Does Moore have his finger on the pulse of the nation?

Published on September 6, 2004 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

I finally got one of the statistics I wanted to see for a long time: the domestic gross for Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" came in at $118 million dollars. While this is impressive for a "documentary" (although I really wish they'd quit calling it that), I think a fair analysis of the numbers are in order for those who insist that the numbers show the majority of Americans to believe Moore's view:

*Assuming a ticket price of $7 a ticket (averages are higher than this, I believe; I haven't been to a movie in a long time), this translates to fewer than 17 million tickets sold.

*Assuming that everyone went to see the movie only once, this translates to just over 6 percent of the population.

*The above number doesn't factor in spouses taking their spouses with opposing views to the movie to try to prove to them that Bush is who Moore says he is. It also doesn't take into account students who were encouraged to watch it as an extra credit assignment, or conservatives who saw it just to find talking points to disprove.

*There were also individuals who went to see it as many times as they could; I know of at least one.

While 6 percent of the population is a sizable faction, it does not represent anywhere close to a majority. And my suspicions, for the reasons stated above, would be that the numbers are more like 2-3 % of the population that actually support Moore's flawed analysis. There's no real way of telling, but the fact remains that Moore's movie does not represent a mandate for this, or any president.

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments (Page 2)

Angloesque

on Sep 06, 2004

Yes (she says pompously), hear hear. I will cite the IPSOA from now on whenever I am challenged to find a source for which I am to lazy to dig.

Marvin Cooley

on Sep 07, 2004

YOU FINALLY GOT SOMETHING RIGHT, GIDEON. MOORE IS A JACKASS WHO IS ONLY HELPING THE CANDIDATE HE WANTS TO DEFEAT.

kingbee

on Sep 07, 2004

MOORE IS A JACKASS WHO IS ONLY HELPING THE CANDIDATE HE WANTS TO DEFEAT

ahhh the ol 'turn-it-around-180degrees-to-find-the-"real"-truth' principle in action!

couchman

on Sep 07, 2004

Lol....Gideon....I always like your articles and responses....I'm not disappointed I see by your latest article......

The only thing Moore has a finger on is his ability to make lies, half-truths, and ineuendo commercially sucessful to an extent..

Personaly, I tried a few times to disect Moore's beliefs (political, artistic, etc) and the only thing I did was receive a major headache....and kept going in circles.....

Frankly I will never see a Moore movie...never contribute a penny to his bank account...If someone gave me a copy of F-9-11 I would take it out to the gun range and use it for target practice like I did when a friend bought me a copy of Hillary's book.....

It is amazing how McCain pegged Moore right during the convention as 'disengenuious'...with one word he described Moore perfectly

Insightful

on Sep 07, 2004

Creative viewpoint Gideon. Never thought of gathering stats of that topic.
hmmmmmm! Interesting indeed.
I wonder what the total might be after the release of Video, DVD.........and of course, there is no way of tracking the, Downloads.

I'll look forward to read that info, should you get it.
Lots of work, huh?

Insightful

on Sep 07, 2004

Alderaic

on Sep 08, 2004

gross is after theater share so it is not quite true numbers, ie gross is what the theaters gave him, so it could be as low as 1$ per entry (theater share may vary according on company etc.. for exemple lucas was asking for 50% for Star wars ep2 or something like that )

or it last gross used to be that number

Alderaic

on Sep 08, 2004

at least, not it last, sorry for the typo

CrispE

on Sep 08, 2004

Gideon:

I think you have some problems calculating $7 as the ticket price. Prices where I live for a matinee (that's when I saw it) were $4 and there are places that are cheaper. Second run theaters get as little as $1.50 and all of it counts.

I don't think the "proof in the pudding" is about what Moore had in the film about Bush per se but rather about the political system. He portrays it as "out of touch with the people" and "a system unto itself" which I do think resonates with many Americans.

As for changing the election, it will be a factor, but not a large one. No one will say "I have to vote Kerry because I saw Fahrenheit 9/11" nor will they vote Bush because of it.

