Did Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, change the game of documentary filmmaking, or does the film even classify as an actual documentary? That is the main question in Steve Rosenbaum’s article “Docuganda” and the question that many documentary filmmakers’ are still asking themselves today, nine years after the film’s release. Many believe that Moore’s film was centered on his own opinions instead of revealing the simple truth following the traditional style of documentary filmmaking. In reality, Moore’s documentary-making methods have truly reshaped the way doc filmmakers approach their own films and the way they present their subjects. This change has also brought on a change in the documentary market altogether. Audiences are more interested in docs more so than the traditional narrative blockbuster. I guess Michael Moore’s tenacity is to thank for that. And I don’t mean that in a bad way.
Honestly, I don’t admire Michael Moore. To me, his big ego covers up any true meaning behind his messages/work, but it is his ego that warrants his popularity and is also the reason why most of his films are viewed as controversial. If his films consisted of a neutral tone and unbiased opinion he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. Although I don’t agree with Michael Moore’s films, I do think his influence on the production of political documentaries is a good one. He raises the standard and he lowers the standard. Overall, his impact has impacted other filmmakers to aspire to create even better films that have the potential to grab a lot of attention.
In Steve Rosenbaum’s article “Docuganda”, he talks about the path documentaries have taken throughout the years and who has helped brought them back on track. One critical documentary that has helped that is Fahrenheit 9/11, created by Michael Moore. Moore’s film has created a lot of controversy and conversation throughout the film community and the general public. With his own opinions and self-made facts, it has been questioned of whether or not it deserves to be considered a documentary. With all of that being said, what are then the criteria for a documentary? I believe that if the film has the style that every other doc has and stays true to itself then it deserves that tag. What I believe freaked everyone out is the way he did it, but that’s what is necessary. I believe that it is important to set standards for documentaries and set a new style of documentary. Michael Moore not only did that, but he also created controversy.
Michael Moore did exactly what he wanted to do. He got everyone talking about not only his documentary, but also politics. It is very obvious that there are two completely different responses to this film, but once again I believe that’s what he wanted. Moore did what no one had done before; completely take one side of America and roll with it for one hundred and twenty-two minutes. He put everything he believed was true on a film and had both republican’s and democrat’s sit threw the whole thing. Now whether any of what he said was true, I believe his whole point was to get America involved again. Involved in something that is far too important to be ignored everyday, the politics in our country and around the world. This documentary gave everyone a chance to state his or her opinion, and that’s what makes this documentary so special. Moore single handedly gave documentaries a voice and a face that has encouraged people to even go as far as providing it as a class. Whether or not you agree with him, he is a genius for what he created, and we have to thank him for revamping the world of documentaries.
Steve Rosenbaum's article "Docuganda" brings up many important questions about the effect Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, could have on the world of documentaries and the legitimacy that the artistic medium currently carries. Initially, the most common negative reaction was that Fahrenheit 9/11 was not a documentary at all, and admittedly this was my first line of thinking as well. However, upon further reflection, I found that this was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I didn't like how Michael Moore presented his film. It was, in my opinion, a propaganda disguised as a documentary. Moore presented his facts in a way that made them seem debatable, which made me as a viewer feel that they were more likely to be true, because rarely does a truth exist that cannot be debated. Instead, I believe Moore depicted his propaganda fact base like this intentionally, in order to make people talk about politics in general, instead of just the ideas he had presented.
I liked the quote from David Grubin, who said in the article that Moore was an ideologue, not an artist. He goes on to explain that Moore definitely had an agenda set when he set out to create Fahrenheit 9/11. In my opinion, that could be very dangerous to a filmmaker who wants to show more than one perspective with their documentary. When a documentary creator has a specific agenda in mind for a documentary, it's much easier to leave things on the cutting room floor that might be more accurate to real life than what you present. This is the real danger behind the form of propaganda documentary that Moore has created with Fahrenheit 9/11. Documentary, before now, has been historically mostly non-fiction in the eye of most of the viewing public. Now that a film that is unapologetically biased has found mainstream public attention, it is up to documentary filmmakers to make their intentions clear in their documentaries. I feel that this is a monumental step for documentaries, whether or not you feel like it's a positive or a negative step. We talked about how Michael Moore, whether you agree or disagree with his intentions, is incredible at what he does, and I feel that this article just reinforces that mindset.
