Problems in 'Political' Documentary: Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

Abstract

The controversy over Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) reflects anumber of unresolved issues about the film's form and function as a 'political' documentary. Many supporters see the film as a courageous documentary exposing the lie that America's invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. They welcome its depiction of the consequences of his actions for American soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people, and the cause of democracy generally. From this viewpoint, the film is empowering; it strikes a blow for free speech by counteracting the bias of mainstream media that have supported Bush's deceptive rhetoric.Detractors have argued that the film is poorly researched, bends factsand recycles conspiracy theories about Bush's rise to power and the war in Iraq. They say that it uses cheap editing tricks to distort the words and actions of those it criticises, and exploits the loss and despair of marginalised people to whom it merely appears to give a voice. On this view, the film is propaganda: it damages the cause of democratic debate that it purports to serve, encouraging easy, emotive responses and discouraging more rational consideration of events and their causes.The paper argues that to understand this controversy and the notion ofempowerment that Fahrenheit 9/11 represents, it is necessary to consider two interrelated processes at work in the construction of the film. The film appropriates documentary forms in a way that enables it to synthesise a range of sources for representing the post 9/11 situation that Moore addresses. However, it uses the documentary forms in a way that reduces their ability to gain a purchase on the complex political realities with which it attempts to deal critically. The overall effect is that the film offers a morelimited framework for understanding urgent political issues than Moore and advocates of the film acknowledge.