Filmmakers’ “theories” — Michael Moore

Michael Moore is an American documentary filmmaker, author and left-wing activist. Often addressing the topics of globalisation and capitalism, Moore’s documentaries frequently utilise his trademark cynical satire to expose a typically controversial subject matter.

Moore, like Broomfield, is a very visible presence in his documentaries, which can thus be described as participatory and performative. His work is highly committed — overtly polemical in taking up a clear point of view, what might be called agit-prop documentary. He justifies his practice in terms of providing ‘balance’ for mainstream media that, in his view, provides false information. Part of Moore’s approach is to use humour, sometimes to lampoon the subject of his work and sometimes to recognise that documentaries need to entertain and hold an audience.

Michael Moore

Moore’s work is typically a combination of his aforementioned cynical narration over a variety of archive footage intertwined with present day interviews with relevant authority figures and other noteworthy members of the public. Through this, Moore creates an engaging and unique experience throughout his filmography – often generating a great deal of controversy.

Moore’s films are extremely personal, tackling topics that hold a great deal of significance to him. Films such as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are now cornerstones of the performative documentary genre. Because of this, it is no surprise that Time magazine named Michael Moore as one of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore, 2004)

Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore, 2004) is a performative documentary written, produced, directed by and starring left-wing political commentator – Michael Moore. The film’s main point of discussion is a critique of the George W. Bush administration’s handling of the September 11 attacks, as well as the proceeding 2003 Iraq war. Alongside this, Moore persistently argues that the media were “cheerleaders” for the war and did not provide an objective or accurate portrayal of the the events that took place.

Poster

Throughout the film, Moore narrates over a wide variety of footage, including the 2000 presidential election, the aftermath of 9/11 itself as well as an array of clips from Bush’s many speeches. Moving chronologically through the events, Moore’s commentary remains comedic throughout, which is extremely typical of his style of filmmaking. He jokes satirically at the extremely serious events being presented, with them being predominantly at Bush’s expense. In effect, this makes Michael Moore’s opinion on the subject matter extremely transparent from the get-go, which sets the tone for the duration of the film.

Alongside his cynical commentary, Moore appears in person throughout the documentary in order to interview citizens affected by the topics discussed. This places the film under the performative mode, due to the fact that Moore is personally interacting with the subjects and has a direct impact upon the events.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was received mostly positively by critics, receiving an 82% on Rotten Tomatoes and winning the 2004 Palme d’Or. However, some critics expressed their distaste for the documentary, stating that it was extremely one-sided and “harshly satirical”.

Moore claiming his Palme d’Or

Personally, I found the film to be relatively enjoyable and Moore’s sardonic humour lightened the mood of the extremely harrowing footage presented throughout. However, I have to agree with the consensus that the documentary was extremely biased and only offered a single perspective. In addition to this, I lost interest at certain points throughout the film and found sections of the documentary to be overly convoluted.

Overall, I would rate Fahrenheit 9/11 ★★★.