I have been enjoying the excerpts of Byron York’s The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy being published by NRO, but the one today downgrading the importance of Fahrenheit 9/11 to the last election is less surprising to me than previous installments.
The answer, although no one beyond a few Hollywood executives, and probably Moore himself, knew it at the time, was that Fahrenheit 9/11 never had the sort of national appeal that its maker and its publicists claimed. The truth was just the opposite; deep inside the dense compilations of audience research figures that are used by movie studios to chart a film’s performance was evidence that Fahrenheit 9/11′s appeal was narrowly limited to those areas that were already solidly anti-Bush. Moore’s daily pronouncements about the movie‚Äôs success in pro-Bush areas, and the growing anti-Bush movement it was supposedly engendering, were little more than wishful thinking.
Well, of course. Does this surprise anyone? You don’t have to be in the movie business to realize that Moore’s work and Moore the man are “choir preaching” at its purest. I don’t imagine that kind of person convinces anyone of anything ultimately.
But what does change our minds? I’m not sure I understand that, though I do know that seeking the most common ground and then shifting subtly is far more effective than Fahrenheit 9/11. And by the way, those Industry stats that York quotes as being secrets of movie executives are readily available to anyone on line now. I’m sure Karl Rove knew them. No wonder he wasn’t alarmed by Moore.
Whether or not Fahrenheit 9/11 had an effect on the election is one question, and I’m inclined to agree that it was preaching to the choir. (Although if preaching to the choir gets more voters out and helps to raise money (and I bet the second of those, at least, was true), it certainly has an effect.)
But I don’t find York’s numbers nearly as convincing as he makes them out to be. Sure, the movie drew a significantly higher percentage of viewers in New York and Boston than it it did in Boise and Cheyenne. Is anyone really surprised by that? It hardly invalidates Moore’s claims that it drew significant crowds in Bush-friendly markets — which also shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s not like “red” and “blue” represent 100% composition.
But what does change our minds? I’m not sure I understand that, though I do know that seeking the most common ground and then shifting subtly is far more effective than Fahrenheit 9/11
A few thoughts based on our experience of the last forty years: the really big changes in US, and for that matter, European popular opinion seem to me to include
1) the demise of “scientific socialism” and command-economy policies as legitimate, serious approaches to the basic questions of economic growth
2) the end of the traditional family as the only legitimate family arrangement and its replacement by a generalized tolerance of single parenthood, cohabitation, homosexuality etc
These two sea changes occurred because of massive and very visible failure post-1981 (Solidarity in Poland), in the former case, and technology and scientific advances post-1962 in the latter case(mainly the pill, also new research into sexuality).
Arguably, the spate of pro-feminist and later, pro-gay Hollywood films in the early 1970s had some impact in shifting attitudes on the second issue, if only by reaffirming the nascent feminist leanings of those in their audience who had not felt the courage or strength to step forth previously. I don’t recall any wildly popular films that shifted attitudes about “scientific socialism”, though; the TV images of the wall being smashed in 1989 by the empire’s captive subjects achieved that.
In either case there’s no way on earth that a “documentary” made by a fatheaded fibster could have had anything remotely like such an impact. Moore won’t even merit an asterisk in the most sympathetic historical account of our era. He’s as big a flameout as pets.com
The box-office information on how Fahrenheit 9/11 performed relative to other films was probably widely available to industry insiders and those who follow the subject seriously. Still, as an industry outsider it was news to me that Moore’s opus had been outperformed by blockbusters like Barbershop 2: Back in Business and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.
And very gratifying news at that. I suppose that’s mean-spirited on my part, but I don’t really care.
An intelligent and subtle anti-Bush documentary could indeed have had an impact on the election.
But Moore’s schlock job, which btw was shown to many in NASCAR territory (IIRC Dale Earnhardt said he saw the film and was impressed by it), was so obviously a fib-filled character assassination effort that even those middlebrow (and lowbrow) fence-sitters who wanted very much to hear Moore out deduced quickly that the man has no credibility.
I wonder to what extent the movie helped motivate Republican voters. I know it had that effect on me; when I saw how many Democratic congressmen attended that special screening, I was inspired to donate for the first time ever to the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees.
I thought the Moore movie, the British Guardian campaigning for Kerry, the UN, French, and EU coming out for Kerry and the moonbat anti American ‘war protestors’ all had the effect of moving some or much of the middle over to Bush.
I was leaning Bush and some of my rational friends who ended out voting for Kerry kept naming things about Bush as to why they and I shouldn’t vote for him (we are all lifelong NEsatern Dems) but when I heard the Guardian and UN and French open their mouths that was the end of any possibility reflecting me…. (How patronizing elitist is the Guardian btw?)
