In a striking intersection of politics and cinema, George W. Bush earned a Razzie for his infamous performance in a documentary that boasts an impressive 82% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. This film, Michael Moore's groundbreaking 2004 documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," serves as an unflinching examination of the emotions and frustrations prevalent in the United States during the tumultuous George W. Bush presidency. Moore adeptly unravels the various blunders and misguided wartime decisions made by Bush, illustrating how he exploited anti-terrorism language to justify unnecessary military interventions across the Middle East.
The atmosphere during this period was charged; public sentiment was divided, with some citizens feeling despondent about the future, while others embraced an aggressive attitude towards America's military identity. The popular anthems of the day echoed a sentiment more aligned with "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way" rather than protests calling for peace.
In "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore stitches together some of President Bush's most cringeworthy moments, zeroing in on his speaking style that often came off as nasal, uncertain, and inarticulate. He attempted to project an image of toughness, claiming that people were either "with us or with the terrorists," but to many, including Moore, he appeared more like a fumbling schoolyard bully than a decisive leader. Moore's hopes to sway voters away from re-electing Bush fell flat, despite the film’s passionate intent.
One of the film's most damning sequences captures Bush's reaction upon learning that two planes had struck the World Trade Center. Instead of taking decisive action, he remained seated in a classroom, awkwardly listening to a story being read to children, seemingly paralyzed by indecision.
In a rather surprising twist, the Golden Raspberry Awards, typically seen as a humorous critic of Hollywood's worst films, chose to honor Moore's documentary by awarding Bush the Razzie for Worst Actor. This perplexing accolade underlines the absurdity of the situation and signifies a condemnation of both the man and the message behind Moore's film.
It’s worth noting that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a commercial success, grossing over $222 million against its modest $6 million budget. Moore, having already won an Academy Award for his previous documentary "Bowling for Columbine," carved out a niche for himself as a strong voice for the working-class Left, especially after his breakout film "Roger & Me" in 1989. His television endeavors, including "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth," showcased his unique blend of satirical commentary and activism, as he frequently confronted corporate leaders regarding social injustices. While not everyone admired Moore's audacious approach and anecdotal reporting, his influence on progressive commentary was undeniable.
Moore's disdain for George W. Bush is palpable. Elected under controversial circumstances and even losing the popular vote, Bush faced the grim scenario of the 9/11 attacks during his administration and made a series of disastrous decisions in their aftermath. The wars that were initiated would linger for decades. Osama bin Laden would evade capture until the Obama administration, and American forces would not withdraw from Afghanistan until Biden's presidency. With a clear intention, Moore sought to document what he perceived as a series of unforced errors and blatant lies from Bush regarding the War on Terror in his film. While it was just a documentary, it represented a louder resistance against the status quo within the government at that time.
The Razzies, while generally apolitical and focusing on comedic critiques of Hollywood's less-than-stellar productions, decided to take a stand with "Fahrenheit 9/11." If their role was to highlight the year's most unfavorable portrayals, then George W. Bush was an obvious target for their satire, marking a bold statement against an administration perceived as overstepping its boundaries.
But Bush wasn’t alone in the Razzie spotlight. In total, "Fahrenheit 9/11" garnered three Razzies, with Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense, receiving the Razzie for Worst Supporting Actor. Rumsfeld was a figure known for his cryptic, poetic speech patterns and his fervent, pro-war stance. His failed strategy during the post-9/11 conflict is explored in Errol Morris' documentary "The Unknown Known." Additionally, Bush shared the Razzie for Worst Screen Couple with Condoleezza Rice, who served as the Secretary of State at the time. This was a departure from the Razzies' typical focus on films like Martin Brest's "Gigli," as they chose to make a statement against the people in power during a pivotal historical moment. Was this approach gimmicky? Certainly. Did it resonate with audiences? Absolutely.
Michael Moore has not softened his stance since then. His works continue to critique corporate greed, flawed social programs, and politicians who uphold detrimental ideologies. Films like 2007's "Sicko" focus on the failures of the American healthcare system, while 2009's "Capitalism: A Love Story" scrutinizes the economic crisis of 2008 that stemmed from policies enacted during Bush's presidency. In 2018, Moore revisited his critical style with "Fahrenheit 11/9," a biting indictment of Donald Trump and his many controversial actions.
Interestingly, Trump would also receive a Razzie for his performance in "Fahrenheit 11/9," further demonstrating how cinematic critiques can blur the lines between entertainment and political commentary. What are your thoughts on how politics influences film and vice versa? Do you believe that documentaries like Moore’s truly change public perception, or do they merely reinforce existing beliefs? Let us know in the comments!
