It may be the most groundbreaking film of all times.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" has pushed into the public debate the very essence of the state of storytelling in this society. What is balance? What is objectivity? What is truth? And do citizens value a whole set of standards that the media has trumpeted as essential to our understanding of the world around us.

The truth is - Fox News began the whole thing. But wrapping themselves in 'fair and balanced' - they turned the very idea of objective storytelling into a bit of a farce. And rightly so.

Storytellers are human. And humans bring perspective. Institutions can legislate balance into their work by requiring multiple sources, equal time, separate church and state editorial boards for the Op Ed page, but in the end... Media organizations have a DNA. Fox is conservative. Shocker! But the more complex media personalities are CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. Because over the past three decades they've all transferred from the hands of ideological owners into the portfolio's of large multinational companies. The results are companies with a deeply conflicted internal sense of who they are. And the result - for viewers - is lots of media that's neither hard hitting nor incisive. Lot's of 'data' very little analysis.

Don't believe me? When's the last time that you heard an 'OpEd' on broadcast television. Probably 20 years. Eric Sevareid on CBS.

But networks don't do OpEd's any more. Because they've found that 'balance' and 'objectivity' is the way to escape the conflict between corporate owners and passionate individual employees. We've legislated out point of view. And told audiences that's what they want.

But 21 million dollars says they're wrong.

Because Michael Moore's film is his thesis. He looks at the facts, and adds them up as he sees it. You're free to accept his math, or engage your own brain and consider his evidence and draw your own conclusions, or reject outright his world view and therefore analysis.

But that's how information in a free society should be consumed. And it's worth pointing out that this isn't an expectation. Sure, Fahrenheit could be doing big box office because of the deeply fractured political situation - but then explain SuperSize Me? Morgan Spurlock is an unknown. MacDonald's is more of a guilty pleasure than corporate bad guy. And Fast Food isn't really a subject people are dying to see. But now with 6 million in box office, it seems like it may be worth considering.

It may be that the broadly defined genre known as 'documentary' is moving from sideshow to main stage. That independent non-fiction satisfies a need for unique perspectives, challenging ideas, and an editorial point of view that is not generated from a corporate perspective.

Clearly audiences that go in search of intelligent ideas and complex storytelling won't go to one movie a year. And DVD's will further reach into the living rooms and home theatres of a enthusiastic emerging audience.

Pretty cool - don't you think?

June 18, 2004

BROOKE GLADSTONE: The NRA has found one way to cut through the political message clutter. But the medium of choice this election season seems to be the political documentary, and the genre's heaviest hitter is Michael Moore whose new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, hits theaters Friday. [MUSIC UP & UNDER]

MAN: In the middle of the war, corporations decided to hold a conference to figure out how much money could be made.

MAN: Once that oil starts flowing, there's going to be lots of money. Whatever it costs, the government will pay you.

MAN: It's going to be good for business, bad for the people.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Fahrenheit 9/11, which includes some grisly footage from Iraq, grabbed headlines when the Walt Disney company refused to release it. Miramax Bob and Harvey Weinstein defied its parent company, bought the film and found a new distributor. This week it made news again when the Motion Picture Association of America gave it an R rating, barring kids under the age of 17, some of whom might soon be serving in the military, from seeing it without mom and dad. Moore is appealing that rating. Meanwhile, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo said he would urge people to watch the film before they pick their next president.

MICHAEL MOORE: How could Congress pass this Patriot Act without even reading it?

MAN: Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the bills.

MICHAEL MOORE: No one read it!

MICHAEL MOORE: [ANNOUNCING] Members of Congress -- this is Michael Moore. I would like to read to you the USA Patriot Act.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: This is a potent piece of political advocacy, and one in a series of films with liberal messages ranging from John Sayles' Silver City, a satire about what one reviewer calls "a grammatically-challenged born-again candidate from a right wing dynasty," to Tour of Duty -- a look at John Kerry's service in Vietnam from the director of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Pumping Iron. Add to that Harry Thomason's just-released film about the political vendetta against Bill Clinton, The Hunting of the President, and you have what some conservatives suggest is a vast, suspiciously-timed left wing cinematic conspiracy. [FILM CLIPS PLAY]

MAN: ...this is the inauguration reviewing stand...

MAN: ...here is where Bill Clinton will make his oval office...

BILL CLINTON: ...I, William Jefferson Clinton...

