Count me among those who thought "Fahrenheit 9-11" was a profound disappointment. No, not because I disagreed with the content, and I certainly enjoyed the film from a "yeah, go get 'em!" standpoint. But its presentation was so smugly one-sided and vicious and baiting that I can't imagine it winning over a single individual. What good is a documentary (and/or any piece of activism) if it's only liked by those who already agree with its point of view? I can't imagine a single individual who was pro-Bush before viewing the film would have been won over by it. You can't change minds with condescension and ridicule.
That's why I'm so excited by "Sicko". The reviews I've been reading are positive from both "sides", and may actually be able to educate and inform people who don't understand how serious the U.S. health care crisis really is. Fox News writing a glowing review of anything Michael Moore puts out is really rather amazing:
Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.
Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience.
At a press conference on Saturday, Moore said, "This film is a call to action. It's also not a partisan film."
Full review here.
Entertainment has the power to change minds and opinions if done correctly. Television, for example, has done more to advance the acceptance of homosexuality more than any politician or doctor ever could. Now, you may notice that the Fox article is still a little snarky in its description of Moore becoming more "mature", but really, who can disagree with that? Maybe if "Fahrenheit 9-11" had been presented with a little less "if you disagree you're a moron"-ness at its core, we might be two years into a Kerry Presidency by now.
Addendum: A few people are reading the last line of this diary as "Fahrenheit 9-11 cost Kerry votes." I absolutely do not believe that the film "cost" Kerry votes at all, and likely solidified a lot of his Democratic base. My point is that it failed to win over any (or at least a significant number) of right-leaning voters because its presentaiton allowed those on the right to dismiss it as humor and/or propaganda. A documentary that played it a little straighter could have had an impact on the election.