Fahrenheit 9/11

As I sit down to write this next review I realise just how many documentaries I watched. To you, the reader, these will be coming half a week apart, but for me the last four posts were all the films I watched in two days! It may shock you to learn that I don’t write these off the cuff on Saturday and Wednesday mornings, but I store them up. On occasion I will write a special review and promote that to the front of the queue as it were.

Anyway, this post is about Fahrenheit 9/11, which is another Michael Moore documentary. This deals with Bush administration, the terrorist attacks of September 11^th 2001 and the war in Iraq. In true Michael Moore style this one is as controversial as his other stuff. He pulls together an awful lot of evidence and highlights a number of links between the Bush family, Saudi Arabia, the bin Laden family and other prominent members of the government at the time which raises a fair few eyebrows in the light of the September 11^th attacks. However, this is not just another example of the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. The case that he makes is very convincing, and this film has the privilege of being the highest grossing documentary of all time.

Michael Moore starts with the very controversial way that George Bush entered office. Now I was too young (just a mere 8 years old) to really remember the firestorm that seemed to erupt, but I do remember wanting Al Gore to win the election. Moore suggests that Bush’s family connections (having a relative as the Governor of Florida and as a high ranking member of Fox News) helped him win the election. This is controversial in itself, but what follows after is on another level. He then talks above the 9/11 attacks and indicates that the US government, the Bush family, the Saudi Arabian government, the bin Laden family, and the Taliban are intricately inter-related, and have been for nearly 30 years. He questions why none of the bin Laden family were interrogated after 9/11, and basically argues that Bush’s actions post-9/11 were for the good of him and his family’s investments, rather than for the good of the country. He then talks about the Iraq war and investigates the effects it has had on the families of those who have fought in it. In an emotional scene he interviews the mother of a boy killed who then goes to the White House, and what follows is very moving.

There is no doubt that what he is saying makes sense, but in true Michael Moore style, the way he says it carries more sway than what he is actually saying. Yes, he draws together a fair few lines of very questionable evidence about Bush and his administration, and makes a few controversial, yet rational claims. The one that sticks in my mind is something along the lines of ‘America is paying you millions to be President, but your business dealings with Saudi Arabia is paying your family billions, what are you more concerned about?’ Obviously it is not exactly like that, but the point is there.

It is a triumph of the power of freedom of speech and production that this film was released. Obviously it would have reflected worse on the government if the film was censored, but some of the things Moore implies (and that is why it is so good) are very shocking. The main criticism I have of him in general, but particularly with regard to this film, is that he presents a load of evidence, implies something outrageous but doesn't actually point the finger, and then goes off on a segment about his implication. He is also immensely one sided. He says nothing of any reasons why anyone would want to terrorise America and attack their economy, and completely avoids the plane that (allegedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#The_Pentagon], but that’s a whole different issue) hit the Pentagon. However, there is no denying the success of the film, and it is a masterful documentary which can appeal to everyone.

However, the film was very controversial when it was released, as its release came less than 5 months before the 2004 US election in which Bush was running for re-election. In his own unique style, Moore didn't directly support the Democratic candidate, but has never hidden his negative opinions about Bush, and is quoted as saying that he hoped his film would influence the election:“this may be the first time a film has had this kind of impact” (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-24-fahrenheit-cover_x.htm). This is quite underhand, but the only thing that the film really achieved in this respect was to make those who were not going to vote for Bush even less likely to do so.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a fantastic documentary and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. However, I think while Michael Moore is obviously very successful as a one-sided propagandist, his arguments need to be a bit more objective and his delivery needs to be a bit more firm in the claims that he makes. Other than that, I suggest you try and find Fahrenheit 9/11 very soon, because it is an important film in the current climate, and the claims Moore makes have strong implications for where the world is today.

Super Size Me

Super Size Me is a very interesting film. It seems I watched an awful lot of documentaries recently, and Super Size Me is one that investigates the effects of continual eating of junk food. Morgan Spurlock attempts to eat McDonald’s food for every meal of every day over a 30-day period. The movie documents the effects this has on his body and mental state.

The film is set against the backdrop of an increasingly overweight society. This is a relatively uncontroversial issue. There is no denying that overweight and obesity is a growing problem in many countries, and yet many people continue to eat junk food. Spurlock introduces the case of two obese teenagers who sued McDonalds, blaming their food for their obesity. The case was thrown out of court however, as it was argued there was no proof that the food had been solely responsible for their unhealthy outcomes and that people should be aware of the risks.

Morgan Spurlock presents some interesting cases and features during his journey through this mission. These are all quite controversial, and all are very thought provoking. There is one feature in which he visits a school and shows children various pictures, asking them to identify who is in the picture. Now obviously some of the results will have been edited to give them more of an impact, but children being unable to identify a picture of Jesus Christ, one even mistaking him for George Bush, but being easily able to identify Ronald McDonald is a problem.

