Michael Moore’s doc made a fortune, but what did it do for Kerry’s fortunes?
TheTyee.ca ~ Wed., Nov. 10, 2004
Much to his disappointment I am sure, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 not only didn’t get Bush crushed in the recent election, it had no effect whatsoever on the decision-making process of the American electorate.
Prior to the release, Moore claimed that he was making it his mission to oust ‘W’ and was going to do everything he could with his film to ensure that President Bush was not re-elected. Yet, according to a poll commissioned by the New York Times and CBS News, the public’s opinion of President George W. Bush was not affected in any fashion following the release of the film. In fact, Moore could actually be seen as hurting the Democratic candidate’s campaign.
In the week preceding the wide release of the film, a majority of those polled felt that:
- they had paid a lot or some attention to the campaigns
- they would vote for Kerry (with or without Nader’s existence)
- they had an unfavourable opinion of Bush
- those who liked Bush strongly favoured him
- they were uneasy about Kerry’s abilities to deal with an international crisis
- Bush has strong leadership qualities.
And after the film was released, a majority felt:
- less favourable towards Kerry
- they had a more favourable opinion of Bush
- less inclined to vote for Kerry and more inclined to vote for Bush, even when Nader wasn’t included in equation
- more willing to support Bush because they disliked the other candidates
- the same about Bush’s handling of his job as President, as well as his handling of the situation with Iraq and the campaign against terrorism
- less confidence in John Kerry’s ability to deal wisely with an international crisis
Making a killing
Fahrenheit 9/11’s opening week-end’s box office gross was equal to that of the three-month run for Bowling for Columbine: US $23,920,637, thereby breaking the record for the highest return for any film opening on less than a thousand screens (oddly set by Rocky III). By the beginning of October, the film had grossed $213,339,392 world wide, with over 50 percent of that coming from the US theatres alone. But did all of this exposure make any difference to the Democrat’s attempt to take the White House?
There are three possibilities that spring to mind. Either Moore succeeded in holding back the defeat from being even more ignominious than it was (which seems doubtful); he actually pissed-off enough people in the Republican camp that they decided to show their support for the President seen shamed in the film (equally ridiculous), or all he managed to do was drive people more into their already established positions.
The most likely is the last. I doubt many Republicans saw the film with any purpose other than being able to then intelligently complain about it. The Democrats who viewed it were the choir Moore was preaching to. And those who think of themselves as non-participants in the voting process – and it was these citizens he wished the most to reach with the film – probably saw it as more evidence that the difference their vote would make was marginal at best. When faced with the extended tirade about Bush’s actions being driven more by oil revenues than military justice, anyone would be forgiven if they felt disheartened and that the system was tilted against anyone but the rich and Corporate America.
Art can’t elect people
Something that Moore may have to come to terms with is that, no matter how exceedingly good he is at self-promotion, is that he will never be able to influence the course of human events – certainly not in his own country. Most citizens of any nation will not pay attention to cultural icons when they take-up either humanitarian or political causes. “What does a film maker/rock star/movie actor know about politics?”
The exception to this is when one of the above individuals actually does more than complain and willingly places themselves in the decision-maker’s chair by running for office. Ronald Reagan, Pete Garrett, and Sonny Bono come to mind immediately, as well as “the Governator”.
But if Sting, Bono, or the Boss (or any other single named celebrity) start stumping for support of the rainforests, Third World debt, or John Kerry, it’s doubtful than there is more attention paid to the issue than if a political leader had taken up the cause instead.
Systems, not rulers
A similar lack of influence upon cultural events is evidenced by G.B. Trudeau’s pillorying of then President Richard M. Nixon in the cartoon Doonesbury. But he was reflecting an already pervasive view, rather than leading a call or deepening the hatred of the president. Ultimately it was President Nixon’s insufficient destruction of evidence that ‘did in’ his presidency and not the public calling for his head. He had not done anything different than any president since J.F.K. by taping his conversations about political intrigues – he just had the misfortune of being caught.
If You Love This Planet, the documentary about Dr. Helen Caldicott directed by Terre Nash, ABC’s 1983 TV movie The Day After, Dr. Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, and even Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard were all advocating a philosophical change rather than of a politically ideological one, and were far more about the changing of an existing system, or systems, of ruling rather than the identity of the rulers.
In the end, Moore made no more difference than anyone else who has campaigned for or against a cause within a country. At least G.B. Trudeau offered better jokes.
Ian Alexander Martin [
Entries (RSS)