‘Fahrenheit’ heat

Manohla Dargis’ astute analysis of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” (June 27) pinpoints that there is a fine line between the ostensibly impartial documentary and propaganda films. But there is really no such thing as “impartial” or “balanced” in the political documentary genre. Balance depends on where the fulcrum is placed -- and by whom.

Moore does not claim the mantle of impartiality. His acknowledged mentor in agitprop filmmaking is Kevin Rafferty -- one of the directors of the film “The Atomic Cafe” that skewered Cold War-era American government propaganda about the nuclear bomb. When challenged in 1982 by an angry conservative British parliamentarian who asked whether “The Atomic Cafe” wasn’t itself propaganda, Rafferty replied that it was propaganda and made a careful distinction that applies equally to his protege’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11”:

“There are two kinds of propaganda: propaganda when you know you’re lying, and propaganda when you think you’re telling the truth.”

The Eisenhower administration knew that it was lying when it said that we could survive a nuclear holocaust by following its admonition that we “duck and cover.” And the Bush administration knew that it was lying in trying to link Iraq to 9/11 in the public’s mind. I welcome the good propaganda of Michael Moore in exposing the bad propaganda of George W. Bush.

Martin Lewis

Los Angeles

Martin Lewis was the U.K. distributor for the film “The Atomic Cafe.”

*

In “Truth, Moore or Less,” Manohla Dargis proposes propaganda in “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Unfortunately, the word “propaganda” has a negative connotation. Let’s figure out how Michael Moore’s propaganda-filled, lying-laced film might affect the American public: 1) Increased voter turnout (Oh, no, run for the hills!). 2) Questioning our leaders and making them accountable for their actions (The horror!). 3) The realization that we should all be more politically astute. (And miss a repeat of “The Man Show”?)

Lie away, Mr. Moore, lie away.

Mark Bloom

Sherman Oaks

*

I commend Manohla Dargis for being the only person (that I know of) to really hit the proverbial “nail on the head” -- Michael Moore does not make documentaries, he creates propaganda. His “best documentary” Oscar was an embarrassment and a disservice to legitimate documentarians, only solidified by his shameful use of the podium to further disseminate his already well-known political views.

Moore abuses the medium of film for his own agenda while hiding behind the cloak of the documentary, thus legitimizing his views as being “fact.” He does his own cause a disservice because, through his falsehoods, he destroys the credibility of what may be some legitimate concerns and positions.

Moore’s gate-crashing, overbearing style necessarily draws an equally vigorous response from those who hold opposing positions. As Dargis so rightly points out, more scrutiny is brought to bear on his work than most others’, so the ultimate exposing of what she generously calls “mistakes” is inevitable. Personally, when someone uses “mistakes” to illustrate their own point of view, I tend to call them “lies.” Thus, as a witness exposed as lying on the stand will cast doubt on their entire testimony, for most intelligent individuals the exposing of Moore’s mistakes/lies also casts doubt on the credibility of the entire piece.

Bruce Bockman

Los Angeles

*

It seems fitting that Manohla Dargis should have mentioned George Orwell’s “1984.” My son, who, in his English class, had to write a paper on which prediction -- “1984” or Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” -- was a better fit for our society, kept saying throughout “Fahrenheit 9/11”: “This is just like ‘1984.’ ”

If newspapers, the fifth estate, are a rough parallel to “1984’s” Ministry of Information, this would explain why articles quibble over whether Moore’s film is truly a documentary rather than ask why the documents and documentary footage included in his film haven’t been placed before the public until now. Let’s not obsess on what isn’t proved by Michael Moore’s film. After all, it mostly raises questions. Instead, let’s explore the questions raised to see what truth we can find. If the press is more than a tool for the establishment, it will encourage journalists to move in these directions.

Gregg Heacock

Santa Monica

*

It’s funny that Dargis points out that, depending on your political views, you will either hate or love this film; that some might view it as propaganda to injure the current administration.

Please. Are not most, if not all, of the claims he makes well known and part of the public record?

Shirley Aldana-Schwarz

Inglewood

*

The primary controversy about this movie is obviously the question of truth versus propaganda. I am curious, as a potential voter, as to what is true and what is fiction (or propaganda) in the film. To mention that Moore “targets those on the political right, but he also goes after the media, Democratic politicians, and the country’s economic system.” Propaganda? Hardly. Who cares if he lives in a million-dollar dwelling in New York?

Dargis should be commended on her lead-up to what could have been a logical argument to modern propaganda, but she stumbled in her conclusion, or lack of it. It was like eating cotton candy: no nutritional value and plenty of air.

Joe DiBernardo

Walnut Creek