2010202416
"Fahrenheit 911", I have never known why it took this strange name. I saw it a few times before and felt messed up, so I put it aside and didn't watch it again. Until the teacher showed the film in class, he watched it patiently and found that it was It’s a bit interesting, but I can say that my emotions have been completely mobilized, and I have realized how some people in the United States, represented by Bush, unscrupulously disregarded their compatriots to gain benefits, and how the 911 incident and the Iraq war were "deepened." "What a political conspiracy lies behind it.
However, after this emotional impulse cooled down, I felt as if I had stepped into the trap set by the director without knowing it. I was almost completely fooled and had to jump out quickly, admiring the director for using the montage editing technique so magically. While re-examining this so-called documentary.
Is this a documentary? He is a documentary that won the Palme d'Or, and he is said to be a new-style documentary that breaks through tradition. I have a few details to say after watching this film:
1) This film was edited and released when Bush was seeking re-election as President.
2) The director added a lot of subjective irony and joking narration.
3) The majority of the film is the material rather than the clips shot by the director himself.
4) Excessive use of montage makes the film fragments very fragmented.
5) Obvious emotional and politically induced tendencies.
6) This is the personal style of director Michael Moore.
The above are some of the film details I have listed. Can these details show that "Fahrenheit 911" is not a documentary? It can only show that these details are listed together because I want you to believe that "Fahrenheit 911" is not a documentary! These are all facts, but they appeared at the same time and gathered together in a certain arrangement, thus expressing a certain subjective tendency. This is a simple explanation of the montage technique. Similarly, the lens selection and editing of "Fahrenheit 911" is just like the details I have listed. It is a subjective, subjectively edited documentary film. It can only be said to express a tendency of opinion, not pure. Reality in the sense of reproduction. Documentaries are based on the essence of showing reality, and subjective expressions should be reduced as much as possible. I personally think that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not a documentary in the strict sense, but at best it is a documentary.
For example: In the film, the director selects a large amount of historical data for splicing. Some of these materials are related, and some are completely irrelevant, but they are all selected for a certain purpose. Like the contacts between the US president and officials and the Saudi king and officials, they were even spliced together to serve the film’s point of view without a time statement; like the use of a sentence or even a few words in Bush’s speech, not only did not ask. The use of background is still repeated and emphasized to achieve the effect of strengthening the theme and enhancing the emotions. I don't know what the background of these audio and video materials is, whether it has anything to do with this incident, so the frequent and excessive use of montage editing techniques is very disrespectful to the principle of truthful documentary recording.
At the same time, the film is also full of a lot of narrations. These subjective narrations are mocking from time to time, and from time to time they produce a movie clip to make fun of it. This is very similar to some entertainment TV shows in the United States and the tricks of opponents during the campaign. These ridiculous simultaneous sounds are subjective and inductive in nature, so no matter how true the picture is, it will not completely reflect the facts for the audience to judge by themselves. It is like the director stringing together carefully selected and arranged materials to serve his views. This will only set the thinking direction for the audience and make their understanding confused.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" appeared at the time when the Bush administration was changed. I have no evidence that it was planned by an interest group or political group or the Democratic Party, but it can also be said that a documentary film with such an obvious tendency must be a certain social responsibility or interest demand. The director of, or the production of a non-Bush group interest body, the background, shooting motives, and interest relationships behind it are as complicated as the film itself. In terms of its social impact, the film is not that simple. The political situation is deep, and the truth lies in the hands of a few people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ The
above is just a personal view on the nature and motives of the documentary. There may be some places that are too deep or inappropriate. As far as the production content of this documentary film is concerned, it is still a great film. It shows the audience the truth about the other side, grasps the emotional ups and downs of the audience, and also has a certain influence on society. Some problems are that it cannot be denied that he is a successful documentary film. Recommended to watch.
View more about Fahrenheit 9/11 reviews