This is the first time I have ever seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and in my opinion it came off an a joke to America. I didn't like the fact that Moore "dumbed down" Bush so much and made him seem like the bad guy. I believe that a documentary is supposed to be engaging, informative and neutral. It shouldn't make you want to disagree with one side or another. Steve Rosenbaum’s article “Docuganda” question's if Moore's film could even be listed as a documentary. The "documentary" stated Moore's opinion on the events at hand instead of presenting information to the public to let them decide for themselves.
Personally, I do not like Michael Moore's style and I think his ego is way too big to make a film like Fahrenheit 9/11. Some people might approve of how he creates his films by choosing one side (his side) and then drastically stating his opinion on it, no matter how rude it can be. On a positive note, this does give people an opening to discuss their opinions on the topic at hand and it leads to more interactive documentaries in the future.
“Docuganda? Figuring Out the 'Fahrenheit' Phenomenon,” by Steve Rosenbaum brings up many good points to the documentary by Michael Moore called Fahrenheit 9/11. The more I read all of the different comments by different authors, and readers, I realized that political views have a lot to do with the views of whether people will consider it to be a documentary or not. For those who are conservative, and republican, many of the viewers seemed to think that that this was shallow, and basically ripping apart the soul of George W. Bush. To Liberals and Democrats, this film was an excellent tool in getting the nation to discuss what really happened on 9/11, and this sparked conversation, politically. The more I read how people would distinguish a documentary from propaganda didn’t really matter. It doesn’t really matter what it is, it matters the message that is spread throughout the film. This was my favorite paragraph in the reading, and after reading it, my opinion of the film became less political and then it hit me, what if that’s the irony of the entire film? That we would realize that we as a nation are divided by a new segregation: we are blinded by the political party we have decided to stand beside. Completely blind to the other side. What if that was Moore’s point all along? Not so much to “bash” either side, but to draw attention to the big problem: political blindness. Just like one chooses republican or democratic, one would deem this film a documentary or simply a propaganda. "Moore's an ideologue, not an artist," says Grubin. "An artist is open to experience; an ideologue is serving a cause. An artist observes the world around him and lets it change him; an ideologue wants to change his audience. For most of us, documentary filmmaking is a voyage of discovery. It's like being on a sailboat where the wind blows where it will, and it's best not to try too hard to steer a steady course. Moore knows exactly where he is going. He's the captain of a submarine loaded with nuclear warheads."
"Docuganda? Figuring Out the 'Fahrenheit' Phenomenon," by Steve Rosenbaum draws many points that are valid and effective in response to Michael Moore and his film. First and foremost, I'd like to just point out a few things that stuck to me when reading that I really appreciated, "The documentary form has been fueled by passionate, creative and industrious believers who scrape together budgets, cut corners and toil for years. " I like how this is such a descriptive sentence and in my opinion I think it is safe to safe the documentary filmmakers aren't making $100+ million dollar from their film like this one, Rosenbaum says how Moore is able to make this a prosperous career, thus making documentary filmmaking the "pretty girl at the dance".
David Gubin also makes a few good points as well, saying how YES it is a Documentary, but it should be called a "Propoganda Documentary". He continues by saying how Moore is "an ideologue, not an artist" and how an artist is "open to the experience; an ideologue is serving a cause. An artist observes the world around him and lets it change him; an ideologue wants to change his audience. For most of us, documentary filmmaking is a voyage of discovery. It's like being on a sailboat where the wind blows where it will, and it's best not to try too hard to steer a steady course."
Another point that I will end with is Grubin does share the same Political ideologies as Michael Moore he goes on to say, "There's the danger. I agree with Moore; I desperately want Bush out of office, too. But just wait until right wing filmmakers start making documentaries like Moore's. We're going to have to fight tooth and nail to explain how the power of our medium can be hijacked to serve any cause. And we're going to have a tough time making our case because we're all so pleased that Moore's film might help bring Bush down."
