critique....
well today was eventful. went out with Katie and saw Fahrenheit 9/11 so i could write a critique on it for extra credit in my US history class. afterward we went out to eat, and then when i got back to the dorm i wrote my little critique. it's suppose to be two pages double-spaced and it is not suppose to argue the agenda of the film or whether or not it is a documentary.
here is my "nice" critique that i will turn in tomorrow morning:
A Fair Critique
There is a great deal of debate surrounding the truth of the film Fahrenheit 9/11. Whether or not someone believes the film to be true is not the issue in this critique. Instead, if one assumes the film to be a documentary, one would hope that it would stick to facts. Fahrenheit 9/11, however, is glaringly against the current administration. The film goes so far as to exclude information to support its standpoint against President George W. Bush. This is not a balanced documentary on the events leading up to, through, and following the 9/11 attacks due to the fact that uncorroborated statements were used as evidence, quotes and information were taken out of context, and some information was excluded from the film.
The film showed video clips from interviews and trials where an individual would be testifying or simply giving an opinion that was never backed up by any hard evidence. An example was one inquiry where an individual said something along the lines of "Attorney General John Ashcroft told me that he did not want to hear anything more about terrorist attacks on the United States." While this information was given under oath, it is still hearsay because there is no concrete evidence to support it. There is not a record of the conversation on tape or in writing. No one else in the film backed up the individual's statement. There is only the word of one man. That makes it hearsay.
The film also employed video clips from speeches President Bush and other government officials gave in support of its stance against President Bush's administration. For example, there was a clip where President Bush said something to the affect that the United States would be easier to run if it were a dictatorship. It was used during a phase in the movie that spoke negatively about an act passed by Congress that allowed the government to access private information of United States citizens for national security purposes. Without the context of the statement, it implied that President Bush was seeking to expand the power of the federal government for his own reasons instead of with the thought of national security in mind.
There was well-known information excluded from Fahrenheit 9/11. An example would be the film says that the "coalition of the willing" was made up of the United States, Iceland, Costa Rica, and a number of other small countries. It said that only the United States supplied troops for the war in Iraq. The last statement was false, and the first was missing information. Although the majority of the troops were US forces, there were coalition military forces fighting in Iraq that were supplied by Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan among others. In leaving out that information not only does the film skew the viewer's outlook on the coalition, it is disrespectful to the non-American soldiers in the coalition that lost their lives fighting in Iraq.
The film does contain facts and has evidence to support them that mistakes were made by the Bush administration. However, although the film is a documentary, it can't be trusted in its entirety because it is so heavily against President Bush. The film sacrifices part of the truth to strengthen the argument against the Bush administration.
The film is successful in stirring the emotions of the viewers and most information is accurate - even if it is given with an anti-Bush stance. Fahrenheit 9/11 will make some people angry and others will feel justified. It is a good attempt at documenting the events and emotions surrounding the 9/11 attacks, but the film is not objective. Therefore, it is not highly placed in this viewer's estimation.
that is my "nice" critique. tomorrow - since i am much too tired to do it tonight - i will write my "real" critique. it will not be pretty. i was very angry when i left the theater, and i've already ranted at three people who were unfortunate enough to ask me what i thought of the movie before i could purge myself with a written rant-slash-explosion. arg! i need to stop thinking right now, i'm getting vexed again. night all!
~Artemis Luna Diana~
here is my "nice" critique that i will turn in tomorrow morning:
A Fair Critique
There is a great deal of debate surrounding the truth of the film Fahrenheit 9/11. Whether or not someone believes the film to be true is not the issue in this critique. Instead, if one assumes the film to be a documentary, one would hope that it would stick to facts. Fahrenheit 9/11, however, is glaringly against the current administration. The film goes so far as to exclude information to support its standpoint against President George W. Bush. This is not a balanced documentary on the events leading up to, through, and following the 9/11 attacks due to the fact that uncorroborated statements were used as evidence, quotes and information were taken out of context, and some information was excluded from the film.
The film showed video clips from interviews and trials where an individual would be testifying or simply giving an opinion that was never backed up by any hard evidence. An example was one inquiry where an individual said something along the lines of "Attorney General John Ashcroft told me that he did not want to hear anything more about terrorist attacks on the United States." While this information was given under oath, it is still hearsay because there is no concrete evidence to support it. There is not a record of the conversation on tape or in writing. No one else in the film backed up the individual's statement. There is only the word of one man. That makes it hearsay.
The film also employed video clips from speeches President Bush and other government officials gave in support of its stance against President Bush's administration. For example, there was a clip where President Bush said something to the affect that the United States would be easier to run if it were a dictatorship. It was used during a phase in the movie that spoke negatively about an act passed by Congress that allowed the government to access private information of United States citizens for national security purposes. Without the context of the statement, it implied that President Bush was seeking to expand the power of the federal government for his own reasons instead of with the thought of national security in mind.
There was well-known information excluded from Fahrenheit 9/11. An example would be the film says that the "coalition of the willing" was made up of the United States, Iceland, Costa Rica, and a number of other small countries. It said that only the United States supplied troops for the war in Iraq. The last statement was false, and the first was missing information. Although the majority of the troops were US forces, there were coalition military forces fighting in Iraq that were supplied by Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan among others. In leaving out that information not only does the film skew the viewer's outlook on the coalition, it is disrespectful to the non-American soldiers in the coalition that lost their lives fighting in Iraq.
The film does contain facts and has evidence to support them that mistakes were made by the Bush administration. However, although the film is a documentary, it can't be trusted in its entirety because it is so heavily against President Bush. The film sacrifices part of the truth to strengthen the argument against the Bush administration.
The film is successful in stirring the emotions of the viewers and most information is accurate - even if it is given with an anti-Bush stance. Fahrenheit 9/11 will make some people angry and others will feel justified. It is a good attempt at documenting the events and emotions surrounding the 9/11 attacks, but the film is not objective. Therefore, it is not highly placed in this viewer's estimation.
that is my "nice" critique. tomorrow - since i am much too tired to do it tonight - i will write my "real" critique. it will not be pretty. i was very angry when i left the theater, and i've already ranted at three people who were unfortunate enough to ask me what i thought of the movie before i could purge myself with a written rant-slash-explosion. arg! i need to stop thinking right now, i'm getting vexed again. night all!
~Artemis Luna Diana~