It’s funny that this is where you will begin to read my blog, because I feel like I have been writing it forever. I have been typing up a few different ideas that didn’t really work for me. So now, instead of speaking, to the T, about what I am suppose to talk about, I will speak about an aspect I would like to talk about.

Just as we discussed in class, Fahrenheit 9/11 is structured quite well to express the political opinions of director Michael Moore. It is no shocker that I will tell you he is not a fan of former president George W. Bush. In fact, a lot of the film is composed in a distinct way to undermine him. Satirical music, like stereotypical southern music to mock certain things he did. There is the song with the lyrics, “Vacation, All I ever wanted…” that blasts in the background and the film shows Bush on vacation during pressing times. He juxtaposes serious and comedic moments to impress upon the audience his opinions with out actually saying them straight out. It is interesting to me to see, scenes and music conveying ideas. It was smart for Moore to persuade the audience with out saying anything directly straight out.  The film seems like a lot of clues that are each distinct in their own right. While watching the audience feels like there are not being convinced of a truth, but rather with Moore’s help, coming to a conclusion on their own. In this film Moore is being politically explicit while being completely ambiguous at the same time.

Not only did the way he pieced together the film impress his hatred of the Bush administration and his mockery of the President, but the seemingly simplistic way Moore displayed the information to the viewers helped make the points he was trying to get across, accessible.  He feature an interview of Britney Spears, our formerly “All American Girl,” voicing her trust in faith in the president. Now in this scene she looks pretty stupid. This tells the viewer, wow stupid southern people love Bush, and maybe voting for him is not the smartest idea.

All these points are really interesting, and I could probably write an entire blog if I delved into them and expanded them further. But I do not intend to do that. Instead I have thought of something that really intrigues me. A kind of train of thought, a theme that I think is important to the roots of this film. What makes the war in Iraq and 9/11 so culturally and politically significant? Obviously, this seems like a pointless question.

What made me even ask this was a recent Art History class. My teacher does research in 2^nd generation Asian American art and so when we spoke about Vietnam and art she had a lot to say. We spoke about time. About how certain wars and significant events linger in the present. Historian Rick Berg said, “Vietnam remains… What is left of the war, its fragments and its ruins, stay irrepressible and endlessly recuperable.”

I believe this concept can apply to 9/11. That is something really significant that Moore is doing with this piece. Even though the film was made three years after 9/11, it still dug deep for the day was still fresh in people’s minds. The events of that day linger especially in our culture.  So Moore is able to connect to the American people through this unifying event.

Moore’s film is one of the many ways that culture keeps reminding American Society of 9/11. What’s specifically interesting is that culture will sometimes skew what really happened.  Just like the many Vietnam War films, (Apocalypse Now and Born on the Fourth of July), that portray Vietnam in a specific way, Moore’s film is specifically a reminder that this terrible event and the war that ensued, did not have to happen the way they did. Moore is putting the blame on a single administration and specifically Former President Bush.  The documentary, just like former films based on important and controversial historical events, is a form of revisionist history. Some people may tend to believe everything Moore is reminding them. Moore strongly believes it and can easily, through make the viewer follow suit.

9/11 and the events that followed are not simply the esoteric international events that most Americans will not read about in the newspaper everyday. They are events that hit close to home. Through strategic filmmaking, Moore was able to tap into that and remind Americans who was right and who was wrong.

Quite surprisingly, I absolutely love documentaries like Fahrenheit 9/11. It might be because I like to know what’s behind the scenes, but everything about these types of documentaries I really admire. Another documentary that hit upon a similar topic was The Arrivals. The Arrivals also hit upon the inside story of 9/11, but in much more detail. I’m really fond of how these types of films present their information and how convincing they can be. Of course, we should all still be aware of why and how the information is presented but I feel it’s amazing to create such a wonderful piece of work filled with information from numerous sources. Making such films really requires a lot of effort and determination.

