5 - Birth, Life and Death, Along With A Need For Change

 by Gabrielle, Philippe and Franco

For over a hundred years, film has been a nexus of different kinds of arts, notably audio and visual forms. In the case of movies like “Samsara” (Ron Fricke, USA, 2012, 99 min.) or “Koyaanisqatsi” (Godfrey Reggio, USA, 1982, 86 min.), a different approach is taken to storytelling. The aforementioned base themselves more on images than dialogue as method of explanation. Within the next paragraphs we’ll go more in depth about “Samsara”, “Koyaanisqatsi” and how they connect and relate with each other.

The Eternal Cycle

The film “Samsara” brings us on a journey through the cycle of life as one big circle composed of many different circles. Through the 99 minute film you are brought through this cycle via a mix of images, sometimes intriguing (and at other times unsettling), sounds and music, all of which come together nicely. The images are filmed throughout the world we live in; with footage gathered from 100 locations spanning over 25 countries. The issues which the film tries to tell us about is depicted through the juxtaposition of the many images and sounds, from the beauty of nature, like the Epupa Falls, and destructive natural disaster like hurricane Katrina’s destruction of the New Orleans to our society’s unnatural human settings, notably electrical appliance factories in China and the sex dolls from Japan. This film was special and unique in a way that there was no dialogue and the only noticeable writing was graffiti on the wall separating Palestine and Israel, and numerals.

 http://revgarb.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/samsaraweb08.jpg

Our week’s topic was juxtaposition and storytelling; how images can tell a story when placed together, varying stories can be told depending on the images put together. In class we discussed the Kuleshov effect, the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axis, and the four dimensions of editing; all of which are present throughout the film. The Kuleshov is when images can determine the ambience or mood of the image that follows. In “Samsara” it is illustrated clearly throughout many scenes such as the scene where we see very primitive villages in Africa and afterwards a neutral gaze from the tribe’s men and women, which could easily be mistaken for sadness, which for all we know, they could be happy with their simple and primitive lives. Otherwise, an example is depicted in the scene following the Cebu Province Detention and Rehabilitation Centre in the Philippines; there’s footage of inmates performing dance choreography, many of them enthusiastic and enjoying the moment, followed by footage of the overcrowded prison cells, inmates giving the camera a neutral gaze, which deceives you at first into thinking they’re okay with the prison’s conditions, yet are they really? On another note, Ron Fricke does a great job in combining the paradigmatic (distinctive qualities of the images, the meaning behind them) and syntagmatic (relationship between the images, how they correspond with each other) relationships between footage. Portrayed in the scenes involving the people working menial jobs in the factories and office buildings, followed by the artist Olivier de Sagazan, seemingly loosing his sanity by covering himself with clay and “disfiguring” himself. It makes us think about how we live, why do many of us work mindlessly unfulfilling jobs, is it human to do so?

On the other hand, “Samsara” has some emphasis on the four dimensions of editing. Graphic relations (transitions related to the image’s shape, colour, dynamic, etc.), are presented when there’s footage of hurricane Katrina, showing us the destruction through the image of an overturned car, the following image is one of a car lodged under a house. Rhythmic relations (the length of what is shown on the screen, fast or slow, controls how long we can observe the images.), are shown when we see the people on their commute to work, “fast forwarded” to give the impression of how fast life passes by without us realising it. Spatial relations (relates two points in space through similarity, difference, or development of the story.), at the beginning of the movie, we see Buddhists working on a sand mandala, towards the end we see them again, finishing their work, likewise to Ron Fricke’s film coming towards its end. Lastly temporal relations (move back or forward in time, ellipsis, expand time, repeat events.), throughout some of the cycles in the film, we see some footage of the desert, bringing the viewer to the end, and also the beginning of the cycle.

Unbalanced Life 

The film “Koyaanisqatsi” tells the story of the world that we live in and the disasters which are created by ourselves. During the film, various images and clips are put together with no words and only music. These images demonstrate how we live and destroy our world. The images that are seen during the film are those of cities and natural landscapes in the United States. The story is put together by the juxtaposition of images and music. The word “Koyaanisqatsi” in Hopi language means “Unbalanced Life” which is seen in the film by the explosions caused by the missiles and the demolitions of the housings in St. Louis. It was a special and interesting film to watch because it only in images and music which makes people think more and an image could mean much more than words. The film shows the viewer a state of life that calls for another way of living and conveys to the viewer that the world we live in is out of balance, in turmoil and disintegrating.