In Steve Rosenbaum’s article “Docuganda,” he discusses the controversies over Fahrenheit 9/11. Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore is a documentary that is very bias towards Moore’s opinion. The documentary is based on controversial moments during President George Bush’s terms in office. The questions Michael Moore asks are fire starts that get the audience talking and questioning what they believe. However, most of Michael Moore’s facts were not exactly true. Which makes us question, can we trusts the facts the documentary directors are showing us? Or, are they trying to juice up the story with self-made facts about their subject? While Michael Moore’s documentaries catch people’s attention. It is only because he uses fire starter questions backed with false data, but the data he presents appeals to the public eye. Michael Moore took me through a great two hour compilation of George Bush’s funniest moments during his presidency. He made the film very biased towards his beliefs and the beliefs of many Americans. His movie struck me at first with all the information Michael provided about George Bush’s campaign; making me think to myself, “Screw George Bush.” But, then I realized this isn’t a documentary based on facts it’s a documentary based on emotion. I already knew I wasn’t a fan of George Bush, but his film doesn’t provide any facts from the government side. The only government officials that get interviewed are being asked to have their sons sign up for the military. That is funny for pointing out making it seem that their family members are too precious to be in the military. I will give this to Michael Moore’s documentary style. It was able to capture my attention and sustain it throughout the entire film, even though I was not a fan of the documentary.
This was my first time watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and it was quite an experience. Michael Moore takes this film as his opportunity to express his own opinion on what happened before and after September 11, 2001 and his overall hatred towards the president at the time, George Bush. He makes numerous claims on the government saying they didn't take enough action leading up to it and that George Bush was basically an idiot through his out first term as president. He did this by taking clips of Bush from different time through out his term that doesn't make him sound the brightest and giving his audience the idea that our president at the time was useless.
After reading "Docugana: Figuring Out the Fahrenheit Phenomena" It got me thinking more about Moore and this doc. After seeing Grubin say that Moore is an ideologist instead of an artist, I completely agreed. "An artist is open to experience; an ideologue is serving a cause. An artist observes the world around him and lets it change him; an ideologue wants to change his audience." This is basically what Moore is. He wants people to change their opinion of Bush, if it's not the same has his, and persuade them to become "anti-Bush"
The one thing Moore wanted to accomplish and did flawlessly, is getting everyone to talk about his film. To open their eyes about the topic at hand and get them thinking, whether it's good or bad. In my opinion, I think Michael Moore could of went a completely different way with this film. His ego was showing throughout the whole movie and you can clearly see that through the way he talks and approaches things in the film.
Fahrenheit is a film best categorized by the title of Steve Rosenbaum’s article, “Docuganda”. It’s a nonfiction film documenting real events, which satisfies the claim of being a documentary, but it also presents a one sided argument that no doubt attempted to (unsuccessfully) swing an entire presidential election.
Now, this raises the question, can a piece of propaganda be an ethical work? It depends a bit on your definition of ethics. Personally, I feel a work can both present a single point of view and be ethical, assuming it doesn’t fall into other moral pitfalls. However, considering the controversy surround Fahrenheit, it’s safe to say that it does in fact face ethical issues beyond merely being a piece of propaganda. There’s an entire wikipedia article devoted to the dispute, controversy and criticism of the film.
The article also touches on the potential consequences of Fahrenheit 9/11 for filmmaking. A world where documentaries are so mainstream they lose their purity and art, a world where the power of film is used as a vehicle to sway the tide of politics. 10 years later, Fahrenheit remains the highest grossing documentary of all time. Documentaries are growing more popular (no doubt in part due to the works of Moore) and increasingly accessible in the age of internet distribution. It would seem, thus far, the impact hasn’t been very negative ... granted the third highest grossing documentary of all time appears to be the 2011 film “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never”. Say what you will about Moore, but he certainly does know how to make a successful film.
After reading "Docuganda" and thinking back on our discussion last after watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I realized that we talked a lot about the questions this article asks. The main question being if Fahrenheit 9/11 is a "real" documentary or not. There are a lot of filmmakers who go on the record in the article saying that Fahrenheit 9/11 does what a documentary should. Some argue that Michael Moore made this documentary more about persuading and shoving his opinion down his audiences throat.
As I said in last weeks discussion, I am not a huge fan of Michael Moore. I think he's a big bully who is totally ruthless and does not even care much about his credibility, he only cares about his opinion and believes that his opinion is the right one. I agree with the filmmakers who say that Fahrenheit 9/11 does not do what a documentary should. In my opinion, documentaries are made to educate, inform or tell a story to its audience. Michael Moore created something that I do not consider to be a documentary, but he did do one thing right, and thats have his documentary be seen by millions and millions of people. Whether people agree with Michael Moore or not, people are still talking about it 9 years later, and I am sure Moore is happy about that.