Spurlock’s documentary is obvious an extreme example of how junk food can impact on your health. Eating McDonalds for three meals a day by anyone’s standards is too far, but this documentary shows the serious effects that even an unhealthy diet can have. The physical effects that the ‘McDiet’ has on Spurlock’s body are quite worrying. His health deteriorates quite significantly in a month and he gains a lot of weight and loses a lot of muscle. Most seriously though is the addictive attributes that he displays. He becomes depressed, lethargic and experiences headaches, and it is the consumption of McDonalds that relieves these effects. While it is an extreme experiment, it is not one that shows slight effects. It has a genuine impact on the audience. I was shocked at some of the effects on Spurlock’s body and mind and thought that the message of the film was massively applicable to society today.

The only problem with Super Size Me is that the major message of the film is lost behind the air of comedy behind the film. I'm not saying that it's laugh out loud funny, but there are some amusing moments in the film and this clouds the seriousness of the effects of the McDiet on Spurlock. The best example of this is when he is sick after eating his first supersized meal, but throughout the film there are slightly sinister, but slightly amusing images of Ronald McDonald from various protestor groups. Another problem is that he takes the ‘experiment’ to an extreme. Instead of living his normal life and eating a lot of McDonalds, he goes from presumably quite an active life to a very inactive life combined with intense food intake. Many critics consider Super Size Me to be a distortion of basic scientific methods which singles out McDonalds and doesn't actually tell the audience anything. This is true to a certain extent: I mean it is obvious that eating McDonalds every day for a month is bad for your health. He also has refused to publish his food log, which has raised a number of issues in terms of the critics acceptance of his documentary. That people will find problems is an inevitable outcome of any documentary.

I really enjoyed Super Size Me though. Although it had the slight effect of making me quite peckish, it has impacted on my perceptions of junk food. This will probably be quite temporary though. It might be the relevance of this film to my degree which drew me to it, but either way, I think that watching it can only have a positive effect on you. It makes you much more aware of the dangers of not watching what you are eating. However, the singling out of McDonalds is quite bad. I’d imagine the owners of Burger King loved this film. Burger King (and Wendy’s etc) are mentioned, but the film definitely focuses on the one establishment. One has to be in a certain mood for a documentary, and Super Size Me is a good choice when that mood hits. Unlike most of Michael Moore’s productions it is relatively uncontroversial, and is much more enjoyable because it is more light-hearted.

Bowling for Columbine

Michael Moore is famed for his controversial documentaries about political issues in America. He has released a number of immensely successful films which raise public awareness about a number of topics, such as the health industry, gun laws and the Iraqi War. Bowling for Columbine was released in 2002 and is one on Michael Moore’s most famous films. It explores the gun laws in America and how these may have contributed, alongside other factors, to the shootings in a number of American schools. This film continues to be relevant as the issue of American gun laws seems to pop up every now and then in tragic circumstances.

A number of high profile individuals feature in this film, such as Matt Stone (South Park), Charlton Heston, and Marilyn Manson. Moore’s interviews with these individuals shed a genuinely interesting light on what may be the cause of particularly high gun crime rates in America.

For those of the audience (such as myself) who have very little knowledge about the American issues around gun crime, Bowling for Columbine is a fascinating eye-opener. There are some very surprising scenes in the film, such as when he opens a new bank account with a bank in Michigan and subsequently receives a free gun for doing so. To me, a Brit who is aware of the extreme restrictions on firearm possession in this country, this is astounding.

It is quite difficult to review a documentary film like this, but Michael Moore is fiercely critical throughout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) who have been known to hold rallies in cities shortly after they have a gun incident. However, despite some incredibly clever filming, editing and interviewing, Michael Moore’s main problem for me is that he presents the ‘freak shows’ to the audience. He often presents some very extreme opinions of gun law, and at one point interviews the brother of one of the shooters at Columbine. Now without a doubt this man comes across as a bit of a lunatic, but the majority of the film comes across as very one sided. He presents the individuals who argue in favour of firearm possession as lunatics and presents many people who argue against firearm possession as straightforward ‘average’ Americans. Anyone who does argue for firearm possession is discredited in the way they are presented by Moore, and I don’t think this is particularly fair on them.

There are a number of criticisms about the features Michael Moore presents in this documentary. For example the employees at the bank which give over a gun because of a bank account opening claim that Michael Moore misled them during the filming of this feature. It is argued that he convinced the employees to hand over a gun on film the on the morning after he opened the account. In reality, it is claimed that it would take much longer for a gun to be delivered. When he interviews Charlton Heston at the end of the film, he appears to lead Heston into making a number of controversial statements and then presents him with a picture of a little girl who was killed in a gun-related incident. He makes Heston look incredibly bad, but has been accused of ambushing Charlton Heston is a very crude way. His interview with Matt Stone, the creator of South Park, led to him being presented as an animated idiot in Team America: World Police, because of an animated segment which bears a resemblance to South Park.