The main issue that are raised and shown through the juxtaposition of the images and music is the self-destruction of the modern world. The way that we live as a society and by the actions that we perform, we have created a life that is out of balance and in turmoil. The film begins with images of the undisturbed nature, including the clouds, waterfalls, the calm waters, an overview of the forests, caves and rocks in the desert and the images demonstrate the immense space which humans used to have. The music during the images are calming and that of tribal singing which changes and becomes more upbeat orchestra music when the images change to that of fuel-driven machines and the man made buildings and technology. The images of the many cars, buildings, skyscrapers, highways, factories, tanks, missiles and planes shows how the humans have damaged, used up and cluttered the original landscape. The humans have self-destructed the world from the creations of mass destructions weapons and the expansion of new roads and buildings that have destroyed the landscapes and natural environment. The film moves into the city where the overwhelming amounts of people are walking through the streets, the cars are in traffic on the highways, the buildings are massive and the technology and machines are controlling the humans. The music during the images of the humans and city are more upbeat and rapid. The images continue by showing the food, technology and buildings while also the occasional individual that we find who seems lost, strange, confused and not comfortable in their own environment.

The dimensions of editing are seen during the film, such as the graphic relations which is demonstrated by the constant overview of the cities and desert, and the colors in the film are vibrant and bright. The rhythmic relations are shown on the screen when the cars and the people are moving fast while at times the screen is slowing which is seen when the people are walking and staring at the camera. The spatial relations are demonstrated by the nature scenes continued by the scenes of the cities and people and finished by explosions and humans attempt at leaving earth. The temporal relations are shown as at the beginning tribal writings were on the cave walls and at the end the same images are seen.

The issue of self-destruction is raised also during the images of explosions of buildings and bridges which are clearly done by the human being. These images illustrate what we have done to our environment and that we are damaging and destroying our landscapes.

The film ends with the attempted escape into space showing how we are trying to leave from the world that we are destroying. 

A reflection between the eternal and the unbalanced life  

We can learn much about ourselves through both films. Although, both movies don’t have any dialogue, they both teach us a lot about how humans are today and what were doing to the planet.

In the movie “Samsara”, it makes us realize that everything comes in a full circle, that everything is born and dies, hence the name. The first film teaches us that we should always put our 100% into everything we do because our life on earth should not be wasted and that we won't be here forever. “Samsara” also makes us realize that although we might think everything is permanent, it is not. We have to appreciate everything while it lasts because it will not be there forever. In the second movie “Koyaanisqatsi”, it teaches us that planet Earth is no longer pure because we are destroying the planet little by little. Before we came along with our evolved technology, the world was beautiful and undisturbed. But when we did arrive, we destroyed the pureness of the planet. 

Therefore, both movies have a very similar message. “Samsara” and “Koyaanisqatsi” informs us that we are loosing our humanity and our connection with nature every single day. Not only does it makes us think about how we don’t give a care in the world on how we treat the planet but how we are no longer doing what we should be doing. We are slowly letting ourselves go by letting machines breed our animals. We don’t even need to have human relationships with a human anymore because someone invented the sex doll.

The filmmakers of both movies did an excellent job at passing their messages around without having to say a single word. They did an amazing job by using music as a tool to explain every image that they were showing to us during the movie. The filmmakers also took advantage of the silence to help us understand what they were showing us. However, there were a few scenes in both movies that were hard to interpret because they weren’t as obvious as most of the other images in the films. They held deeper meaning and you really had to think to understand them.

