murray, 2004).

(A3) Christopher Hitchens (Slate magazine) is perhaps one of Moore’s biggest opponents and critics, having debated both the film and Moore himself on several occasions. “A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims.” (Hitchens, 2004). He goes as far as to compare Moores’ and approach to Sergei Eisenstein and Leni Riefenstahl. He argues that regardless of what Bush had done (as a reaction to the terror attacks); the opposition would have found something to complain about. They would have called him rash and war fixated had he leapt out of the chair. According to Hitchens, the principal of the school Bush was at when the 9/11 attacks happened, “(…) was grateful that the President decided to complete his assigned moment of minutes with the class, because she didn’t want panic and she was delighted that he retained his composure.” (Jones, 2004). Moore tries, in the film, to paint a peaceful picture of Iraq, Bagdad and Saddam; a picture which Hitchens finds false and tries to disprove. He thinks that Moore contradicts himself by in one moment arguing (in the film) that the government are using 9/11 to install fear and pass legislation, whilst in the other moment saying airport security needs to be tightened. Hitchens finish off with a challenge towards Moore to a debate saying “(…) any time, Michael my boy.” (Hitchens, 2004). After this, Michael Moore and his associates have stated that he will not appear on any show where Christopher Hitchens is guest.

(A4) Though George Monibiot (The Guardian) acknowledges that Moore’s film is crude and at times patronising, but in the end he applauds it (Monibiot, 2004). He sees several of the US news networks as being biased, since they’re often owned by right-wing businessmen that publically supports the Bush administration. As for British news networks, a Cardiff School of Journalism study “(…) shows that 86% of the broadcast news reports that mentioned weapons of mass destruction during the invasion of Iraq "suggested Iraq had such weapons", while "only 14% raised doubts about their existence or possible use.” (Monibiot, 2004). Monibiot therefore argues that news networks on both sides of the Atlantic are biased. One can see Monibiot’s text as a support towards “Fahrenheit 9/11”, at least when it comes to corruption in the news industry.

(A5) Denis Hamill (Daily News) describes Moore to be a man of the people. He goes on, in an almost drama literary way, to describe how the tears are flowing in the theatre. Agreeing with Moore, he to questions the decisions made by the President. “"Fahrenheit 9/11" also has been picked apart by the legitimate press. But this is because Moore spanks the American news media for being swept up in the myopic post-9/11 patriotic hysteria, allowing themselves to be "embedded" by the administration and spoon-fed jingoistic Iraqi war news.” (Hamill, 2004).

(A6) Andrew Sullivan (TIME) starts out with comparing “Fahrenheit 9/11” with “The Passion of the Christ” (2004). He argues that both are not designed to persuade, but to rally the faithful (…) (Sullivan, 2004). Further he argues that Moore uses innuendo, sly editing, parody, ridicule and voiceover to give his assertions some truth (Sullivan, 2004). He is drawing parallels between the two films through for example the use of grieving mothers over dead sons or the use of music.

(A7) Desson Thomson (Washington Post) starts out with saying that “”Fahrenheit 9/11”, Michael Moore’s most powerful film since “Roger & Me”, slices and dices President Bush’s presidency into a thousand satirical pieces.” (Thomson, 2004). Already here one can see that Thomson supports Moore more than Bush. He believes that it has the potential of becoming a cultural juggernaut. Also he describes Moore’s editing style, showing a degree of admiration.

Appendix B

Scene Time code Title Description

1 00:00 – 07:37 Start ”just a dream?” Moore addresses Bush’s election victory of November 2000

2 07:38 – 10:17 Vacation Bush shown as a work-shy President, who goes on holiday time and again.

3 10:18 – 13:25 Title sequence “Fahrenheit 9/11 Title sequence and off-the-air images of Bush, Rumsfelt, Cheney and more.

4 13:26 – 16:44 Sept. 11, 2001 Black screen, we hear the sound from the terrorist attack, then cut to reactions of Americans on the street.