Fahrenheit 9/11 hits upon many political issues. It starts with the political controversy over Bush’s election, the policies of the government at that time, and how they changed over the years. A lot of the film explored the inconsistencies of the Bush administration and how poorly they handled 9/11. According to the film, before the attacks, Bush was careless and overlooked the terror threats surrounding the nation. Even after the attacks, he was slow to react. However, every move that Bush made was for his own families’ benefit and not really in the interest of the nation. For instance, what did Iraq really have to do with the September 11 attacks? Nothing really. Also how is it that the Bush family was so close to the alleged terrorists? We learn that a lot of the actions hidden from the common citizen had to do a lot with money. Everything done was for economic gain and control of the market.

Moore narrates the film using a semi serious tone but still uses some humor in his approach. He also cleverly chose sources that are vital witnesses or experts of the 9/11 attacks, Iraq and Afghan War, and the whole economic scandal behind it. These people are effective in proving the weak structure of the government’s actions because they are primary sources. He also uses historical facts to prove his points more efficiently. The structure of the documentary also helps to convince the audience. It starts off by showing some clips of Bush that were shown later in the film, in the beginning. This is effective because it shows the viewer a sneak peak in what would happen throughout the film. Furthermore, it gives us more of an interest to what Moore is trying to prove. The film explains how one thing led to another, chronologically. The election of Bush and the debate around his victory is shown in the beginning and the events followed are shown in order (more or less). The election is an example of how structure is used to support the unsuccessful nature of Bush. From the start, we already start to dislike him for basically cheating his way into the election. Additionally, towards the end we view the struggle of the families that have loved ones in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. We sympathize with all the troops that have lost their lives and those that are still losing their lives. With this, Moore tries to prove that the war is unnecessary and has caused many families to fall apart.

Throughout this documentary, Moore specifically chooses certain pictures and videos to evoke emotion in us. We feel angry, betrayed, sorry, and sad all in one sitting. He effectively uses this technique to persuade his audience. I think Fahrenheit 9/11 was a great movie overall and I really enjoyed watching it.

Politics are tricky little mofos. That’s why I am always confused with them. I try to choose a side but then always get swayed. I think the problem is that I see the good points of both sides. I’ll choose one side and then listen to the other sides points and be like “Oh, you’re right.” That’s what I love about movies that have a political purpose. They entertain me and at the same time help me choose a side or at least formulate an opinion on an issue.

Do the Right Thing by Spike Lee sparked a lot of political controversies in my mind, the main one being racial relations. Lee did an amazing job balancing all the different races together and was able to effectively show how each and every one of them displayed their hate to one another.

That was one of my favorite scenes and it was brilliantly executed. No race was safe from Lee’s slurs. This is one of the many ways that Lee brings up the issue of racial tensions in the movie. Race was and always will be a heated topic in our society. As hard as it is for me to say, I believe it is something that we may never be able to get rid of. Lee portrays this in a serious but comical way which in turn makes it easier for the viewer to digest.

Another scene where Lee yet again depicts the racial tension in the neighborhood is when the white guy steps on Buggin’ Outs shoes and he proceeds to go into his apartment. Buggin Out, his friends and some other neighbors proceed to gang up on him and ask him a bunch of questions as to why he’s in their neighborhood, on their block, on their side of the street. They even go as far as to tell him to go back to massachusetts (because obviously that’s where all white men live) and the white man proceeds to tell them that he was born in brooklyn which creates an outburst from all the neighbors =)

Mookie seems like the main character in this movie but I feel that  Spike Lee wanted to make every character in the movie a main character. Although the story was centered around the pizzeria, there was a myriad of other stories going on around the neighborhood as well. This style of movie making is effective in a sense that all the little stories come together to form a bigger pictures. In this movie for example all the different ethnic groups and their relations with each other come together to show the immense racial tensions in that neighborhood. Ultimately it creates the bigger picture of what happens when those relationships are tested and a mob mentality forms.

I think it’s very interesting that Lee decided to act in this movie as well as write, produce, and direct it. Was it because he felt that as an artist he was the only one that could correctly portray his message out to the viewers? I think so. Isn’t that why documentary makers like Michael Moore put themselves and their own voices in their documentaries? As artists and preservers of cultures an artist is probably the best person to portray his work, especially when it has a strong political message they need to get out. And if you really think about it, Do the Right Thing is sort of like a documentary in a sense that he follows all the people around from the neighborhood and showcases the problem in that neighborhood which is their racial tensions.

