The Documentary Film Film Studies 385

Prof. Julian Cornell

FAHREHEITE 9/11 VS FAHRENHYPE 9/11 Cristohper Ramos Flores

Watching both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenhype 9/11 together was a very interesting

experience. I had watched Moore’s film before and my opinion about it was very

positive, despite the fact that I thought it was driven by some sort of propaganda aiming

to disapprove George Bush’s actions. However, at the time I didn’t like Bush either, so I

felt like the filmed reinforced my distrust in Bush and made me feel good about my

feeling towards the president. Nevertheless, even then, I thought the documentary

wasn’t completely objective in the facts that it presented. Back in those days I was living

in Mexico and I never heard about any other response film, I guess what went

international was only Moore’s film and the rest of the movies weren’t important or

elegible for foreign markets. Anyway, it was shocking for me to find out about the

several negative responses towards the film and the credibility of Michael Moore as a

filmmaker.

I can see how the format and structure of the response movie is based on the ones from

Moore’s movie. However, Fahrenhype 9/11, being a response, tents to focus on

disapproving the work of Moore. It doesn’t present new ideas or different “theories”

about Bush and his actions. The second movie presents facts, or at least its own facts

(at this point it’s confusing to know if any of the arguments is actually trustworthy) only

to proof that the facts from the first movie weren’t correct, weren’t complete, were

manipulated or were presented out of context, and sometimes even obtained in a

deceitful way.

The truth presented in both movies is backed up by interviews, photographs and other

documents that are facts. However, the facts can tell a different reality if they are put out

of context. In both cases, the facts seems to be out of context some times. For example,

when Moore presents the argument of the bin Laden family being involved in business

with the Bush family, a few photographs of both Bush Senior and son with the Bin

Laden family are presented as a proof that reinforces the relationship of both of the

families, and and the meaning of the Bin Laden family for the Bush(es). However, the

same photographs are put inside another argument in the Fahrenhype 9/11 movie by

setting a different context around it. The argument in the second movie is that they

weren’t involved in the same companies at the same time, and the photographs were

taken during oficial visits.

Something else that I find very relevant when comparing these two movies is the fact

that the truth they claim is based on an agenda. Moore’s film tries to show a Bush that is

incompetent, manipulative and with strong reasons to focus more on his personal

interests rather than those of the american people. In other words, the film claims to a

reality that is both misleading and hypothetical. It doesn’t seem to be aimed to present a

whole truth since it is completely unilateral. It almost seems to be presenting facts that

could used to back up conspiracies.

On the other Hand, Alan Peterson seems to try to present a reality based on facts that

are apparently more objective. Of course, in this case the movie isn’t presenting a

thesis. It’s trying to show that Moore acted in a deceitful way presenting interviews that

were taken out of context, presenting manipulated information and arguments that

weren’t based on oficial records. In other words, it claims to a reality that is back up by

the reality that was approved by the establishment. Nevertheless, it was still based on

an agenda: proving Moore wrong.

I think if one is seeking for a truth, one should try to find all facts, both in favor and

against an argument. In that sense, I think both movies compliment each other by

posing the two sides of the story. Comparing both movies and its arguments, I feel very

positive towards the work of the filmmakers and the non-fictional cinema because I can

see how documentaries can play an important role in many situations. In this case it

was a political discourse that was put to question, and both arguments were equally

believable and well back up by its own material, regardless its source, and they both

make sense. I wonder to wish point we can put our trust in documentaries that only

present one side or vision of its subject, that’s what scares me. Should I be suspicious

of everyone from now one? But how can we, the audience, stop believing in everything

when sometimes we don’t have other arguments to compare? Can we just make our

own conclusions about the reality without having the whole truth presented?

In conclusion, I find myself a bit angry about these two films after I watched them both

together. Watching these movies I felt manipulated and lost my trust in humanity, or at

least in filmmakers, well, maybe just Michael Moore and Alan Peterson, and any other

filmmaker doing anything related to politics. Coming from a country (Mexico) that is filled

with corruption and where the practice of hiding information or not telling the whole truth

is as common as eating a sandwich, I suppose I shouldn’t feel this way. I guess I wasn’t

naive about propaganda, but the fact that obscure interests might be behind a film that I

enjoy makes me a little sad.