They challenge our understanding of the world by showing us images on what’s really happening today.  Both films make us realize things we grew up to ignore and forget about like global warming. It also makes us think about things we probably wouldn’t have thought about. “Samsara” and “Koyaanisqatsi” changes our way of thinking by making us open our eyes to see what’s really happening in our world. We can relate the messages of both films to most of our everyday life experiences. Both movies showed us that our humanity is fading away because of our evolution of technology. When you walk down the street during summer, you no longer see as many kids as we used to playing outside. Instead, they are inside watching television or playing on their iPads. Although, kids are not the only ones, adults do the exact same thing. When you go to the gym, you see televisions everywhere for people to watch when they exercise or you even see people texting while they're working out. We use our evolving technology for everything like communication. This is one of the many examples that both movies try to inform us about. 

The films "Samsara" and "Koyaanisqatsi" are about the evolution of life and how human beings have effected the expansion and development of the world. "Samsara" is about the cycle of life which deals with natural disasters and damages caused by humans while Koyaanisqatsi is about the unbalance life which deals with the self-destructions caused by humans. 

4 - Promoting Exclusion

By Razvan, Raoul and Luca

Where It Started

Have you ever gotten tired of all the gossiping when you were in high school? The much more subtle, popular, worldwide version of it is stereotypes. Information that takes one small element of truth and caricaturizes it to exclude groups out of the main group which is similar to high school in a way. Much of these stereotypes start or spread through the medium of films. The Celluloid Closet and Reel Injun are two films that closely analyze the stereotyping of homosexuality and Native Americans in Hollywood Cinema.

The Celluloid Closet

(Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, 1995, USA, 102 min.)

Numerous famous Hollywood actors by the likes of Whoopi Goldberg, Tom Hanks, Susan Sarandon, Quentin Crisp, and many more were interviewed throughout The Celluloid Closet on the subject of homosexuality in cinema. More precisely, they discussed how it is portrayed and how stereotypes become popular in our culture. Nonetheless, they also stated their desire to witness homosexuality in Hollywood movies to make this certain culture more accepted in today's society. The structure of the documentary comprised  eye-opening interviews with actors and writers alike who had the chance to explore homosexuality in cinema firsthand as well as short clips from relevant movies such as Philadelphia, Rope, Fried Green Tomatoes, and more.

            A key idea that was presented in the film was the three main types of homosexuals that have appeared in cinema through time. In order: the funny sissy, the poor victim and the bloodthirsty killer. It is interesting to see the evolution of these characters through time, but why did they change? Our take on it is that olden values were much more conservative in the West than they are today. Being gay was simply seen as an abomination, something unthinkable, so it could be used as an element of humor because it wasn’t so taboo. Later on, modernization of values may have caused people to see gays as a minority, yet they still pictured them as being sick and so they made the people believe they should be pitied. This movement of thought was kept for years to come.  People would believe that gays were meant to be feared, put away in jail or killed. This oppression had been transmitted to films by making them the victims.  Yet, some interviewed in the movie claimed their hunger for the presence of homosexual scenes in the movies. More precisely, the funny sissy who pointed out that even if the scene wasn't necessarily positive, having an homosexual scene is better than nothing. He also said that including funny sissy's in movies didn't bother him at all cause he claimed that he was indeed a sissy in everyday life. Nonetheless, nowadays when we look back at these movies, we realize that the personalities that were given to these characters were rather harsh. That is why the types of gays are mentioned in the first place – to realize how ridiculous characters managed to agitate society and actually create such stereotypes.
            Stereotypes are images or ideas that categorize groups based on few traits and that are widely agreed upon. What better way for these ideas to spread than through something as popular Hollywood movies? After all, one of the best ways to construct mental images about a group of people is to see them in culture – cinema in this case. Unfortunately, these stereotypes can lead to many misfortunes for the homosexuals in question. Not only do kids grow up to believe everything they see on television or in movies, parents can sometimes encourage the child to think in such way. For homosexuals, stereotypes can lead people to have misconceptions about them and truly believe that because of their sexual attraction, they can sometimes either be inadequate or incapable of certain tasks. Even worse, these stereotypes can lead people to judge a homosexual's personality and character in a negative way. Since it is uncommon even today to see homosexual people, it is hard to understand others by seeing them and being able to judge them yourself. And when receiving information about these people from others, it is usually something that they learned from culture as well. The film goes to show how the hegemony of the white heterosexual male seeks not to include people in groups, but rather to exclude them from their one dominant, standard, hegemonic group by giving them the characteristics of the misfits in movies. This is more specifically referred to as hegemonic masculinity. As mentioned in the film, homosexuality became so taboo that the Production Code had to become stricter to restrict how much people know about them. Since then, they have become a bit looser, but this brings back the ability to expand their negative image. In many cases today, movies such as Philadelphia also ends with the infamous ending of “the gay guy dying at the end.”