Isn’t this picture just adorkable? =)

Politics again? Really? Well, since I have no other choice, here goes….

Since the most obvious choice here is Fahrenheit 9/11, I’m gonna stray from that movie and write about Taxi Driver. Since Taxi Driver was probably the most universally hated film in the class, I decided to take it to a new level and try to understand it…and I actually kinda liked it.

The political positions and motives of Palantine and his campaign show up throughout the movie, but they are never really remarked on. But although there is a blatant political campaign going on here, that campaign is not where the real politics lie. The politics lie within the people….within the characters of the movie. The political problems, which are, in this movie, interchangeably social problems, are the selling, buying, owning, and carrying of weapons, prostitution, pimps, and the general corruption of the city.

First of all, the weapons. I mean, we all saw how easy it was for Travis to buy a gun? Where the hell are all the cops who are supposed to be preventing that from happening? Now, I know it was a different time period and all, but seriously? Even then it shouldn’t have been that easy to procure a weapon. By showing the inside dealings of the gun-buying process, the film shows how deep-rooted the political corruption of the city is. If the guy selling the weapons  can walk around with these weapons AND drugs, how does he not get caught? That’s completely incredible. And what’s the government doing while he’s out selling guns and drugs? Spending all their money on campaigns. Not even paying the least bit of attention to the dangerous criminals walking the city streets.

The whole theme of prostitution as a political and social institution shows the desecration of the city. Allowing prostitution rings, when they could be prevented, is horrendous. Because what is the government doing? What are all the political professionals doing? Still, they are spending their money on campaigns and not paying attention to the dangers and immoral activities of so many city people. The government’s avoidance of such topics shows their nonchalance, and their ridiculous “laissez-faire” attitude toward such things.

Throughout the film, the political aspect of the city is very distant from the people. When Travis tries to “infiltrate” their system by dating Betsy, the other politicians become very wary and hesitant of his presence. They regard him with a sense of distrust, as though he, as a normal person outside the political sphere, is going to dirty the face of their politics and destroy what they have done.

But really, what have they done? Sit around and type up ideas and make posters displaying Palantine’s name, advertising all the things they supposedly stand up for. Yet, while doing this, they are completely ignoring everything else that’s going on in the community. They are trying to persuade people to vote for a man who cares nothing about the city in which he lives and wants to take care of.

The film accentuates the idea that people have no idea what the government really cares about. You have to dig deep into the hidden message the film is trying to send in order to realize that the reason everything in the movie is set up as such is because the whole movie is mocking the organization…or lack thereof… of politics and the government. Most people will watch the movie and think to themselves, “oh what a pathetic lonely guy”…”oh, it was about prostitutes and then the guy came and killed all the pimps, cool!” Upon first seeing it, I wasn’t sure what to think, but watching it again, with this whole new political outlook really made me double think the way everything was set up.

The colors in the movie for example, show the way the government cares more about themselves and their own personal politics, which is why they are so colorful and supposedly “patriotic” in the film while everyone else is dressed in dark hues of mainly gray. Also, the campaign has its own building, showing the selfishness of the government, while Travis and other members of the city community own a small apartment, if anything at all.

Although the political themes are there, they are underneath the many layers of this film. You hafta search and search until you finally see the mockery of the government and the way Martin Scorsese as a director planned subliminally planned everything out in order to give the film such a magnificent underlying tone of political corruption and indecency.

Scandals, lies, controversy, argument, violence, and manipulation.  All of these seem to characterize the last twenty years of American politics.  The most relevant, and easiest to remember, examples include the election of 2000, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the following the war on terror.  Fahrenheit 9/11 starts with the election which Moore feels must have involved foul play.  Though he never says it directly, Moore insinuates that Fox News purposely misreported the election results when he tells the audience that President Bush’s cousin had high power within Fox News.  Later, he uses a similar tactic when revealing the fact that one of the people involved in counting Florida’s votes is associated with President Bush’s political career.  Moore never states these views directly, he simply tells the facts which lead to them and implies through tone, music, and types of imagery what he believes.