5 16:45 – 19:52 In the classroom Bush does not react the first seven minutes, but stays put in the classroom.

6 19:53 – 26:13 Grounded Result: Total air traffic ban; except the Bin-Laden family, which are flown out of the country.

7 26:14 – 31:00 Service Records Moore looks into Bush’s military record.

8 31:01 – 36:56 Access is power Looking at the Carlyle Group and the Bush’s family financial interests.

9 36:57 – 39:36 9/11 Commission Investigation committee and the problems of establishing one.

10 39:37 – 44:24 Saudi Embassy Moore on the street by the Watergate Hotel, Kennedy Center and the Saudi Embassy. Moore is approached by a Secret Service officer.

11 44:25 – 48:41 Going to War Bush goes to war. Moore illustrates this with cowboy film sequences.

12 48:42 – 57:03 Target: The American people New goal: to scare the American people. Fear and threats.

13 57:04 – 1:02:50 The Patriot Act Patriot Act is passed. Moore visits the peace group ?Peace Fresno?.

14 1:02:51 – 1:05:12 ”No on read it” Nobody read the law. Moore read it out loud on the street in front of the Congress.

15 1:05:13 – 1:07:48 Securing the homeland The Pacific coast is protected by one part-time officer.

16 1:07:49 – 1:10:39 The real plan Bush speaks to the nation (March 2003) and goes to war to disarm Iraq.

17 1:10:40 – 1:14:20 The ultimate rush The reality in Iraq through interviews with American troopers.

18 1:14:21 – 1:16:42 Trust Britney Spears: “I trust the President.”

19 1:16:43 – 1:19:24 Iraq A Coalition of the Willing.

20 1:19:25 – 1:21:43 An independent media Moore criticises the media’s role.

21 1:21:44 – 1:23:30 Street clashes In Iraq: The war continues.

22 1:23:31 – 1:30:15 New recruits New recruits amongst the USA working class. For example Flint Michigan, where the Army is the only opportunity to get a job.

23 1:30:16 – 1:33:49 Christmas Eve in Iraq Christmas in Iraq: A patrol looking for weapons. Iraq homes searched and interrogated.

24 1:33:50 – 1:36:00 The backbone of America Lila Lipscomb is presented as a true patriot.

25 1:36:01 – 1:41:42 Frontline Interview with a former soldier.

26 1:41:43 – 1:47:11 “It pains me” Lila Lipscomb has lost a son in Iraq. She is no more a supporter of the war.

27 1:47:12 – 1:54:57 Why we fight In reality the war is about money. (example: Halliburton)

28 1:54:58 – 1:59:29 Congressional recruitment Moore notes that he is tired of seeing the average American suffer. Only one of the members of Congress has a child in Iraq. Moore teams up with a soldier.

29 1:59:30 - Credits Credits. Neil Young:  ”Keep on Rocking in a Free World”

Bibliography

Books

Bernard, S. C. (2007). Documentary storytelling: making stronger and more dramatic nonfiction films. Amsterdam, Focal Press. 

Bordwell, D., & THOMPSON, K. (2008). Film art: an introduction. Boston, McGraw Hill. 

Bordwell, D., & THOMPSON, K. (2008). Film art: an introduction. Boston, McGraw Hill. 

Cicero, M. T., & Grant, M. (1971). Selected works. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, Penguin Books.

Corner, J. (1996) The art of record: A critical introduction to documentary. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Nelmes, J. eds. (2007) Introduction to film studies. 4th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.

Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to documentary. Bloomington, Ind, Indiana University Press. 

Nichols, B. (1991). Representing reality: issues and concepts in documentary. Bloomington, Indiana University Press. 

Plato (1955) The Republic. trans. By Lee, D. London: Penguin Books, p.308

Saunders, D. (2010). Documentary. London, Routledge. 