Did Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, change the game of documentary filmmaking, or does the film even classify as an actual documentary? That is the main question in Steve Rosenbaum’s article “Docuganda” and the question that many documentary filmmakers’ are still asking themselves today, nine years after the film’s release. Many believe that Moore’s film was centered on his own opinions instead of revealing the simple truth following the traditional style of documentary filmmaking. In reality, Moore’s documentary-making methods have truly reshaped the way doc filmmakers approach their own films and the way they present their subjects. This change has also brought on a change in the documentary market altogether. Audiences are more interested in docs more so than the traditional narrative blockbuster. I guess Michael Moore’s tenacity is to thank for that. And I don’t mean that in a bad way.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don’t admire Michael Moore. To me, his big ego covers up any true meaning behind his messages/work, but it is his ego that warrants his popularity and is also the reason why most of his films are viewed as controversial. If his films consisted of a neutral tone and unbiased opinion he would not be nearly as popular as he is now. Although I don’t agree with Michael Moore’s films, I do think his influence on the production of political documentaries is a good one. He raises the standard and he lowers the standard. Overall, his impact has impacted other filmmakers to aspire to create even better films that have the potential to grab a lot of attention.
In Steve Rosenbaum’s article “Docuganda”, he talks about the path documentaries have taken throughout the years and who has helped brought them back on track. One critical documentary that has helped that is Fahrenheit 9/11, created by Michael Moore. Moore’s film has created a lot of controversy and conversation throughout the film community and the general public. With his own opinions and self-made facts, it has been questioned of whether or not it deserves to be considered a documentary. With all of that being said, what are then the criteria for a documentary? I believe that if the film has the style that every other doc has and stays true to itself then it deserves that tag. What I believe freaked everyone out is the way he did it, but that’s what is necessary. I believe that it is important to set standards for documentaries and set a new style of documentary. Michael Moore not only did that, but he also created controversy.
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore did exactly what he wanted to do. He got everyone talking about not only his documentary, but also politics. It is very obvious that there are two completely different responses to this film, but once again I believe that’s what he wanted. Moore did what no one had done before; completely take one side of America and roll with it for one hundred and twenty-two minutes. He put everything he believed was true on a film and had both republican’s and democrat’s sit threw the whole thing. Now whether any of what he said was true, I believe his whole point was to get America involved again. Involved in something that is far too important to be ignored everyday, the politics in our country and around the world. This documentary gave everyone a chance to state his or her opinion, and that’s what makes this documentary so special. Moore single handedly gave documentaries a voice and a face that has encouraged people to even go as far as providing it as a class. Whether or not you agree with him, he is a genius for what he created, and we have to thank him for revamping the world of documentaries.
Steve Rosenbaum's article "Docuganda" brings up many important questions about the effect Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, could have on the world of documentaries and the legitimacy that the artistic medium currently carries. Initially, the most common negative reaction was that Fahrenheit 9/11 was not a documentary at all, and admittedly this was my first line of thinking as well. However, upon further reflection, I found that this was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I didn't like how Michael Moore presented his film. It was, in my opinion, a propaganda disguised as a documentary. Moore presented his facts in a way that made them seem debatable, which made me as a viewer feel that they were more likely to be true, because rarely does a truth exist that cannot be debated. Instead, I believe Moore depicted his propaganda fact base like this intentionally, in order to make people talk about politics in general, instead of just the ideas he had presented.
ReplyDeleteI liked the quote from David Grubin, who said in the article that Moore was an ideologue, not an artist. He goes on to explain that Moore definitely had an agenda set when he set out to create Fahrenheit 9/11. In my opinion, that could be very dangerous to a filmmaker who wants to show more than one perspective with their documentary. When a documentary creator has a specific agenda in mind for a documentary, it's much easier to leave things on the cutting room floor that might be more accurate to real life than what you present. This is the real danger behind the form of propaganda documentary that Moore has created with Fahrenheit 9/11. Documentary, before now, has been historically mostly non-fiction in the eye of most of the viewing public. Now that a film that is unapologetically biased has found mainstream public attention, it is up to documentary filmmakers to make their intentions clear in their documentaries. I feel that this is a monumental step for documentaries, whether or not you feel like it's a positive or a negative step. We talked about how Michael Moore, whether you agree or disagree with his intentions, is incredible at what he does, and I feel that this article just reinforces that mindset.