Moore next takes issue with what he sees as a lack of appropriate seriousness on President Bush’s part.  He shows images of the president enjoying himself with silly, fun music in the background.  The music does not give the audience the idea that the man shown is to be respected, it implies mockery and foolishness.  Again, Moore does not call the president a fool, but it is clear that he feels this way.

Right from the happy, carefree music and imagery of the president on vacation Moore goes to a dark screen with audio footage from the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Screams and crashes are heard in sharp contrast to the music played just a scene before.  Clearly, the attacks are a serious issue, and this contrast helps convey the a grave tone.  Moore then brings us to another light-hearted setting: a kindergarten classroom.  President Bush is again shown doing something frivolous when, Moore feels, he should be “doing his job.”  The contrasting atmospheres serve to emphasize the disconnect Moore thinks exists between the president and what he needs to be dealing with.

After showing the audience that Osama Bin Laden is the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks, Moore implies conspiracy by showing a relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.  To Moore, this relationship makes it clear that their is some sort of conflict between the Bush family’s business interests and national security.  Moore asks questions and gives the audience information, adds in sarcasm and humor, but he never actually states the end of his argument.  For Moore, this business relationship, in addition (I hope) to other factors leads to the conclusion that President Bush would be reluctant to interfere with Osama Bin Laden.  This, however, is not the only conclusion possible and Moore does not state it as so.  He simply gives and talks about the information in a manner which he believes will lead the audience to a similar conclusion.

Whether it is to avoid accusations of treason or just because he finds it more engaging, Moore uses not-so-subtle implications instead of implicit statements.  He states facts and shows his feelings with the use of tone and music, and leads the audience to feel the same way he does.  Regardless of your personal views on the topics discussed, it is hard to say that Moore is unintelligent or ineffective.  Art influences people, and he is one of the best at using this influence to further his agenda.

Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver deals with justice. Through the telling of the story of New York taxi driver Travis, Scorsese questions the limits of justice: What is just? Who should determine what is just? Can murder be justified? While Taxi Driver may not be seen initially as an example of an artist’s political voice, I believe that Taxi Driver tackles one of the most controversial political issues: murder as a form of justice.

Scorsese takes an interesting perspective by telling the story through the eyes of the murderer: revealing Travis for what he really is, not as a hero but as a less than average, lonely man looking for a purpose.

Craving to be remembered, to be important, Travis decides to be a vigilante, an unauthorized administer of “justice” thus presenting the first set of questions: Is Travis as an individual entitled to decide what is and what is not just? While each individual has his or her own sense of morality, is it ok for one person to do what he or she thinks is right? Or is it necessary for a person to have his or her beliefs confirmed by a group of individuals deemed more qualified to make decisions concerning justice?

The foundation of our American justice system is based on the belief that the alleged “unjust” be judged by a jury of their peers, by everyday people. Should it matter if one person or twenty people make a decision that could alter a person’s life forever?

Should any human being be given the right to judge what is or is not just? Should any human being be given the right to destroy or take away another human life?

The way Scorsese structured Taxi Driver is extremely important. The film itself can be divided into three main parts: Travis’ search for meaning and pursuit of a “normal life” with Betsy, Travis’ failed pursuit of Senator Palantine and Travis’ “heroic act” involving Jodie Forester’s pimps. If Scorsese had wished that Travis be viewed solely as a hero, only the third part would have been necessary. Instead, Scorsese chose to juxtapose the three parts, each portraying Travis in a different light. The use of the additional first and second parts forces Scorsese’s audience to question whether or not Travis is a “hero.”

In the first part of the film, Scorsese portrays Travis as a classless, pathetic character who watches dirty movies and has no goals. He appears to be one of the city’s lowlifes, a nobody, scum. In the second part, determined to give his life purpose, Travis decides to deliver “justice” by murdering Senator Palantine. By this point in the film it becomes clear to the audience that something is off about Travis. He is clearly not stable mentally.

