


Before we in the news media began covering “Fahrenheit
9/11” as if it was the second coming of Christ – or
should I say “The Passion of the Christ” – I was
excited about seeing the documentary.
I liked Moore’s previous one, “Bowling for
Columbine,” but now I’m disgusted at how easily TV,
newspapers and magazines have willingly become unpaid marketers for
the film.
The combined results of a controversy-obsessed media, missteps by
some conservative groups, the political climate and Moore’s
strategic marketing prevents most people from seeing
“Fahrenheit” with an open mind. It also helped the
movie take in $23.9 million during the opening weekend.
It reminds me of the brouhaha that overshadowed Mel Gibson’s
“Passion.”
The two-sided debate surrounding both movies tapped into the
insecurity of a country immersed in a war on terror that has no
foreseeable end. Our soldiers and civilians are being killed by an
enemy that fights with as much religious conviction as President
Bush claims to possess. The us-versus-them debate between
Christians and Jews over “Passion,” and between
conservatives and liberals over “Fahrenheit,” kills
thoughtful dialogue.
“You kind of invite them in to create a controversy,”
said Philip Rosen, professor of modern culture and media at Brown
University.
For “Passion,” the media manipulation was transparent.
Gibson let only select people see early screenings of the film, but
in TV and newspaper interviews he spoke out against forces trying
to silence the film. The news media couldn’t get enough.
The road to success for “Fahrenheit” has taken a
similar path.
In early May, Moore announced Disney’s decision not to
distribute “Fahrenheit” weeks before the Cannes Film
Festival, where he won a top award. The announcement created a
flurry of news coverage, with Moore complaining about big
corporations controlling the flow of information. The search for a
new distributor became another news item until Lions Gate Films
agreed to distribute it.
In June, the conservative group Move America Forward urged theaters
not to show the documentary. Two weeks ago, another group, Citizens
United, filed a formal complaint against Moore’s movie with
the Federal Election Commission. It claimed
“Fahrenheit” violates campaign rules.
Bad moves.
“Any attempt at suppressing a movie always inevitably
backfires,” said Norman Ornstein, a political expert at the
American Enterprise Institute.
To counter, the left-leaning MoveOn PAC launched a national
campaign to get at least 100,000 members to see the film. More than
115,000 people pledged to see “Fahrenheit” when it
opened nationwide June 25.
“When the right-wing groups came out and tried to censor the
film, we decided we really needed to defend the film,” said
Adam Ruben, MoveOn’s national field director.
When Lions Gate requested a rating, the Motion Picture Association
of America gave “Fahrenheit” an R for violence and
language. Moore launched an unsuccessful legal battle to get it
changed to PG-13.
But the company isn’t a member of the association and
therefore isn’t required to submit “Fahrenheit”
for a rating, said an association spokesman. For example, another
politically charged documentary, “Super Size Me,” is
unrated.
The question is, why did Lions Gate request a rating in the first
place?
The company declined to comment, but I’m guessing it
wasn’t concerned about helping parents gauge whether
“Fahrenheit” was appropriate for kids. The ratings
battle was another news story.
“All of this really lifted this film to a different level in
terms of coverage,” said Ornstein. “Those things create
the notion that you have a huge controversy.”
It’s another media-stoked uproar that exploits our fear in a
time when fear seems to be all we have.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Tonya Jameson is a columnist for the Charlotte Observer. Readers
may write to her at: Charlotte Observer, 600 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte, N.C. 28202-1880.
onya Jameson
Knight Ridder Newspapers