The behind-the-scenes production of Fahrenheit 9 1 1

Director michael moore is also a writer. His works, whether movies or books, are famous for their sharp criticism of reality. He always pays attention to politics. When he was young, he did not treat the right to vote as simply as others did, but cherished organizing elections. Since his debut novel Roger and I, he has been faithfully recording the present situation of American society with a camera and pen. Whether it's the TV series The Terrible Truth, the documentary Columbine's Bowling Ball, or his Stupid White Man and Alternative Excuses. Although his books also topped the sales charts, his genius is more reflected in movies. His last film, Bowling in Columbine, not only won the Best Documentary Feature Film Award at the 75th Academy Awards, but also won the Special Award at the 55th Cannes Film Festival.

In order to record the living conditions of American troops in Iraq as completely and truly as possible, Moore hired a large number of photographers and journalists, and made every effort to let the 26 members of the whole crew interview a large number of American government officials, American soldiers and ordinary Iraqis. Michael moore, known as the "Tatar", also went into battle in person. He was not only intercepted by intelligence personnel outside the Saudi embassy in Washington, but also told Congressman john turner on Capitol Hill: "Well, we can find that not many congressmen sent their children to Iraq. In fact, only one person did it. We just think that you should send the children there first. What do you think? " It seems that he is really brave and fearless.

The biggest focus of the film after winning the prize is no longer the reaction of the US government to the film. Now which company will complete the release of Fahrenheit 9 1 1 is the focus of attention all over the world, which is related to whether Americans can see this film in their own countries. People no longer care about Disney's Milla Max's entanglement and right and wrong about the film's release storm, but hope that a company can finish this work as soon as possible to cater to the American audience.

Fahrenheit 9 1 1 and the US presidential election

Fahrenheit 9 1 1, as a film with the strongest political atmosphere in 2004, attracted far more attention than winning the Cannes Palme d 'Or Award and became the highest-grossing documentary in film history. In this election year, people are more concerned about the impact of its large-scale release on the election.

Director michael moore himself undoubtedly hopes that this film will have an impact. He never admitted that one of the goals of making this film was to oust George W. Bush. However, whether the audience follows his goal is another matter.

Judging from the audience's reaction, Fahrenheit 9 1 1 did have some influence, but this influence was not reflected in reversing the election, but deepened the differences between the two parties.

The film was released at the end of June, and an American survey agency called Harris Poll conducted an online survey from July 12 to July 16. The survey sample is 2242 adults. The main questions include whether I have seen Fahrenheit 9 1 1 and what I think of it, and whether this film was made for President Bush. The results show that 17% of the audience who went to the cinema supported the Democratic Party, while only 7% supported the * * * and the Party. Among the audience who have never seen the film but expressed their willingness to watch it, the difference between political parties is even greater, with 30% supporting the Democratic Party, higher than 10% supporting * * * and the party. The distribution of this survey shows that many people who choose to go to the cinema do not like President Bush's policies and the * * * and the Party, while many people who support Bush and the * * * and the Party will not go to the cinema at all.

The evaluation of the film is more telling. Among the audience who have seen this film, 89% of Democratic supporters praised it, while 56% of * * * and party supporters held negative comments. Similarly, 85% of the supporters of the Democratic Party think that the film is a true and fair reflection of Bush, while 58% of the supporters of the Democratic Party and political parties think that the film is unfair. Another national survey conducted in August also showed that the results were basically consistent with the above figures: among the audience who chose to watch Fahrenheit 9 1 1, most of them supported the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidate John Kerry, and considered themselves liberals. Judging from these data, although the tendency of the film itself is very obvious, it only deepens the views of those who have opposed Bush and our party's policies, and does not change the existing pattern of our party's support.

However, don't forget that there are many centrists or independents, and their number should not be underestimated. According to the statistics of previous elections, their views and opinions have a more direct impact on the election results. Because for diehard supporters, it is difficult for a movie to change their views. Therefore, it is the key to judge whether Fahrenheit 9 1 1 has an impact on the presidential election in 10. Judging from the survey figures, the release of the film is really unfavorable to Bush, because the number of centrists in the audience is almost more than that of Democratic supporters (18%), and 70% of them have a positive evaluation of the film. This result also confirms michael moore's viewpoint in this interview. He claimed that according to the survey results of a well-known investigation agency (Moore did not list the name of the agency), 80% of the audience who entered the cinema would probably choose Kerry, but almost 1000% would stand on Kerry's side after the film came out.

Moore's self-assertion is obviously exaggerated. He counted the independents who made up the vast majority of the audience as his side, and he also seriously underestimated the public's understanding of his consistent style. Although some independents will obediently oppose George H.W. Bush according to Moore's design goals, a considerable part of the audience are disgusted with Moore's way and means of making movies, especially Moore himself admits that he will use all means to get rid of Bush. A more rational American audience can see that the main logic in the film is far-fetched. Besides, Moore's own reputation is not much better than Bush's. His practice of shooting documentaries and editing facts has been very exciting in the United States, and many people hold a negative attitude. In addition, Moore was mean and aggressive, and he didn't offend the media less, so even if the media contacted Moore, it was very cautious, and few major media clearly expressed their warm support for Moore. In addition, Americans pay more attention to credit and procedural justice. If Moore's own contribution is questionable, then his criticism of Bush in the film is questionable. In fact, conservatives have already launched a counterattack, and this month a documentary will be released to expose Moore's past, which can be described as a tit-for-tat approach by Bush supporters.

Democrats are afraid to use Moore's movies to build momentum for Kerry. On the contrary, during the whole campaign, Kerry tried to draw a clear line with Moore to show absolute justice and not give any room for competitors to attack. In this way, even the object of Fahrenheit's 9 1 1 objective help does not dare to help the film and Moore in turn, further limiting the influence of the film.

Based on the above points, readers should understand that even if Fahrenheit 9 1 1 has an impact on voters' views, its impact is very limited, and there are many negative factors that need to be balanced. The final election result will not change because of the release of this film.