The University of Adelaide
Politics, Power and Popular Culture
Minor Essay
September 2009
Marius Zanin
a1141224
Critically analyse the politics (the ideology) of Fahrenheit 9/11
Fahrenheit 9/11 was produced, written and directed purely to criticise the actions taken by the United States President George W. Bush following the destructive day that was September 11, 2001. The events of 9/11 shocked the entire world and changed the face of terrorism forever. But it was the actions taken by the American democratic government that caught the attention of media outlets around the world. Director Michael Moore using interviews, official documents and news reports highlights ‘fascinating and inflammatory ideas about George W Bush, his family, and the way he handled the events leading up to and after 9/11’ (Levine 2004). There is no doubt that the film criticises George W. Bush and the American political rulers.
Not all people will agree with the claims made by Michael Moore. It will often depend on your political preference. People against George W. Bush will love it and claim it to be the closest document to the bible, while supporters of the newly Ex-President will reject all the claims. Moore chooses to look at aspects of Bush’s time in the White House all from a negative point of view and ignores any and all parts of the good aspects of his presidency. Of course he uses facts to support his claims which make it difficult to rebut and easy to be persuaded.
While Michael Moore claims that the film is not about politics, however, he provides the audience with enough information and persuading cinematic techniques allowing them to draw their own conclusions. Moore begins with the footage at the start that surrounded the election of President Bush, the “stolen 2000 election” (Tremoglie 2004), making it seem like a conspiracy theory that allowed George W. Bush to become president. It also shows images of the inauguration where the President’s car is ambushed by protestors holding banners ‘you’re not my president.’ Another example is ‘Moore’s focus on Saudi Arabians who have substantial financial investments in the United States, including corporate linkages with the Bush family’ (Political Film Society 2004). In his first nine months in office, Bush spent 42% of that on vacation. On September 5, Bush is shown on holiday, only months after being elected and only a few days before the attacks. These images all edited together one after the other are all done to bombard the audience with disturbing factual evidence. The film reports on information such as how the family of Osama Bin Laden was flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11 without interrogation from the FBI while the rest of the country were banned from flying and airports were shut down. It’s clear that this information’s sole purpose is to perceive the President in a negative light. To make viewers believe that Bush was helping the family of Osama Bin Laden, the apparent mastermind behind the attacks. Footage is shown of Bush ignoring warnings about a possible attack on American soil and also as he is told of the attacks. The footage is set up to show Bush as a ‘fool, perhaps a puppet of those in Washington who are really in charge’ (Political Film Society 2004). Most shockingly is the footage of President Bush first being told of the attacks on the World Trade Centres. He is in a classroom with students and allows much time to pass while he digests the news. While his intentions not to scare the children might have been good, the film makes Bush look like a President who had no idea how to handle the situation about the unfold.