Reel Injun

(Neil Diamond, Catherine Bainbridge and Jeremiah Hayes, 2009, Canada, 85 min.)

Reel Injun takes on a similar format as The Celluloid Closet. Basically, short clips of actors, directors or other people involved in movies about American Indians. Between these interviews are short skits from several movies. The documentary argues that ever since the first “cowboys and Indians” movies came out, Native Americans have been falsely depicted in Hollywood cinema.

There are four levels to read people: role, individual, type and member. Normally, we should be able to only see what type of member a person is by looking at them. However, stereotypes in cinema can give false or misleading impressions about the truth. For example, instead of seeing someone as only a member of the Native American community, we judge them right away on the three other levels because of what we’ve seen in culture. We sometimes accredit them a type such as the drunkards, warriors, savages or the groovy, peaceful hippies. Types are general traits that we assign to a person. With the perception that people acquire of these Injuns from movies however, we sometimes prematurely and falsely label them. We also assign roles related to their social structure such as hunters and elders. And by doing so, we also identify them as individuals. For example, elders are all smart and all-knowing.

The movie essentially states that there have been several different depictions of Indians through time, all negative. First, there is the image of the Indian warrior. Since “Real Americans” first came and took over their lands, they are portrayed as fearless fighters willing to defend each other at any cost. This changes however as the aggressive trait of the warriors became more apparent in movies. The Indians in cinema had become savages. Obviously, this strongly affected American culture because it reinforced the belief that true Americans aren’t natives and natives stop them from moving forward.

The Oka Crisis as well was a big event in Quebec in 1990 where the city wanted to build a golf course over land that had been used by the Mohawks. This land even had a cemetery on it! As a result, media had to take the side of the government for the most part in order to not shock the international community. In this way, Mohawks were portrayed as not only warriors but also savages. Police and even the military were deployed during this conflict against people who were not really warriors but really just people trying to protect their ancestral lands. A famous picture circulated all around media of a stare-down between a member of the military and a Mohawk named Lasagna.

 Furthermore, Pocahontas claims to be a true movie about a native girl but really, it is just an American image of what kind of people natives are seen as. John Smith falls in love with Pocahontas who is really only a 9 year old girl! More stereotypes from Pocahontas can be seen here.

Later on, western movies gained unimaginable popularity in American culture. The typical stoic, impassible, silent cowboy(s) going up against the (still) savage, less technologically and socially advanced Indians in cowboys and Indians movies. Of course, the cowboys always won. Americans wouldn’t expect any less from such movies. And so as mentioned in Reel Injun, the motto became: “a good Injun is a dead Injun.” Some couldn’t even consider them human. It’s as if the reason they wanted to kill the natives was to erase the memory of what it used to be like to be human.

Then, around when the hippie movement came along, we started looking at the more peaceful side of American Indians, but in a very exaggerated way. It’s at this point that Indians started fighting more for their rights as well. In movies, they took on a more stoic, silent, peaceful image. To give one example of an inaccuracy, Indians only rarely wore headbands. Usually, they were for actors to keep their headdresses from falling, yet hippies were always seen wearing headbands such as natives in movies.

In the Real World...

            In general, the two films resembled each other in terms of the methods of sharing the information. The interviews were done with people who have all taken part or had a role to play in the issues presented by each film. The clips nicely complemented the interviews to give the viewer a more visually appealing experience while also serving as examples for the words of each interviewee.

            Each film offers an enlightening perspective to understand the stereotype and hegemony issues present in the movie industry and that are transmitted to North American culture as well as the rest of the world. Stereotypes are not something that we necessarily realize are wrong or offensive about a certain group of people until the targeted group speaks out.

