Analysis Of The Film Fahrenheit 9/11, By Michael Moore

To begin, Moore struggles to appeal to ethos successfully due to his manipulative methods that raises the audience's skepticism in his credibility, despite using many strong sources such as his reputation, experience, and the values of other experts in a desperate attempt to gain the audience’s trust. Throughout the documentary, Moore is able to tactfully utilize his renowned reputation as a filmmaker to ensure that his audience will believe everything that he presents. By dressing like an “average Joe” and showing his own hometown of Flint, Michigan, a “gun-loving town”, Moore is able to portray himself as the average American citizen who just wants facts and answers from the people. This is successfully used in the film as Moore seems more reliable to the audience, and makes his interviewees feel equal to Moore. Moreover, Moore also interviews many credible people who are able to back

The idea of a documentary being an artistic or even personalised expression of a director is long gone, or so it seems in recent times. In Michael Moore’s latest documentary, Bowling for Columbine, he attempts to get across to viewers his, and essentially only his point of view, on the topic of gun laws. Although what Moore is trying to say is not necessarily wrong, he is at the same time not taking into account the other side of the argument either; all he is trying to do, essentially is hypnotise viewers into thinking

Media is so powerful that many people in business and politics have long realised that documentary filmmaking is a powerful way to influence or persuade the masses as to which side they should take on certain issues. Although the media claim their documentaries to be neutral, subjectivity is always an issue. Like any form of communication, including journalism, documentary filmmaking involves interpretation and choice-making on the part of the filmmaker, and is therefore unavoidably subjective. You might set up a camera to record a "day in the life of a Year 12 student” and end up with some interesting footage, but until it is shaped and given meaning by the filmmaker, and until

George W. Bush once said that “Our enemies have made the mistake that America’s enemies always make. They see liberty and think they saw weakness.” 9/11 was a devastating day in American history. Men, from the terrorist group Al Quada, attacked America on their own soil for the first time since Japan attack us at Pearl Harbor. But there are some things we can isolate from it. The basic overview of it. What were the terrorists doing to get ready for the day, and what was their major purpose and intention.

A documentary is a genre of film that provides a factual report on a particular story, viewpoint, message or experience. In this essay, two documentaries, Bowling for columbine by Michael Moore and Made in Bangladesh by CBC news will be explored to show how persuasive techniques are used to make an audience feel a particular way.

Michael Moore’s documentary has a very clear point to make. Moore will persist in asking until he gets the answer he must sense is waiting for him. For example, when he is talking to a friend of the columbine shooter, he continues asking him about why the school would have thought that he would have been likely to create violence. He asks 3 or four times to make sure that he gets the answer he is looking for. Michael Moore allows his subjects to speak, but he is the one forming the questions. Similarly, he chooses what will be shown and in what order so as to create associations and meaning from the raw images as

Today one does not even have to wait for a movie to be released. Simply click the “ON” button on a remote and suddenly, thousands of news and television shows are available for one to enjoy. Muslims are also the target of prejudice in these news broadcasts and programs. One such television program released was a drama titled “24.” Issues and Controversies reports: “The show, which deals with a counterterrorism unit based in Los Angeles, featured a group of Muslim terrorist characters who were plotting to detonate nuclear weapons in the U.S. At the end of one episode, the terrorists successfully detonated a small bomb in a Los Angeles suburb, killing about 12,000 people” (“Race and Ethnicity in Entertainment”). This fictional show wrongly spreads the stereotypical image of Muslims and their clichéd image of the fundamentalists on 9/11. By adding the title and image of “Muslim” to the phrase “terrorist” the program wrongly advertised that potentially every Muslim could be a terrorist. This stereotypical image is similarly expressed in news broadcasts through the use of terrorism news. By increasingly using terrorism and Muslims in top