Gun law is obviously a very emotive issue for so many people in America, and the film is spot on in presenting all the bad things about the situations around American gun law. There are undoubtedly some shocking statistics about the rates of gun-based crime in America, and Michael Moore is incredibly convincing in the way he presents his arguments. Bowling for Columbine is a well-designed film which presents information in a very clever order. For example, early on there is a clip of Chris Rock on control of ammunition which is very funny. It is the sort of film that is sadly relevant once every so often, and if you get the opportunity to watch it then you shouldn't miss it. Personally, I find Michael Moore’s delivery very annoying, but the content of the film is very compelling.

Senna

‘Senna’ is a documentary film about the life of Formula One racing driver Ayrton Senna. It is a film which tells you all about his career as a driver, his personal life as a hero in his home country, and his relationship with many different people, from the drivers he raced against to the people of Brazil. It is a fantastic film, and best of all, it can appeal to non-racing fans as well.

Personally, as I mention in the introduction post, I am a massive Formula One fan, and so naturally, a documentary about (arguably) the greatest driver to have ever lived is right up my street. However, it is not entirely about motor sport. A lot of the time, I got the feeling that it was a documentary about the trials and tribulations of a man who happened to be a racing driver. I think I’m going to review Senna from two points of view: the racing fan and the non-racing fan.

Firstly, for a documentary about Formula One, Senna is an absolute must-see. The footage in the film presents a journey through Senna’s career which you just cannot get from the history books. The way it presents his breakthrough race at Monaco is wonderful, and even the non-racing fan can find themself emotionally engaged in the film. It’s a weird experience when you are watching a film and you find yourself viewing the world through the eyes of the protagonist. At one point during his career, Senna and Prost collided at a corner in Japan, and Senna was forced to use the exit road to rejoin the race. He went on to win the race, and the world championship as well. However, his use of the exit road was deemed to be illegal (because it was) and he was disqualified. This is where the film gets fantastic because you find yourself genuinely disappointed, and with a distinct sense of injustice.

The racing side of the film generally focuses on the rivalry between three-time world champion Senna and four-time champion Alain Prost. This is one of the most famous and most thrilling rivalries of racing history. Because the film focuses on Senna, it inevitably portrays Prost as the bad guy, and the audience seems to develop some feeling of dislike towards him. While it is good that the film is so emotionally charged and engaging, many have criticised its portrayal of Prost, and the man himself even spoke out about how the film neglects to mention that they became good friends in the last months of Senna’s life. As a result of this, when you see Prost bearing Senna’s coffin at his funeral, you are a little bemused. The film presents Prost as ‘the enemy’ and so it’s a bit strange that he’s carrying the coffin.

However, this is the only real downside about the film. I thought that the coverage of the death of Senna was absolutely incredible. This is a subject that many have tried to cover, and many have failed. ‘Senna’ absolutely nails it. The build up to his crash is very imposing, and there is a distinct sense that something bad is about to happen. Those with foreknowledge about what happens will feel a big sense of foreboding, and those who do not know about Senna’s death can tell that something is about to happen. Some of the footage of his death is dealt with absolutely magnificently. It is in perfect taste, not focusing too much on what killed him, but not shying away from the details of his death.

However, Senna was not just a racing driver. The film tells you all about the massive contribution he made to Brazil, especially his hometown of Sao Paulo. This is where the non-racing fans can fill their boots. Just seeing the way that Senna was thought of in Brazil is absolutely incredible. The emotion that the public showed upon his winning the Brazilian Grand Prix, or just a simple visit is incredible. You definitely have the sense that this man was a national hero whose popularity transcended his success. Senna devoted a lot of time and money to improving Brazil at a time when the only thing worth celebrating was his success. Simply the number of people that lined the streets when his body was returned home is emotional enough. There is a good balance of racing and home life, and this serves to remind people that, while he was one of the all-time racing greats, he was also a wonderful philanthropist who never forgot where he came from.

Overall, Senna is a magnificent film, and a superb documentary. It is such an emotional journey through his life, and I think it would be very hard to watch this film and not engage to the extent that you feel emotions in line with what’s happening on the screen. It can appeal to racing fans and non-racing fans alike, and this is why it is so good. It is not just a film documenting Senna’s racing career, or the story of an incredibly charitable man, but both. It marries the two characters perfectly to produce an absolutely wonderful film. If you are interested in finding out more about this man then Senna should be your source of information.