This is the first time I have ever seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and in my opinion it came off an a joke to America. I didn't like the fact that Moore "dumbed down" Bush so much and made him seem like the bad guy. I believe that a documentary is supposed to be engaging, informative and neutral. It shouldn't make you want to disagree with one side or another. Steve Rosenbaum’s article “Docuganda” question's if Moore's film could even be listed as a documentary. The "documentary" stated Moore's opinion on the events at hand instead of presenting information to the public to let them decide for themselves.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not like Michael Moore's style and I think his ego is way too big to make a film like Fahrenheit 9/11. Some people might approve of how he creates his films by choosing one side (his side) and then drastically stating his opinion on it, no matter how rude it can be. On a positive note, this does give people an opening to discuss their opinions on the topic at hand and it leads to more interactive documentaries in the future.
“Docuganda? Figuring Out the 'Fahrenheit' Phenomenon,” by Steve Rosenbaum brings up many good points to the documentary by Michael Moore called Fahrenheit 9/11. The more I read all of the different comments by different authors, and readers, I realized that political views have a lot to do with the views of whether people will consider it to be a documentary or not. For those who are conservative, and republican, many of the viewers seemed to think that that this was shallow, and basically ripping apart the soul of George W. Bush. To Liberals and Democrats, this film was an excellent tool in getting the nation to discuss what really happened on 9/11, and this sparked conversation, politically. The more I read how people would distinguish a documentary from propaganda didn’t really matter. It doesn’t really matter what it is, it matters the message that is spread throughout the film.
ReplyDeleteThis was my favorite paragraph in the reading, and after reading it, my opinion of the film became less political and then it hit me, what if that’s the irony of the entire film? That we would realize that we as a nation are divided by a new segregation: we are blinded by the political party we have decided to stand beside. Completely blind to the other side. What if that was Moore’s point all along? Not so much to “bash” either side, but to draw attention to the big problem: political blindness. Just like one chooses republican or democratic, one would deem this film a documentary or simply a propaganda.
"Moore's an ideologue, not an artist," says Grubin. "An artist is open to experience; an ideologue is serving a cause. An artist observes the world around him and lets it change him; an ideologue wants to change his audience. For most of us, documentary filmmaking is a voyage of discovery. It's like being on a sailboat where the wind blows where it will, and it's best not to try too hard to steer a steady course. Moore knows exactly where he is going. He's the captain of a submarine loaded with nuclear warheads."
"Docuganda? Figuring Out the 'Fahrenheit' Phenomenon," by Steve Rosenbaum draws many points that are valid and effective in response to Michael Moore and his film. First and foremost, I'd like to just point out a few things that stuck to me when reading that I really appreciated, "The documentary form has been fueled by passionate, creative and industrious believers who scrape together budgets, cut corners and toil for years. " I like how this is such a descriptive sentence and in my opinion I think it is safe to safe the documentary filmmakers aren't making $100+ million dollar from their film like this one, Rosenbaum says how Moore is able to make this a prosperous career, thus making documentary filmmaking the "pretty girl at the dance".
ReplyDeleteDavid Gubin also makes a few good points as well, saying how YES it is a Documentary, but it should be called a "Propoganda Documentary". He continues by saying how Moore is "an ideologue, not an artist" and how an artist is "open to the experience; an ideologue is serving a cause. An artist observes the world around him and lets it change him; an ideologue wants to change his audience. For most of us, documentary filmmaking is a voyage of discovery. It's like being on a sailboat where the wind blows where it will, and it's best not to try too hard to steer a steady course."
Another point that I will end with is Grubin does share the same Political ideologies as Michael Moore he goes on to say, "There's the danger. I agree with Moore; I desperately want Bush out of office, too. But just wait until right wing filmmakers start making documentaries like Moore's. We're going to have to fight tooth and nail to explain how the power of our medium can be hijacked to serve any cause. And we're going to have a tough time making our case because we're all so pleased that Moore's film might help bring Bush down."
In Steve Rosenbaum’s article “Docuganda,” he discusses the controversies over Fahrenheit 9/11. Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore is a documentary that is very bias towards Moore’s opinion. The documentary is based on controversial moments during President George Bush’s terms in office. The questions Michael Moore asks are fire starts that get the audience talking and questioning what they believe. However, most of Michael Moore’s facts were not exactly true. Which makes us question, can we trusts the facts the documentary directors are showing us? Or, are they trying to juice up the story with self-made facts about their subject? While Michael Moore’s documentaries catch people’s attention. It is only because he uses fire starter questions backed with false data, but the data he presents appeals to the public eye.