Wahl-Jorgensen, K. and Hanitzsch, T. (2009) The Handbook of Journalism studies. [e-book] London: Routledge. https://snap3.uas.mx/RECURSO1/LibrosElectronicos/BIBAS-ELECTRONICOS-EXTRA/BIBAS%20POSGRADO-ELECTRONICOS/PERIODISMO/handbook%20of%20journalism%20studies_Wahl.pdf [Accessed: 03/02/13].

Films

Bowling for Columbine (2002) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore.

Far from Poland (1984) [film] USA: Jull Godmilow.

Growing Up Female (1971) [film] USA: Jim Klein, Julie Reichert.

If You Love This Planet (1982) [film] USA: Terre Nash.

Man with a Movie Camera (1929) [film] Russia (Soviet Union): Dziga Vertov.

Moana (1926) [film] USA: Robert J. Flaherty.

N.Y,N.Y (1957) [film] USA: Francis Thompson.

Nanook of the North (1922) [film] USA: Robert J. Flaherty.

Riefenstahl, L. (1934) Triumph of the Will. [video online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHs2coAzLJ8 [Accessed: 02/02/2013].

Roger & Me (1989) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore.

The Passion of the Christ (2004) [DVD] USA: Mel Gibson.

Tongues United (1989) [film] USA: Marlon Riggs

Newspaper articles

BBC World News (1997) Taleban to Texas for pipeline talks. [press release] 03/12/1997.

BBC World News (1997) Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline. [press release] 04/12/1997.

Bradshaw, P. (2004) Fahrenheit 9/11. The Guardian, [online] 9th July. Available at: https://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/jul/09/1 [Accessed: 22/01/2013].

Brody, R. (2013) Michael Moore on the Academy's new documentary rules. The New Yorker, [online] 8th February. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2013/02/michael-moore-on-the-academys-new-documentary-rules.html [Accessed: 22/02/2013].

Broudy, O. (2006) America’s unlikely defender. Salon, [online] 23rd January. Available at: https://www.salon.com/2006/01/23/levy_6/ [Accessed: 26/01/2013].

Clinton, P. (2004) Review: 'Fahrenheit' a powerful, fiery film. CNN, [online] 25th June. Available at: https://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-24/entertainment/review.fahrenheit_1_anti-bush-administration-documentary-golf-game-paper-burns?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ [Accessed: 22/01/2013].

Corliss, M. (2004) A First Look at Fahrenheit 9/11. TIME, [online] 17th May. Available at: https://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,638819,00.html [Accessed: 22/01/2013].

Edelstein, D. (2004) Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is unfair and outrageous. You got a problem with that?. Slate, [online] 24th June. Available at: https://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2004/06/proper_propaganda.html [Accessed: 27/01/2013].

Hamill, D. (2004) Moore's message delivered, big-time. Daily News, [online] 29th June. Available at: https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/boroughs/moore-message-delivered-big-time-article-1.607013 [Accessed: 26/01/2013].

Hitchens, C. (2004) Unfairenheit 9/11. Slate, [online] 21st June. Available at: https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/unfairenheit_911.html [Accessed: 02/02/2013].

Jones, T. (2004) Transcript Truth or tale, experts analyse 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. ABC Australia, [online] 26st July. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1162379.htm [Accessed: 27/01/2013].

Monibiot, G. (2004) Greasing up to power. The Guardian, [online] 13th July. Available at: https://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jul/13/politicsandthemedia.film [Accessed: 03/02/13].

Murray, S. (2004) 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Has Recruited Unlikely Audience: U.S. Soldiers. The Wall Street Journal, [online] 12th July. Available at: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB108958506463960810.html [Accessed: 02/02/2013].

Scarborough, J. (2004) Transcript 'Scarborough Country' for June 30. NBC News, [online] 01st July. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/5344115/#.USyqT6Xjd8E [Accessed: 27/01/2013].

Schneider, B. (2004) 'Fahrenheit 9/11' sparks controversy and wins attention. CNN, [online] 25th June. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/25/moore.film/index.html [Accessed: 22/01/2013].