MAN: ...there was a sense in Washington that Clinton was not their kind of person...

MAN: ...the strategy was to use anything to inflict damage to his presidency...

HARRY THOMASON: All documentaries are made to influence opinion, and we hope this one does, but our opinion is not necessarily to affect the election. You have to understand, we thought we would have had this film out a year ago.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Director Harry Thomason says that the proliferation of documentaries arises partly from the public's growing acceptance of the genre. It's also a response, he says, to a growing suspicion that traditional journalism, pressed under the thumb of corporate ownership, is falling down on the job. As for the timing of this new wave of left-leaning films coming out on the eve of what will surely be a squeaker of a national election--

HARRY THOMASON: Actually I think that all these films are coming out and it's strictly coincidental.

ROB RICHIE: This isn't all coincidence, because you do have individual filmmakers who do care about this election, and they are turning to what they do best to try to have an impact.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: And they could, says Rob Richie, of the non-partisan Center for Voting and Democracy.

ROB RICHIE: When, you know, almost half the adult population doesn't vote, if you can get more of those people to vote, you can tip a close election. What can also happen, though, is that, say, Republicans can point a finger at Hollywood and say they're trying to steal this election, again, those rich liberals that aren't like you - and get out and vote. You know, like both sides are going to try to use such movies and the discussion about them to mobilize their base.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: In fact, that's happening already. This month, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly likened Michael Moore to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Then he read a list of fellow brownshirts who showed up at a recent screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 -- Billy Crystal, Sharon Stone, Martin Sheen, Larry David, Chris Rock, Demi and Ashton -- the list goes on and on. NBC's Tom Brokaw and New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. were there too, but the New York Post reported that the applause lasted only half a minute, and many declined to stand for the ovation. Harry Thomason.

HARRY THOMASON: I think Michael Moore is a wonderful filmmaker and-- I think if he thinks he's going to influence the election, then he's probably misinformed.

RICHARD VIGUERIE: I'm sure it'll have some impact, and it's almost certainly not good for conservatives, Republicans like myself.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Richard Viguerie is an expert in the political use of alternative media.

RICHARD VIGUERIE: Because the Hollywood media is not something that, you know, we're particularly well-versed in, and it's not one of our strong suits.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: But according to Viguerie, new campaign laws limiting contributions have both sides scrambling for new outlets. Film, he says, can be used as a partisan megaphone, like for instance, talk radio. Conservatives may own the microphone, but at the moment, liberals are running the cameras. And if ticket sales translate into votes--

RICHARD VIGUERIE: I suspect Republicans will, and conservatives, will weigh in, in future years. People are looking for ways to have an impact without violating McCain-Feingold law, and this is an obvious way to, to do that. But I think you're seeing the forerunner of a mass onslaught of documentaries that are just thinly veiled campaign pieces.

MEREDITH MCGEHEE: I don't believe at this moment that political documentaries that are being floated around are being used to evade the McCain-Feingold law--

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Meredith McGehee, of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, says that there is no evidence that people are funneling money into films as part of a coordinated effort to benefit a particular campaign. So despite reported grumblings from the GOP, there's no violation of the law.

MEREDITH MCGEHEE: It's the act of the coordination in itself that triggers any kind of limits. Being critical of a public official and having an intent to influence the outcome of a federal election, actually, are not exactly the same thing.

STEVE ROSENBAUM: Michael Moore's film -- I don't believe that two years ago when he started to make Fahrenheit 9/11, you know, that he was working on a film to support John Kerry. I think that he was making a film because he was really, really angry at what was happening in U.S. politics.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Steven Rosenbaum is the director of Inside the Bubble, a documentary about the Kerry campaign's brain trust, currently slated for release after the election.

STEVE ROSENBAUM: I don't understand why people get so concerned about the fact that Michael Moore has a point of view.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: He says filmmakers have always wanted to tell stories that move people, and today the big story is political. It's just the technology that's changed. With digital video, they work cheaper and faster, and so they are. As for influence, who knows?

STEVE ROSENBAUM: At this moment we can say for sure that Michael Moore's film will make a big noise when it opens on the 25th. Beyond that film, though, I don't know of anything coming down the pike that is a slam dunk in terms of the ability to kind of rattle the windows. You forget how extraordinarily hard it is to get people to take their 9 dollars out of their pocket and go to a movie theater and engage something serious and potentially a little hard to stomach.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So maybe it ends with Moore, but probably not. Rosenbaum says documentarians have always looked hard for funding, but depending on what happens in November, maybe the big campaign funders will come looking for them next time around. If they do, the watchdogs of campaign finance reform will be right behind them.