Documentaries are produced in such a way that positions the audience to accept a version of reality. As Tim Hetherington, a British photojournalist once said, “You can construct whatever story you want to. Documentaries are constructions, as is all journalism.” In Fahrenheit 9/11 specifically, viewers are presented with a critical analysis of the political agenda surrounding America’s decision to wage war on Iraq. Directed by American political commentator and filmmaker Michael Moore and released in mid-2004, the documentary’s central premise is that US President George Bush is, and has been from the start of his term, unfit for office and does not act in interests of the American public. Moore presents the idea that President Bush, as a result

The September 11 attacks were tragic events that had spread shockwaves of horror and grief across the United States. The tragedy became the subject of controversy as some skeptics began to doubt the details reported to have transpired that day. Some people question its legitimacy, theorizing that the Bush administration devised and orchestrated the attacks to further its agenda. Filmmaker Dylan Avery discusses and promotes this prevalent conspiracy theory in his documentary, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup. Avery argues that the government possessed foreknowledge of the attacks by comparing them to precedents of similar situations. He challenges the official explanations and provides his analyzations of evidence from the reports and media. Avery effectively appeals to pathos, ethos, and logos in his film, but his compelling argument is ultimately undermined by fallacies.

Focusing on the 9/11 terrorist attack and how the Bush administration handled it. Many believed Moore had an agenda against President George W. Bush while making the film and edited the movie to show the audience what he wanted them to see. The opening lines from Moore in the film are, “We worked hard on creating a work of cinema that would move people not just politically but on an emotional and visceral level. I hope we have made a contribution to this art form we love so much.” Unfortunately for Moore, debate sparked over Moore’s true intentions while making this film. Many believed it was to attack Bush who was running for re-election in 2004 as the movie was due for release around the same time Bush began campaigning. “The crux of the debate surrounding the film involved Moore’s satirical styling. Some argued Moore tried too hard to make his movie entertaining and, in the process, would often distort pieces of information.” (Bryd, 2017) This is yet another possible example of filmmakers showing the audience what they want to see and not the complete truth. While it is not proven that Moore did bend the truth, therefore it is nearly impossible to create a comprehensive code of ethics when making a documentary because Filmmakers can and sometimes will break the rules to show what they want to, be it to expose the truth or a personal

In conclusion, both films Fahrenheit 911 and Fahrenhype 911 use opposing juxtapositions to shape the viewers; bias by using statistics, interviews, news footage, and clippings

The film experienced difficulty in distribution owing to the politically-confrontational nature of its content, and has provoked arguments and discussion at all levels over its polemic nature. A majority of said arguments were spawned in thanks to Michael Moore’s many techniques of persuasion and manipulation. Most of the protestors of the film argued about how, Fahrenheit 9/11 was a buffet of false histories, invented memories and fabricated fact. All

Michael Moore’s latest film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” presents a critical look at the administration of George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism. In this film Moore investigates the rapid growth of the United States government and its trend of trampling the rights of individuals, and the corporatism that is spawned out of the close ties between big government and big business during wartime. Michael Moore may not convince all audiences, but is successful for its factual accuracy in which the evidence spoke for itself, and at the same time proclaimed Moore's artistry in transposing and splicing scenes to create impressions that supported his allegations and opinions. Michael Moore has employed two main techniques in an

The three films that I chose for this final project are; Fahrenheit 9/11, CSI season 1 episode 22, and West Wing Season 3 episode 1. These films are connected because they focus on different aspects associated with the attacks on September 11, 2001. Fahrenheit 9/11 is connected to the current topic because it’s main plot point follows Michael Moore’s narrative of blaming George W. Bush, our president on September 11 2001, for the acts of terrorism. However, the film examines step by step the failures of President Bush before, during, and after the falling of the Twin Towers. The CSI episode took a somber and realistic tone airing an episode that featured Taylor explaining how his wife when the towers fell. Furthermore, The West Wing, which highlighted the events that had happened prior to the event, focused on security breaches within the White House.

Analysis of Michael Moore’s Treatment of His Subject Matter within the Documentaries Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911