After being chased off by the authorities, Travis decides to abandon his mission to assassinate the Senator and pursue a new, saner mission: saving Jodie Forester from her pimps. With Travis’ attempt to assassinate the Senator (an act that would have earned him a death sentence and/or the rest of his life in a straightjacket) juxtaposed along side Travis’ successful murder of a group of drug-pedaling pimps, Scorsese raises another series of important questions: How is it possible that murder can be viewed as both good and bad? Why would one instance of murder be deserving of a life long prison sentence and another be deserving of a metal? Is murder a good form of justice? Can/should murder be a heroic act? Why does the social status of the victim and/or the murderer make a difference? What crimes, if any, are deserving of a death sentence?

In Scorsese’s film, Taxi Driver, the director seeks not to provide answers but to provoke the audience to ask questions.  That is what qualifies Taxi Driver as art.

Academically speaking, I’m not the most insightful person in the world.  I don’t see hidden references in texts and movies; it’s why the magic of “Taxi Driver” just flew right by me.  However, I’d be a fool if I watched “Fahrenheit 9/11” and didn’t see that Michael Moore dislikes President Bush.  Everything in the film, from references to pop culture, to the choice of music, to Moore’s own wit and sarcasm, drips with dislike for Bush.  What’s amazing is that Moore manages to convey his dislike in an informative and entertaining way.  Depending on the viewer, he even manages to reel you in and join him in his dislike for Bush.  And it all begins with, “Was it all just a dream? … Look, there’s Ben Affleck”.

Moore must be a big fan of juxtaposition, because from the beginning of the film, he uses it to get his point across.  The film begins with melancholy, thoughtful music playing.  Al Gore is shown celebrating his win in Florida and Moore ironically points out Ben Affleck in the crowd.   All of a sudden, the music and mood change.  Country music starts playing and there is footage of reporters saying that Bush, not Gore, won the state of Florida in the election.  Due to numerous voting complications, the contested election of 2000 was a hot political issue and Moore points out how “daddy’s friends” and Fox news helped Bush get elected.  He then switches back to somber music as he reveals all the people who had complications with voting and hopelessly opposed Bush’s win.  The music and the juxtaposition of shots, from Bush laughing like a fool to House members’ unheard protests against his win are meant to induce anger within the viewer.  Moore also adds his wit, which reveals his own objection against Bush’s “victory”.

Moore also questions Bush’s competency as a president.  He reveals that Bush spent almost half of his first months in office vacationing.  We get that Moore does not see this as a wise move through the footage that Moore uses of Bush on vacation, golfing, hunting, and cruising around on a golf cart.  Moore uses music as well, the bubbly pop song “Vacation” this time, as a humorous tool to attack Bush’s choice to vacation.

Moore questions Bush’s competency again when he shows Bush’s reaction to the attacks of 9/11.  Bush had initially been schedule to read with a class of first-graders on the morning of 9/11.  Moore reveals that upon hearing that the “nation is under attack”, Bush did not do anything and just continued on with his “photo opportunity”.  Again, Moore’s choice of words reveal his bias against Bush and even plant a little bias within the viewer.  However, it is important to remember that this film is structured to reveal only one side of the story.  Moore does not use any footage or reveal any facts to show Bush in a positive light.  Moore clearly reveals that Bush did not react appropriately to the news about the terrorist attacks.  However, what he does not reveal is that the president was told by his Secret Service not to do anything.  With the footage that shows Bush just sitting like a lame duck, however, one would think otherwise.

The film also confronts the way Bush handled the issue of terrorism before and after 9/11.  Moore reveals that Bush cut spending on the war against terrorism when he first came into office.  Bush also did not pay attention to reports which stated that terrorists were learning how to fly a plane and planned to attack the American nation.  With his classic wit, Moore reveals that apparently Bush did not pay attention to these reports because their titles were not “specific” enough.  Even after 9/11, however, the film shows us that Bush’s actions against terrorism did not improve.  He let relatives of  Osama bin Laden leave America after 9/11, something that bothers Moore greatly.  Moore uses clips from old detective movies to show families of criminals being interrogated.  He’s basically saying, “This is the way it’s supposed to be done and should have been done”.