ReplyDeleteMichael Moore took me through a great two hour compilation of George Bush’s funniest moments during his presidency. He made the film very biased towards his beliefs and the beliefs of many Americans. His movie struck me at first with all the information Michael provided about George Bush’s campaign; making me think to myself, “Screw George Bush.” But, then I realized this isn’t a documentary based on facts it’s a documentary based on emotion. I already knew I wasn’t a fan of George Bush, but his film doesn’t provide any facts from the government side. The only government officials that get interviewed are being asked to have their sons sign up for the military. That is funny for pointing out making it seem that their family members are too precious to be in the military. I will give this to Michael Moore’s documentary style. It was able to capture my attention and sustain it throughout the entire film, even though I was not a fan of the documentary.
This was my first time watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and it was quite an experience. Michael Moore takes this film as his opportunity to express his own opinion on what happened before and after September 11, 2001 and his overall hatred towards the president at the time, George Bush. He makes numerous claims on the government saying they didn't take enough action leading up to it and that George Bush was basically an idiot through his out first term as president. He did this by taking clips of Bush from different time through out his term that doesn't make him sound the brightest and giving his audience the idea that our president at the time was useless.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "Docugana: Figuring Out the Fahrenheit Phenomena" It got me thinking more about Moore and this doc. After seeing Grubin say that Moore is an ideologist instead of an artist, I completely agreed. "An artist is open to experience; an ideologue is serving a cause. An artist observes the world around him and lets it change him; an ideologue wants to change his audience." This is basically what Moore is. He wants people to change their opinion of Bush, if it's not the same has his, and persuade them to become "anti-Bush"
The one thing Moore wanted to accomplish and did flawlessly, is getting everyone to talk about his film. To open their eyes about the topic at hand and get them thinking, whether it's good or bad. In my opinion, I think Michael Moore could of went a completely different way with this film. His ego was showing throughout the whole movie and you can clearly see that through the way he talks and approaches things in the film.
Fahrenheit is a film best categorized by the title of Steve Rosenbaum’s article, “Docuganda”. It’s a nonfiction film documenting real events, which satisfies the claim of being a documentary, but it also presents a one sided argument that no doubt attempted to (unsuccessfully) swing an entire presidential election.
ReplyDeleteNow, this raises the question, can a piece of propaganda be an ethical work? It depends a bit on your definition of ethics. Personally, I feel a work can both present a single point of view and be ethical, assuming it doesn’t fall into other moral pitfalls. However, considering the controversy surround Fahrenheit, it’s safe to say that it does in fact face ethical issues beyond merely being a piece of propaganda. There’s an entire wikipedia article devoted to the dispute, controversy and criticism of the film.
The article also touches on the potential consequences of Fahrenheit 9/11 for filmmaking. A world where documentaries are so mainstream they lose their purity and art, a world where the power of film is used as a vehicle to sway the tide of politics. 10 years later, Fahrenheit remains the highest grossing documentary of all time. Documentaries are growing more popular (no doubt in part due to the works of Moore) and increasingly accessible in the age of internet distribution. It would seem, thus far, the impact hasn’t been very negative ... granted the third highest grossing documentary of all time appears to be the 2011 film “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never”. Say what you will about Moore, but he certainly does know how to make a successful film.
After reading "Docuganda" and thinking back on our discussion last after watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I realized that we talked a lot about the questions this article asks. The main question being if Fahrenheit 9/11 is a "real" documentary or not. There are a lot of filmmakers who go on the record in the article saying that Fahrenheit 9/11 does what a documentary should. Some argue that Michael Moore made this documentary more about persuading and shoving his opinion down his audiences throat.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in last weeks discussion, I am not a huge fan of Michael Moore. I think he's a big bully who is totally ruthless and does not even care much about his credibility, he only cares about his opinion and believes that his opinion is the right one. I agree with the filmmakers who say that Fahrenheit 9/11 does not do what a documentary should. In my opinion, documentaries are made to educate, inform or tell a story to its audience. Michael Moore created something that I do not consider to be a documentary, but he did do one thing right, and thats have his documentary be seen by millions and millions of people. Whether people agree with Michael Moore or not, people are still talking about it 9 years later, and I am sure Moore is happy about that.
Mia Wren