We are conditioned to believe what we see in culture. It makes us think: how many of these stereotypes could we possibly have? More importantly, how did the white heterosexual male become the hegemonic group and why do we, as humans, have a reflex to exclude people that don’t belong to this category with the use of stereotypes?

            What would be interesting to see though is how this hegemony would be different from one place to another, how the taboo from one place can be considered completely normal in another. For example, how would a white man be seen living in a country in Sub-Saharan Africa other than maybe South Africa? How would a heterosexual male be seen in the Gay Village or how would a man be perceived if he was fighting for women’s rights?

            These movies teach us to start paying more attention to the things we learn from culture and how sometimes we can use it against others, although we do not want to. We should be able to tell only what kind of member a person is when looking at them, not what kind of role, type or individual. That is up to each person to discover about others.

            It is sad to see the new Russian anti-gay law as well. Not only does this law show great discrimination toward the LGBT group, but often things like this can go two ways: why does the rest of the world sometimes judge the Russian population as a whole? We say Russians are intolerant and drink vodka all day, Colombians are all violent and involved in drug trafficking, Eastern Europeans are poor and filthy, French people drink wine and eat baguettes, Canadians are all peaceful and ride polar bears… These stereotypes however are nothing that can put you in jail. This all started somewhere. Here is a map of LGBT rights around the world.

Staying Alert

We can see how stereotypes in The Celluloid Closet and Reel Injun are really actually present in the real world too. In general, it is good to be more aware of the information we receive about other people in order to still stay open-minded to the differences that exist between them. A more educated, alert population would help from wrongfully spreading “rumors” about other members. What if you were the only human in a population of aliens?

1. ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=artspapers

2. http://nativeamericanstereotypesinchildrensmedia.wikispaces.com/Stereotypes+in+Movies-+Pocahontas

3. http://www.simplypsychology.org/stereotype.jpg

3 - The Power of Fear

by Jacob, Merna and Juliana

Fight or Flight?

Fear is a strong, uncontrollable, unpleasant emotion caused by actual or perceived danger or threat. Lately, fear has become a value in our daily life. Our life, that should be full of joy and peace, is actually full of threat, terror, and fear. We tend to fear anything and everything these days. We fear death, losing a job, or even losing a beloved one but, what we fear the most is fear itself. When we were young, our parents used to scare us so we would listen to what they have to say. They would tell you “hey don’t do this. Don’t get yourself into trouble, respect the rules” and if we didn’t listen we were punished. They were thinking that they were protecting us, but actually they were feeding us with fear so we would learn how to deal with real life. In reality, fear is part of your circulatory system.  So your heart feels it, your brain understands it, your lungs breathe it and your body can’t live without it. Thus, fear is controlling your thoughts and blinding your vision, it becomes easy to deceive and manipulate you. In Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 we see good examples of how fear is used to dominate and impose authority over innocent people just for the benefit of the elite.

Michael Moore has been accused of inciting fear in Americans with his documentaries. His outspoken dislike for American politics and culture have made him notorious filmmaker and his bias is also apparent on his website.

Michael Moore's Website

 

 

Bowling for Columbine

 (Michael Moore, 2002, USA, 120 min)

The film “Bowling for Columbine” is an American documentary written, directed and narrated by Michael Moore. He investigates the Columbine High School Massacre on April 20^th 1999 and relates the cause of it to the history of violence in the United States and the maltreatment of firearms. He shows that obtaining a gun and ammunition is relatively easy. For example, a bank gives free guns to customers who open a bank account with their branch. He also shows how easy it is to walk into K-Mart and buy all the ammunition one could possibly imagine. He uses statistics and interviews many people such as Charlton Heston, former president of the National Rifle Association, a few Canadian teenagers in a Taco Bell parking lot and two students from the Columbine shooting to get public opinions on firearms and their relevance in society. He even interviews singer-songwriter Marilyn Manson, suspected “cause of the Columbine shooting” to get his point of view. Furthermore, he uses his signature sense of angry humor to persuade the audience and present his stand on the matter. 

