Analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11

The documentary genre allows filmmakers to put forward a biased account of events. Michael Moore is one such filmmaker that has exploited this genre. In his latest documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore presents a biased recount of the Iraq war. Analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11, in particular chapter eight, demonstrates the subjective nature of the documentary genre. Moore exploits a toolkit of persuasive techniques to position viewers to accept his own values and beliefs regarding the war. Moore creates three distinct, biased representations in the chapter; he represents George Bush and his administration as deceitful warmongers, Iraq as a sovereign nation suffering at the hands of US oppression and American soldiers as both unsympathetic idiots and as mere pawns that are experiencing the horror of war. Together, these representations uphold Moore's political agenda of the time; to discredit Bush and his administration, to depict the US decision to invade Iraq as a foreign policy abomination, all with the ultimate goal to sway the public from re-electing Bush in 2004.

Chapter eight opens with a shot of bombs being readied for deployment, immediately followed by Bush receiving attention to his hair. The alternation between wartime preparations and the cheeky smile of the president continues until Bush addresses his nation. By juxtaposing the serious subject-matter of war with a president who is apparently more concerned with appearances, Moore represents Bush as being superficial and underhanded. It can be seen that Moore wastes no time in this chapter and immediately sets out to discredit Bush. The Bush administration is directly discredited later in the chapter when Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence at the time, comments on the impressive accuracy of US bombings. His claims of great "care and humanity" that go into the bombings are starkly contrasted with the grieving cries of a woman in the following clip. The juxtaposition of these opposites positions the viewer to attribute the woman's suffering to the US bombing. Moore cunningly includes the interview of the grieving woman, in which she is asked the loaded question "you mean [the US forces] killed civilians?" The woman is prompted to state that the US forces were responsible for the death of many civilians and that no militia were in the area at all during the bombing. After the terrible collateral damage of US bombing is foregrounded by Moore's crafty editing choices, Rumsfeld's claims of amazing precision become dubious to the viewer, which in turn represents the US government as deceitful. Moore's inclusion of the unrelated clip of the woman's grieving during Rumsfeld speech can be considered unfair and cunning editing. Moore completely disregards fairness to create the deceitful warmongering representation of the US government in order to achieve his purpose of bringing them into disrepute. Even later in the chapter, Moore