Lastly, there is the issue of the war in Iraq.  Moore shows us that the realities of the war in Iraq are gruesome and horrific.  He juxtaposes images of Americans naively supporting the war to images of the bloody reality of the war.  He shows footage of soldiers who have lost limbs and have nowhere to go, and footage of innocent civilians in Iraq who have gotten hurt in the middle of all the fighting and lost everything, including their homes.  Moore even follows the story of a woman named Lila Lipscomb whose son was killed in Iraq.  Right after showing footage of Lila breaking down and sobbing, he shows Britney Spears looking bored and popping bubblegum, saying that she supports the President.  Michael Moore clearly get across his point that there is a brutal reality of the war in Iraq that Americans have no clue about and are blindly supporting.

“I think that we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that” –Britney Spears

In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore confronts many political issues and expresses a very strong and powerful point of view, but while doing so he is also able to incorporate comic relief, and get rid of some of the tension that arises when discussing anything political.

When I heard that we were going to have to watch the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought to myself, “great a boring movie I’m going to have to sit through. It’s probably going to be a bunch of boring interviews thrown together, how am I going to be able to watch the whole thing?!” As I started watching the movie I realized that this is not what it was going to be like at all. Instead I was watching something that I couldn’t stop watching, even though at times I was so angry that I wanted to just stop the movie and walk away, but then at the same time I wanted to keep on watching.

Fahrenheit 9/11 obviously confronts political issues, even if you know nothing about Michael Moore, just from the title of the documentary you can tell that politics is going to be involved. The documentary begins with a discussion of the controversial election of 2000. What was so surprising to me was that some of the things that I was hearing about the election were so new to me, that I wasn’t sure whether they were facts, or if it was just someone making things up. Everything that was said however was indeed true! Being that I was only 8 years old in 2000, I don’t remember much about the election of 2000, so seeing the images of Bush’s inauguration and hearing all of these new facts about the election really made me want to find out more about the election.

This was not the only political issue that Michael confronted, but it was the beginning of his criticism of the Bush administration. Michael Moore also brought up the attacks on September 11th. Along with that he confronted the issue of the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and the issue of nuclear weapons.

With so many political issues addressed throughout the course of the documentary, the question comes up, did Michael Moore present a point of view?

OBVIOUSLY! DUHHHH!

I think that Michael Moore made his point of view quite obvious, without every actually saying “I feel that” or directly stating his opinion. Michael Moore was quite obviously against the war in Iraq, and he was very critical of the results of the election of 2000. Moore is also clearly not a fan of the bush administration or the war on terrorism. But the beautiful thing about Michael Moore’s work I feel is that he never once actually stated a clear opinion about anything, rather it was all just implied (cool right?!). We were able to know all his opinions about everything just by the manner in which he chose to compile the facts and structure the overall film.

I absolutely loved the way Michael Moore added music to different scenes. The music was Moore’s hidden voice within the film. Instead of saying “wow Bush was such an idiot for going on vacation a couple of months after being in office”, he instead showed these same feelings by playing a cheerful, playful vacation song in the background, which basically told us the same thing.

In addition to Moore’s music selection, the way that Moore chose to structure the different components of his documentary was key. Often times when Moore was talking about something serious, he would then quickly switch to a funny scene which would get rid of the tension, which made the film enjoyable. For example, when Moore showed so many different pictures of the innocent civilians dead and injured, I actually had to close my eyes and was scared that he rest of the documentary was going to be gruesome, and that I would not be able to watch the rest. However this did not end up happening, and Moore used a playful scene after this horrific scene to not only relieve tension to make the film easier to watch, but also to add to his political criticism.