  

Upon viewing of the documentary film “Bowling for Columbine”, the main issue raised by Michael Moore is that the level of gun control in the United States is out of hand, and that you cannot place firearms in the hands of civilians that are scared because they will use them recklessly. For example, Michael Moore interviewed a blind man and he said he felt most comfortable with a rifle in his hands. Another example is throughout the entire animated clip of the U.S.’s history, the character narrating the animation spoke about how the “white man” was scared, which is why they had wars and enslaved African Americans.  

However, Michael Moore’s way of presenting the documentary was somewhat biased. He only showed the audience what they wanted to see, that owning guns are dangerous and it creates problems rather then solutions for the population of America. A good example of this is when he interviewed Charlton Heston. Moore went through many questions with Heston, and one of his answers was completely outrageous. The question asked was “Why has the U.S. ended up as the country with the highest number of gun-related killings on earth?” and Heston’s response went something along the lines that the United States is very multicultural and it has to do with the mixed ethnicity (black people). This answer is completely ridiculous because Canada is just as multicultural as the U.S. but is much more peaceful. 

The weekly topic this week was Rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art of organizing a discourse in order to express oneself, to convince or to persuade people. In our class discussion, we spoke about the three forms or rhetoric, Logos, Ethos and Pathos. Logos is the reasoning to construct an argument. Michael Moore presented a few numbers and facts in his documentary but could have added a little more to prove his point. Ethos is believing someone because of their credibility, or of their social position. The director had some really justifiable arguments but at the same time, they were biased. For example, to prove to the audience that many people possessed a firearm in the United States, he interviewed the owner of a shooting range. Finally, Pathos is appealing to our emotions to alter the viewer’s judgment. Michael Moore did a splendid job of this, especially with one of the scenes close to the end. Right after he interviews the former president of the NRA, he places a picture of the six year old girl shot by another six year old, at the end of Charlton Heston’s driveway to signify that having a gun rally in the same town, several days after her death was not okay. These concepts apply directly to the film because that is all the director was doing. He was trying to persuade his audience into believing guns cause problems rather than create solutions.

Fahrenheit 9/11

(Michael Moore, 2004, USA, 122 min)

The film "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore criticizes the Bush administration and its reasons for invading Iraq. Throughout the film Michael Moore emphasizes the fear that Bush used to fuel the ill will of American citizens toward Iraq.  Moore uses the film to expose what he sees as the fear propaganda that the Bush administration spread with lies and exaggerations about the role Iraq played in the September 11, 2001 tragedy at the World Trade Center in New York City. Micheal Moore uses a voice over narrative to give the audience his perspective on the events that lead up to and followed after 9/11. The film unfolds with Moore stringing together interviews with both high-ranking individuals in government and everyday citizens, as well, he adds a variety of facts relating to significant dates and events. All of these elements come together to tell his opinion of how and why 9/11 happened. Moore also shows footage that is meant to shock and outrage the viewer, such as that of soldiers who are seriously wounded being carried into a hospital in Iraq.

                                                         

 He uses all three rhetoric styles to make his point. He uses logos to persuade us when he includes film footage of real events and interviews with both everyday people and experts who were associated with the events. Everything he uses, however, is all to show his bias against Bush. For example, he includes video footage of President George Bush and his father George Bush senior, shaking hands with members of Osama Bin Laden's family over oil deals to suggest that the Bush family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family when it suited them. He uses ethos to portray George Bush as incompetent. For instance, he shows Bush's reaction to the news that two airplanes have flown into the Twin Towers in New York City. As Bush sits for nine minutes, Moore refers to as "a deer in headlights". Moore questions why Bush does nothing, and narrates what he thinks could be going through Bush's mind based on his inaction and the look on his face.  His narrative rhetoric  makes Bush appear to be an inept leader. 

                                                   

While he uses the ethos and logos, Moore's rhetoric address is mainly pathos; he uses scenes that appeal to alter the viewers sense of justice and need for safety, ultimately convincing the viewer that Bush is a threat to them.   For example, the film opens with darkness and the sounds of sirens and screams of 9/11 to grab our attention and heighten our emotions. Immediately, we feel the fear and terror of that event. He uses the power of the tragedy to boost American patriotism, and then he points the finger at Bush as the cause for the tragedy of 9/11 and the war that followed. 