Why does everyone want to find something about fahrenheit 9/11 to criticize?

Michael Moore's latest movie has me thinking - and talking - a lot about it.

I saw it last night... With 300 other people that were involved in the film in one-way or another. And even in a room of 'fans' the audience reaction afterwards was sobering.

You can't cheer. The story is far too personal.
You can't applaud. It's about a war - and an ugly one at that.
You can't even yell nasty things about the people who Michael says did all these things.

So I left angry.

But not angry with George Bush. Or Donald Rumsfeld. Or Ashcroft. Or Condi Rice. I was angry at myself.

This isn't anyone else’s country. It's mine. And this Government doesn't act in a vacuum.

I was angry after 9/11. I tried not to let my emotions be played... And I thought that I was in control. But as Michael reminds me of the Terror alerts, I'm embarrassed to remember the 'escape kit' that we have in our closet. One for each member of my family. Yes. I was made to be scared.

And once I was scared - I was able to have buttons pushed that made 'shock and awe' seem like some sort of global statement. Don't F*CK with US. What made me angrier was I knew better. Peter Arnett had told me - and showed me -that Iraq was a modern, literate, evolving country. A bright spot in the Middle East. A place with issues, but not our issues. And as I watched "911" I remembered the Baby Milk Factor that the US Government had bombed back during Gulf War One. Peter knew it wasn't a chemical weapons plant. He actually touched the milk powder to his lips to prove it. But the US Government said it WAS... And he was labeled a traitor for trying to put facts in the face of fiction. His career was thrown into a tailspin. But he was telling the truth.

Now - the 911 commission and all evidence says that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Queda. Despite that- the President still says that there's a connection. The drumbeat of fact vs. fiction is intense. And it makes me angry to think that somehow patriotism, 9/11, oil, and the 'support our troops' drumbeat makes it almost feel like it's ok to support what's happening. It's not ok.

And Michael uses every trick in his filmmakers bag... Music, images, gottacha cameras, and a mother who lost her son. As I watched the image of the boy with the kite in Iraq... I was angry with the film for a moment. How dare he use such an emotional button to make me feel... Well.... Guilty.

But then I remembered my trip to Russia back in 1983. I landed in Moscow with a group of student journalists and was stunned by the fact that on the street people walked dogs. Yes - Russian's had Dogs! They were Human. I was stunned that I had never seen real life images of human's in Russia. Of course... Never humanize the enemy. So Michael's decision to show pictures of life, children, families, before we began bombing seemed like it broken some unspoken rule of dehumanizing the enemy. He was right to do it. But was it manipulative - yes. Am I angry at how I feel about what I let happen to the boy with the kite (the metaphorical boy with the kite). Yes. I'm angry.

I don't know how that emotion will translate to a national audience. Will people go to be entertained, and leave embarrassed and angry. Certainly George Bush is made to look disconnected, goofy, and unconcerned. But those images aren't news. And in fact, it may be that his easygoing demeanor is part of his appeal.

The real villains of this film are the Marine Recruiters who troll the parking lots and malls of Flint Michigan - telling young men and women whatever it takes to get them enlisted.

The enemy is the Patriot Act... Being used by a local sheriff in Fresno to infiltrate a group of aging hippies known as PEACE FRESNO.

The real quest for audiences is - can they accept the culpability that Moore charges all of us with in the world events that are now unraveling.

Fahrenheit 911 is layered, complex, serious film. It is important. And uplifting only in that it puts together all the threads that have been hanging out in the media for all to see.

It's our government. What it does is our responsibility. And if we don't speak up - then power will corupt, that's for sure.

So why does everyone want to find something about fahrenheit 9/11 to criticize? Maybe because to accept the film’s indictment is to have to look into a very personal mirror.

Sometimes - we point our camera at people... And we change their lives.
Sometimes - our subjects change OUR lives.

While it's great to feel like being a filmmaker is about discovering things and sharing them with the world... It's hard to feel like anything we did made Arthur Lederman any more extraordinary than he was.

Arthur died last week -at the age of 104. It's easy to think about his tenure on this earth as an accomplishment... But if you knew him, or had the chance to see the film that was made about him, then you know his footprint on this earth was far greater than the sum of its years.