In my opinion, it seems that Moore’s movie, Hannity, Rush etc… in the end they move very few people over? I think the ‘choir’ idea might be mainly correct. Otherwise how come Clinton kept winning and remaining popular despite Rush, Drudge and scandals? (People liked him and the economy was good)
In my opinion the BIGGEST INFLUENCE in the 04 elecion was 1 simple thing(isn’t it always?) THE WAR
Even those who had serious problems with Bush, said ok so why change horses midstream especially when the other guy isn’t so great and he’s going to end out doing the same thing anyway.
Swiftboat Vets was a huge momentum shifter but in my unqualified opinion that’s it in a nutshell.
Mike
F9/11 had a quite unintentional effect on Iranian viewers. The mullahcrats had wanted to make a big propaganda shpiel out of this, but Iranians walked out impressed that the USA is such a free country that tehy allow Mikey Moore-on to produce such a blatant attempt at character assassination.
One coworker went to see it, and walked out halfway through in disgust, saying it was the most dishonest thing he’d ever seen in his life.
Well, it seems the sort of market performace data York used to build his piece is not particularly hard to come by and that anyone involved with the media is well aware that it exists and how to go about getting it and that it doesn’t require three or four months.
So, tell me again, why didn’t the MSM, that Last Bastion of Detectors of Spin and Falsehoods, call him on it? They had data at their fingertips and they didn’t use it… why exactly? Well, no matter, surely the MSM outlets who trumpetted MM’s claims have since come out to set the story a bit straighter.
I have had my mind altered by a movie or two, the one I remember most was “The Deerhunter” a movie that stunned me when I saw it and certainly made me see things differently. I think a well done drama is a mind changer. When we look back at all those commie/lefty 1930′s agit prop plays, I’d agree no minds were changed. But I think Showboat changed a lot of people, I think Ayn Rand affected and changed a lot of people. And Harriet Beecher Stowe did start the Civil War.
Those whose minds are in fact changeable are, in my humble opinion, ultimately changed by the observation of the relationship between ideas and reality.
I remember feeling absolutely convinced Reagan was an idiot (at 20, I had it all figured out). But none of the disasters that were supposed to result from his simpleton-ness ended up happening.
On the contrary, the economy soared, while the evil empire collapsed, revealing in the process that most its victims agreed with Reagan about its evilness all the while.
Now, regarding Iraq, what happens in Iraq over time will have a huge influence on how the genuinely open minded view Bush. Right now, things are, shall we say, in flux. Some good news, some bad. Open minds are watching and haven’t yet closed upon a conclusion.
Moore, on the other hand, wouldn’t change his views on Iraq if it become Switzerland overnight. He’s an entertainer who has glommed on to a trendy ideology and is milking it for its considerable worth. He is not a thinker or an intellectual, and will therefore not pursuade significant numbers of people to change their minds about anything. He will entertain the choir no end, however.
Byron York uses the word twice. The second use is as the last word in the excerpt. Nothing more need have been written and much of what was is laughable. Leave it to York to ask Rove about Moore—seriously.
Michael Moore has at least two talents and like others who are famous and/or infamous it is the talent for self-promotion that is the greater of the two. Someone who produces a documentary that grosses over $220 million worldwide is doing something else right in an industry/art form where it’s often impossible to believe anyone has a clue.
A good article on 2004 Box Office highlights…
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1668&p=.htm
Believers in a certain (I would say incoherent) political philosophy may buy Byron York’s book and may read it and may believe he writes truth…just as believers in a different (I would say even more incoherent) political philosphy purchased tickets to see Michael Moore’s movie and may have watched all 122 minutes of it and may believe he shows truth.
But then time passes (quickly) and there are other movies and other books to talk, write and be right and wrong about and a few will remember and most will forget this movie and this book.
And I sometimes wonder, is there anything but hype?
Then Saul Bellow dies and I decide to reread his major novels. I’m saving The Adventures of Augie March for last.
Keeping with the theme of hype and superficial analysis.
York presents a reductio ad absurdum argument with reference to discreet numbers. As far as it goes it’s not an unreasonable argument, but it fails to address the most prominent concerns.
Here’s four discreet numbers York fails to substantially or thoughtfully address: 220 million, 120 million, 1 and 1. F9/11 grossed appx. 220 million world wide and had a 120 million domestic gross. Kerry ends up 1 state short in the electoral college, this by a candidate who was no more inspiring and was far less honest and transparent than George McGovern who won but 1 state in 1972.
The concern with Moore’s F9/11 was not that such a superficially conceived and executed piece of propaganda would convert the unconverted en masse. Rather the concern was with its potential for galvanizing the Left/Dem base and the direct and indirect effects (Left/Dems more committed to actually vote and actively working for their candidate) such a galvanized base can manifest.