Genres of Documentary Rhetoric

Moore's opinion is the center of the film and many people criticized him for his bias. His rhetoric pathos style is an attempt to manipulate us. His rhetoric pushes us to consider whether or not his accusations against Bush are true. Even if some parts are clearly exaggerated, we are left thinking that there must be some truth in it because the footage he uses comes from real events and he interviews credible people. Throughout, Moore's message is anti-Bush and he twists many well-known film clips to prove his view of the Bush administration. Many of the scenes and/or dialogues are edited to help him make his point. Everything was carefully chosen to show one side of the story and he only uses the answers that agreed with his perspective. 

Manipulative media 

The aim of these two documentaries is to present the psychology of American people and American society as well. By revealing the inequality lived by most of the Americans and the kind of education they receive at school, we see how Moore is trying to show how power and politics use moral beliefs and strict political education to create fear. He uses a political fear of the unknown - such as Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism - to ensure that Americans follow the plan of the government. Corey Robin, an American journalist and political theorist, says in his book “Fear: the History of Political Ideas”: “...if we deprive of these surrounding myths, if we deprive the fear aroused by 9/11 of political ballast, perhaps we will see more clearly what our assumptions have long obscured the repressive fear of elites experienced by American men and women as they go to work, learn in school, haggle with officials, and participate in the organizations that comprise our associated life. Perhaps how fear of terrorism is being used to recognize the structure of power in American society (25)”. We are humans and we easily forget. Thus, by creating an inequality within Americans, we tend to go in a long journey where only fear remains in the heart.

Documentary films present a type of art used to portray the truth according to the vision of the filmmaker. Michael Moore used rhetoric to present the idea of how governments use fear to get public support. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, Moore based his epistemology on weak ethos just to deceive and persuade the audience to convince them with his opinion. For example, he interviewed Matt Stone, an animator and screenwriter, who had nothing to do with the crime but he was useful for Moore's purposes. The main technique in this film is pathos. He manipulates our emotions so we feel pity, sadness, happiness and even feel horrified.

On the other hand, Fahrenheit 9/11 is more credible and supported with strong ethos, pathos and logos. This is because Moore interviewed credible people like congressmen and women. In addition, his arguments were supported with documents that prove his claims. For example, he proved that George Bush didn’t finish his military recruitment in the air force guard. Like Bowling for Columbine, he used his technique of appealing on people emotions to attract their attention.

After watching these movies, you realize that you shouldn’t trust the media. It would be best to keep your eyes wide open so you avoid their manipulation. The filmmakers are trying to provide us with the “truth” of a situation, an event or even of politics but that truth will always be according to their point of view and their culture and values. In our world, truth is always relative depending on how you want it to be. In 2004, after the attack on Iraq a lot of documentaries came out talking about the war of Iraq such like Control Room which was talking about how fox news was telling Americans that they were fighting terrorism and liberating the Iraqi people of a dictator, while Aljazeera was reporting to Arabs that the liberation was a disaster and was imposing American dominance over the Iraqi nation.

Control Room 

Providing a New Way to see the World

Media is a double-edged weapon; it is used to elevate the human being or to captivate and cage each one of us. It is important to be aware of what is happening around you, but it is also important to understand and negotiate.  Movies are not made to only please, but are also made to provide us with a new understanding of the world we are living in.

 

  Fear is gripping! Anthropologists have studied the fight or flight response that our ancestors needed

in order to survive. Michael Moore is showing us how that survival instinct can be used to benefit the agenda of others in his films. Ironically, he is also advancing his own agenda through his rhetoric style.  His criticisms of government and leadership have resulted in much controversy. We must be aware of his bias and reflect on the message we are given. At the same time, we must recognize that it is important to scrutinize what we are told by world governments. Julian Assange has shown us that we have much to learn about hidden agendas. He is the founder of Wikileaks which is a website that releases private documents with the goal of exposing corruption, unethical  practices, and questionable protocols by institutions around the world.

The Pathos, Ethos, and Logos of Wikileaks

                                                                         
 Picture Credits:
 http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/fear2.htm
www.stefan-rohner.net  
sylarthemaverick.blogspot.com 
 www.dailyhiit.com
www.carrickbaptist.ie