I first met Arthur on film - as I meet many people. He was portrayed in a student film that had been submitted for the CameraPlanet Innovation award that we judge each year at the Columbia University School of Journalism.

Three graduate students had gone out to record the relationship between clients of Dorot - a Jewish service organization - and a group of young German home service aids.

In their travels they opened a door at 116th Street and Broadway - and found themselves in the apartment of Arthur Lederman.

Arthur was then a 101-year-old Polish refugee who lost his family in the Holocaust. His visitor was 21-year-old Christoph Erbsloeh, is a German student and the grandson of a soldier in Hitler’s army.

“If you were born 50 years ago, you would kill me” said Arthur in his first encounter with the first German to set foot in his apartment.

It was pure Arthur. Charming. Combative. Controversial. Feisty.

And while I 'meet' hundreds of people on film every month... I can't think of but a few that I feel compelled to seek out in person.

So I reached out to the filmmakers -both to help them finish their film, and to make a connection with the man they had embraced. Amy Rubin, Michael Rey, and Stefan Knerrich were the three grad students.

The film begun at Columbia, they skillfully crafted into the documentary feature "Facing Arthur".

Inside his apartment - there was a treasure trove of sculpture, watercolors, and memories. Arthur was a concert Violinist. He was an accomplished artist. He spoke Polish, German, Russian, and Hebrew. We was a Talmudic scholar.

He was a soaring spirit.

And he had been trapped - in the Upper West Side apartment.

So we didn't discover him. He discovered us. He allowed us the privilege of knowing him. And not in a casual way.

Once you met him - he was in your life. His laugh. His wisdom. His extraordinary view of world events. Moments after 9/11 - my thoughts raced
to him. Would this terrible tragedy crush his spirit. No, I quickly understood, he'd seen tragedy before.

He's live through this century. A difficult one. He came to America alone. His wife ran away with a rich man. His music had made him a star in prewar Poland, while here he suffered as a music teacher.

“I’ve got a sense of humor!” says Arthur in the film. “You don’t buy your sense of humor at Macy’s, even if they say it’s 25 percent cheaper!”

And humor he has - but always to a purpose.

“Children in Germany aren’t killing Jews anymore, but they don’t know anything about Jews" says Arthur. "How did you imagine a Jew? With a crooked nose?”

For almost 3 years... Arthur became the center of a group of friends and filmmakers. First with Amy, and Michael, and Stephan. Then as I broke the 4th wall and ask Amy to introduce me... He charmed and embraced my family. My older son, at the time 12 years old, was studying to be a Bar Mitzvah. And Arthur became his teacher. Both gentle and formidable... We would go for visits and he would insist on a scholarly response. Soon Max and biking up the 20 block on weekends to spend time with Arthur on his own.

In September of 2002, when Max was reading from the Torah at his Bar Mitzvah...he spoke eloquently about Arthur and all that this man had taught him. What an extraordinary gift to give a boy that had just a year earlier been a strangers son.

Arthur had faced adversity, sadness, joy, loss, and the extraordinary weight of a mind that is both extraordinarily empathetic and deeply judgmental and demanding. To those closest to him, Arthur's probing could be piercingly painful. He said to Christof once, without rancor - “You know, you have a little Hitler in you. Deep in your being, you are a Hitler.”

Sharp tongued. But empathetic. He was born on Christmas day. He says with his wry smile "two great Jews born on that day." And he laughs.

Arthur was always coy about his age... Not because he didn't want to reveal his years as much as not wanting to be judged by them. More than twice my age, more than once I thought he was younger than I was.

Always - the question of 'how long' was in the air. He'd broken all the records. He was in good spirits. He lived at home. His intellect was very much in tact. His signature was beautiful. "Of course... It has ART in it"

Arthur grinned when complimented on his name. Another Arthur-ism.

And then the subject -mostly unspoken - of the fact that he'd already outlived all of his peers.

"I don't know - perhaps I'm immortal" he said when asked about his tenure on this earth.

And the truth is - if immortality is being able to live forever, then he is immortal.

His art. His humor. His music. His sculpture. His philosophy. All recorded, all wrapped in the careful fabric of a movie.

Did Amy and her peers find him?
Or, in hindsight - did he send out some cosmic smoke signals from his apartment... A message in search of a messenger.

Sometimes... You don't make films. They make you.

We make films. And some days - it can feel really good. Today is one of those days...