By Satya Sagar

Why does Michael Moore call his film more entertaining than political?

"The reason why I believe I've had this very fortunate success...is because I actually put the entertainment and the art before the politics... It's very hard for someone on the professional Left to put anything ahead of the politics, and that's why they lose out." -- US documentary maker Michael Moore talking to the BBC about his latest work Fahrenheit 9/11 .

As much as I know that Michael Moore's heart is in the right place I cannot but squirm at his choice of words to describe Fahrenheit 9/11 . Has Moore really put 'entertainment and art before his politics'? And what does that really mean? Why is someone like Moore, who seems to sleep, eat and breathe politics, so coy about describing Fahrenheit 9/11 as a 'political' film? Are entertainment, art and politics three distinct entities? What is all this about the 'professional Left' losing out because it always puts its politics ahead of everything else? And finally, of course, is it really necessary to ask all these questions -- why not just sit back and enjoy the much-deserved bashing of Bush Jr that Fahrenheit 9/11 seems to be well and truly doing?

I think finding answers to all these questions is important, simply because of the way entertainment and art are so closely intertwined with politics in our world today.

Political power in our age flows not just from any old barrel of the gun, but one camouflaged by an entire cabaret of mass communicators -- media hacks, musicians, movie artists and other assorted makers of modern myths. Therefore, at the risk of being dubbed precisely the kind of leftwing pedant that Moore looks down upon, I am willing to stick my neck out to take a closer look at 'entertainment', 'art', 'politics' as well as the Left's alleged inability to bend or blend in with the trend.

Firstly, a few words about Fahrenheit 9/11 . Going by its contents and the strong passions it is arousing in the US , Moore 's documentary is nothing if not a deeply political piece of work. The fact that it is very viewable, witty and technically well done only adds to the impact of its message, which is surely all about politics in the United States . As Moore himself says in several interviews, his film aims at 'regime change' in the US (all power to him in this mission). So why is Moore telling us that it is the 'entertainment' part somehow that is more important to him than the 'politics' of the film? I understand he is trying to play to as wide a gallery as possible, but is it really necessary to sacrifice all depth for mere breadth? Surely he knows that prioritising entertainment before politics is not necessarily a virtue on its own -- for something can be profoundly entertaining while being totally wrong with its politics ( Terminator II , for example, or for that matter Bush Jr). In fact, much of the modern entertainment industry is precisely all about keeping its audiences amused, tickled, titillated and completely clueless about the realities of the world we live in. The way Moore frames the issue -- about whether the 'entertainment' should come first or the 'politics' -- sounds too much like the horse-and-cart question. I would argue that there is no need for a cart in all this, the horse -- representing both politics and art rolled into one -- is enough to straddle the subject and also make it run.

Sure, I know what Moore is really trying to say. And that is the way sections of the Left often express themselves. They are too pedantic, dull and boring to be understood by the very people they want to reach out to. Moore has a very valid and important point to make here for those who take life a mite too seriously. What he describes as the Left always putting 'politics' before 'entertainment' is often really activists trying to explain the abstract 'big picture' without the tangible 'little men/women' anywhere in sight. All 'humanity', no 'human beings'. But, is it easy and possible to always talk, write or wittily portray something like the horrors of the US invasion of Iraq , the potential threat to life on earth from global warming or the decimation of sub-Saharan Africa by poverty, conflict and disease? Or, for that matter, colourfully describe the devastation of low-income families by unemployment, or the desperation of the elderly facing cutbacks in healthcare? Anyone who has been close witness to the predations of mindless war or endless want is not going to be able to speak about it for a long time, let alone articulate their thoughts in artful terms. To expect people deeply involved with the problems of the world to always sport a smile and drop that scowl can be a bit unrealistic.

Having said that, I support Moore 's point that good politics should also be exciting. After all it is the love of life, the passion and enthusiasm of many activists that inspires others to join their movement. Again, lots of activists reaching out to mass audiences do take that extra effort to lighten up complex concepts, drop the jargon and explain things in simple English. In other words, good communicators from the Left often focus on the 'fun' part of the 'fundamentals' of whatever they are trying to convey. Yet, it is unfortunately true that some on the Left frequently come across as all too cold and cerebral for ordinary mortals to understand or empathise with. There is an urgent need for the Left to put folks with specific names, faces and addresses back into their political equations. We need a little more physics and chemistry out there when it comes to mass movements of the Left, and a little less mathematics.

Having emphasised the need to communicate effectively I would caution that in no way should this need supercede the necessity of always sticking to the facts or making as precise an analysis as possible in any given situation. For otherwise one ends up with a message that reaches large numbers of people but whose quality is so bad that it should never have got out in the first place. If creative expression makes good politics palatable, then it is accurate content that makes it easily digestible (no simple recipes, the truth is not always tasty). As someone working in the field of mass communication I know the temptations that members of my profession face to sex up the facts, spice up a story with song and dance or drown out those annoying little details that come in the way of smooth delivery. By the time these guys finish tailoring their tale, it is as smart and slick as an Enron executive and equally incredible. I am not sure if Moore does any of the above in his documentary, but putting 'entertainment above politics' is sometimes code for taking liberties with the truth ('if it makes the bad guys look bad go ahead and do it'). While it may be true that God made Bush Jr for all of us to take potshots at, simplifying the truth is unfortunately a game everyone can play and the guys with better resources and broadcast power will always win out in the long run.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is really another example of how a lot of so-called 'cultural activity' these days is actually politics by proxy, just as what is commonly called 'politics' has more cultural content embedded in it than is usually understood. It is in this terrain of culture transformed into politics that Moore 's documentary is clashing head-on with mainstream cultural products and their political messages -- wielding their own choice weapon against them.

While no movie, however well done, can substitute for actual movements of people fighting for change, Fahrenheit 9/11 shows it can certainly set the political Bush on fire.

--Satya Sagar is a writer, video maker and journalist based in Thailand . He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it