Sullivan, A. (2004) Blinded By The Light. TIME, [online] 12th July. Available at: https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994630,00.html [Accessed: 27/01/2013].

Thomson, D. (2004) 'Fahrenheit 9/11': Connecting With a Hard Left . The Washington Post, [online] 18th May. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34917-2004May17.html [Accessed: 24/01/2013].

Youngs, I. (2004) Review: Fahrenheit 9/11. BBC News, [online] 17th May. Available at: https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3722769.stm [Accessed: 22/01/2013].

Websites

Boxofficemojo.com (2013) Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) - Box Office Mojo - An IMDB company. [online] Available at: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=fahrenheit911.htm [Accessed: 1 Mar 2013].

Michaelmoore.com (2004) Fahrenheit 9/11 Wins Top Prize in Cannes | MichaelMoore.com. [online] Available at: https://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/fahrenheit-911-wins-top-prize-in-cannes [Accessed: 27 Feb 2013].

Oxforddictionaries.com (2013) Oxford Dictionaries Online. [online] Available at: https://oxforddictionaries.com/ [Accessed: September 2012 - March 2013]

TheFreeDictionary.com (2013) Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary.

[online] Available at: https://www.thefreedictionary.com [Accessed: September 2012 - March 2013].

Illustrations

Figure Figure title Bibliography reference Page

Fig. 1 Fahrenheit 9/11 poster Michaelmoore.com (2004) Fahrenheit 9/11 poster. [image online] Available at: https://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/fahrenheit-911 [Accessed: 12/02/2013]. Front page

Fig. 2 Moore flag Cinemagia.ro (n.d.) Michael Moore holding the American flag. [image online] Available at: https://static.cinemagia.ro/img/db/actor/00/15/86/michael-moore-679231l.jpg [Accessed: 02/02/2013]. 1

Fig. 3 Moana Flaherty, R. (1926) Moana. [video online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs0FNCp6aRM [Accessed: 02/02/2013]. 4

Fig. 4 Nanook Flaherty, R. (1922) Nanook Of The North. [video online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW6d6B_R2nM [Accessed: 02/02/2013]. 8

Fig. 5a, 5b N.Y, N.Y Thompson, F. (1957) N.Y, N.Y. [video online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X600pQdi5M [Accessed: 02/02/2013]. 8

Fig. 6 Expectation of framework NFB Canada (1982) If You Love This Planet. [video online] Available at: https://www.nfb.ca/film/if_you_love_this_planet/ [Accessed: 02/02/2013]. 9

Fig. 7 Bolex H16 camera Wikipedia Commons Org (2007) Bolex H16 Reflex.jpg. [image online] Available at: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Bolex_H16_Reflex.jpg [Accessed: 02/02/2013].

Fig. 8a, 8b Nazi Triumph Riefenstahl, L. (1934) Triumph of the Will. [video online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHs2coAzLJ8 [Accessed: 02/02/2013]. 10

Fig. 9 Eviction Roger & Me (1989) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore. 11

Fig. 10 Feminist documentaries Growing Up Female (1971) [film] USA: Jim Klein, Julie Reichert. 12

Fig. 11 Gay life Filmint.nu (2012) Tongues United. [image online] Available at: https://filmint.nu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tongues-untied.jpeg [Accessed: 02/02/2013]. 13

Fig. 12 Marcus Tullius Cicero Wikipedia.org (2012) Cicero - Musei Capitolini.JPG. [image online] Available at: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Cicero_-_Musei_Capitolini.JPG [Accessed: 01/02/2013]. 15

Fig. 13 US election November 2000 Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore

Fig. 14 Thoughts Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore 18

Fig. 15a, 15b, 15c Off-Air Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore 18

Fig. 16 School Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore 19

Fig. 17 Embassy Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore 20

Fig. 18 Fooled Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore 21

Fig. 19 NY 9/11 Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore 22

Fig. 20 Congress Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore 23

Fig. 21 Saudi Arabia Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) [DVD] USA: Michael Moore 24