The efficacy of F9/11 is perhaps ultimately indeterminable, though surely the 120 million domestic gross (eclipsing the previous record for a “documentary” by roughly 600%) testifies strongly to its galvanizing impact. Still, regardless of any quibble over the efficacy of F9/11 per se this past November, contrasting McGovern’s one state showing in 1972 with Kerry’s mere one state shortfall in 2004 is emblematic of the ideological Left’s largely successful, and often poorly and insufficiently challenged, long march through the institutions.
Patrick, I read Herzog in college, and got little from it other than appreciation for the style and degree of descriptive talent. Then I re-read it while going through the same central event, and under the same conditions, and reacting in the same way, as the title character. I do believe it kept me sane, that second reading.
Well, Team America convinced me to vote all my dead Ohio relatives for George Bush…
Richard McEnroe,
Well, Team America convinced me to vote all my dead Ohio relatives for George Bush…
Now that is a darned good example of why I sometimes really hate being a knucklehead – never any good and useful ideas. That said, intelligence has been described as the ability to have useful ideas and genius has been described as the ability to steal such ideas.
In the next election I shall apply the my genius and your intelligence!
Snippet,
I remember feeling absolutely convinced Reagan was an idiot (at 20, I had it all figured out). But none of the disasters that were supposed to result from his simpleton-ness ended up happening.
I pre-date you, but not by much. My very first presidential vote was cast for Jimmah. Roughly three years following that I was deep into the “What a muthableepin mistake that was, how could I have been so stupid?” camp. Ronald Rayguns was such a breath of fresh air to me that I felt like I understood what it was like to pop to the surface out of a shipwreck. (BTW, I served in the military, volunteer, almost coincident with the Carter administration so perhaps I had a slightly better view of what a deeply depressing and idiotic “leader” he was.)
My second vote for the Third-rate Actor Cum Cowboy Who Would Surely Rain Nuclear Destruction Upon Us All was sealed, sure as shootin’, not 90 days after he took office the first time when I happened to be watching a Major News Media Broadcast (sorry, can’t remember which) where they gave an obnoxious amount of airtime to some Moonbat-of-the-Day who went on and on and on, honestly it was relentless on her part, about how the homeless who were lining the streets of NYC and how they were the direct result of Reagan’s presidency.
By then I’d spent enough time watching how The Machine put Another Brick in the Wall and, since I’d grown up in and had returned to the NY Metro Area, to recognize that as unadulterated bullshit. That experience also set me off on my path of pondering the Democratic Party. The more I pondered the less I was inclined to vote for their candidates. A few more later (I gave you my embarrassment of voting for Jimmah so I won’t further embarrass myself identifying my final vote for a Dem) and I can’t imagine how I could possibly live long enough to vote for another Dem. How much I loathe the Democratic Party cannot be expressed in language that wouldn’t get me (deservedly) tossed out of Roger’s Place.
BTW, Team America out on DVD, May 15th…
“seeking the most common ground ”
There is no common ground with the Fundies – they want to destroy America in the name of Jeebus:
“Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost,” Kennedy says. “As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”
- D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries
“”Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost,” Kennedy says.”
Kennedy who? And what could he possibly do that would in any way harm you?
::yawn::
I’m still quite impressed by how terrified some people are of the word God or god or Jesus or Jeebus (they’re too terrified to even write the name). It’s a new phenomenon. Just within the last couple of decades or so this fear has taken on hysterical status.
In 2000 Bush utters the word ‘God’ and I went ‘ew’. In the late ’60′s JFK uttered the word ‘God’ and I didn’t bat an eyelash.
What kind of brainwashing effected that change in attitude?
Roger, you should ask yourself the question — what makes you change your mind?
On foreign policy, say, how do you know if you are wrong? Or were wrong?
Wouldn’t you be having second thoughts about Iraq if some 10 000 US soldiers had died, if the Jan. elections had been nearly a farce with less than 4 million voters; or less than 2 million?
How many Americans would have to have been killed for you to agree that the Iraq war wasn’t worth it?
(for me, some 10 000 or more means Bush gets a “D” or an “F” — but if body counting isn’t the way to judge a war, what is? [2500 or less and it's an "A"])
After you think about judging Iraq, you might want to re-visit Vietnam. How many have to be murdered by the commies before “leaving” becomes a mistake?
“Well, Team America convinced me to vote all my dead Ohio relatives for George Bush…”
LOL — Now THAT is a funny comment. Here here for a little comedic relief!!
“In the late ’60′s JFK uttered the word ‘God’ and I didn’t bat an eyelash”
Really? I’d be pretty amazed at hearing a dead guy say anything!
The great thing about Michael Moore and his so-called “documentary” is that in America he can make that kind of movie, people can go watch it and decide for themselves about what they believe. That’s what freedom is all about.