Along with music selection and structuring the documentary, another major component for any artist is choosing what you’re going to present to your audience. All artists choose what they wish to show their audience, and what they choose not to show their audience. They do so in order to make sure that their opinions are clearly represented. When Michael Moore made his documentary, he deliberately chose to include certain clips and images of Bush, and chose to omit others. After watching Moore’s documentary anyone would really think that Bush was a complete idiot, this is because everytime Moore presents Bush he seems to be doing or saying something stupid. Had Moore chosen to include a clip of Bush doing something that made him look smart, that could have changed the overall feeling of the documentary. Because of this, Moore’s selection of clips and images was essential to allowing him to get his point of view across without ever coming out directly and saying it.

Fahrenheit 9/11 changed how I thought of documentaries.  I used to think of documentaries as boring and depressing, very serious, and just presenting information to the viewer by means of a monotone announcer’s voice reading off of cue cards while black-and-white footage of bombs played in the background.  Fahrenheit 9/11 couldn’t have been further from what I imagined.  When I first started watching it, it was in color, it was upbeat, happy, with music and Ben Affleck.  I was actually nervous that I was watching the wrong film, but I saw that I wasn’t.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a political documentary that is anti-Bush and anti the war in Iraq.  The documentary clearly presented Michael Moore’s point of view, which was anti Bush and the war in Iraq.  The documentary showed his point of view through using different tools such as humor, popular culture, and opposition instead of just saying it outright, which would have been boring.

The best example of how Michael Moore used these tools to make a point is when he shows Bush on vacation, playing golf and by the beach, etc. with the bouncy vacation music playing in the background, which was clearly sarcastic and mocking the situation.  It also shows a great example of how Moore uses humor and music to make the documentary easier to watch, which makes us more receptive to the information and point of view he’s presenting.

He also used opposition, like when he was showing war footage with soldiers dying and people crying (mothers who lost their sons and Iraqi civilians), and then immediately after he shows Bush posing with a group of soldiers, smiling like a celebrity as if everything was awesome.  Meanwhile, the soldiers who he posed with probably would die a few days later in battle.  These opposition scenes played on our emotions because when I saw the people crying over all the deaths, I felt really bad for them that they were going through all the loss and tragedy, and then when it immediately goes to the footage of Bush posing like a celebrity, it makes him seem really ignorant to what is really going on in the war.

Everything in the documentary was true, it was all facts, but Michael Moore was able to manipulate them to show his opinion, by ordering them in certain ways (juxtaposing certain scenes), choosing what music to put in the background, etc in order to make a point.

Michael Moore’s strategy in presenting his view actually made it more persuasive than had he said it outright.  If he just stated his opinion, you would think, “Okay, that’s your opinion” and could either ignore it or disagree because it would feel really impersonal to you.  By presenting it in the way that he did, and not saying anything outright, but just hinting towards it, allowed the viewer to make the connections on their own.  For example, he doesn’t say Bush won Florida and the presidency because there was a conspiracy theory.  Instead he points out all the connections Bush had, makes a few sarcastic remarks, and lets the viewer jump to their own conclusion about a conspiracy theory, which is what he wanted to show.  Since the viewer reached the conclusion on their own, they’ll think about it more thoroughly than if someone else said it to them.  Its harder to ignore it if you reached that conclusion on your own, so you are more likely to agree with it because you understand where it came from since you came to it yourself.

Another way Moore convinces you is by choosing what pieces to include and which to omit.  For example, on the day of 9/11, Bush was reading to a bunch of children at a school.  Michael Moore made Bush seem like an incapable fool by saying (and I am paraphrasing), “And when Bush found out about 9/11, there was no one to tell him what to do, no Secret Service or advisor, so he sat there reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to a bunch of kids.”  It was just so mocking and so comical to contrast the seriousness of the 9/11 tragedy, with the image that our President was reading “My Pet Goat,” a baby book.  I am pro-Bush so as I was watching the documentary I was trying to justify and explain to myself why I didn’t agree with some things Moore showed.  When I saw this clip, I wasn’t sure how to explain it to myself- it did seem absurd.  But then in class Professor Healey said that he left out some pieces, like those that said it was a smart move for him to stay put so as not to startle the children, or that the Secret Service told him to stay there for his own safety.