I do find one thing interesting though. Moore focuses more than half the flick on Flint. Michigan (his sometimes hometown) and it's my understanding Bush is behind in Michigan. But I suppose the high unemployment rate and lack of health care among the poor have more to do with it.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 08, 2004

think you have some problems calculating $7 as the ticket price. Prices where I live for a matinee (that's when I saw it) were $4 and there are places that are cheaper. Second run theaters get as little as $1.50 and all of it counts.

average ticket prices nationwide are over $7 last I checked. These are from reliable sources (some parts of the country are more than $10). And the gross is counted as the total take of the movie, not the amount the theaters give. This is why a movie needs to make 3-4 times its production cost in order to turn a profit. For the record, the studios determine how much the theaters pay them, not the theaters. This is why so many movie showings don't allow passes

At any rate, I personally know individuals who saw the movie 5 times or more (they considered it "voting with their wallet"). They are likely in the minority, but they are there. For that reason, I stand behind my percentage figures (another reason I estimated at 2-3% rather than a flat 2%...it also factors in the second run theaters)

but, for the sake of argument, let's assume everyone saw the movie only once and that only those who are ideologically aligned with Moore saw it (both statistically unlikelihoods), then 6% of the population saw it. That's fewer people than voted for Ross Perot in 1992.

Bungy32

on Sep 08, 2004

Interesting point, Gideon. But I have reservations about the assumptions undergirding your methodology. I decided to test it out on another hot topic film of the past year.

The domestic gross for "The Passion of the Christ" was an impressive $370,274,604. Preserving all of your assumptions (even though we know some people were taken to the film by caring relatives and others saw it many times), I am able to conclude that 17.6% of the country saw this film. Could I also then assume that only 17.6% of the US is Christian? I am not even factoring in the number of theaters it showed in or the differential in advertising budgets or the staggering difference in cost of production. Qualifier, qualifier, qualifier.

If only 17.6% of us are Christians, why do we constantly assert that the majority of us are Christians? Should the Christian views of such an apparent minority guide our policies?

Of course I don't really think that the Christian (even evangelical) population is so low in this country. Nor do I think the number of people sympathetic to (some of) Moore's point of view is only 6%. But I am sure it is comforting for some to think that way, and so much more comforting when you can generate a number to support it.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 08, 2004

First, I didn't say that the number of people sympathetic to some of Moore's point of view is only 6%. I was discounting the importance it has been given by media pundits. My analysis was to counter the seemingly prevalent assumption that the gate off of this film somehow represented a mandate for the nation.

I am not even factoring in the number of theaters it showed in or the differential in advertising budgets or the staggering difference in cost of production.

Good, because those numbers do not affect the GROSS of a film. Gross is income BEFORE expenses, just so you know.

Frankly, I don't see where you're going with your argument except to rebuke me for daring to suggest that we shouldn't crown Michael Moore king just yet. What I provided was a reasonable analysis to estimate how many people actually viewed this film as a percentage of the population; there is no way to tell how many are ideologically aligned with Moore.

If this is going to turn into a "Michael Moore is right" debate, I would suggest it would make a better topic for your own blog. If this was about a challenge to my thesis (that Fahrenheit 9/11 hasn't had the impact that liberals have stated it has had), then I suggest you go after the facts. In no way did my numbers construe that only 6% of Americans are liberals. Frankly, I know many liberals who wouldn't go see a Michael Moore film if you paid their way and offered them a Swedish back massage after. My numbers were a statistical analysis of the impact of this film as a percentage of the nation, that's all, nothing more.

Alderaic

on Sep 09, 2004

also it would be smarter to consider the age of the population going to see the movie and also the population aged enough to vote.

a lot of things to compute as it means that mostly people going to see this movie are not teenagers and are able to vote usually.

then with only that it can go up to 10% instead of 6

Bungy32

on Sep 09, 2004

"Good, because those numbers do not affect the GROSS of a film. Gross is income BEFORE expenses, just so you know."

Granted. Good thing I wasn't considering those factors, as I said. Of course, I was pointing them out at the same time I was dismissing them. Naughty me!

"If this is going to turn into a "Michael Moore is right" debate, I would suggest it would make a better topic for your own blog."

No, my point is not that "Michael Moore" is always and only right, Gideon. I'll be glad to save that assessment for elsewhere. [Insert plug for my blog here.]

My point is that, just as perhaps the media may be overstating the case for the political effects of Moore's film, your use of numbers here may be similarly misleading. If film viewership indicates (or even just challenges) level of support for a particular view, then shouldn't that be true for other, comparable films? Since I think we can agree that 17.6% is substantially lower than the actual percentage of Christians (or even just evangelicals) in this country, perhaps we could grant the same possibility to your 6% figure for Moore support.

Of course, calling "Passion of the Christ" a "comparable film" may raise some hackles, so let me clarify: despite their ideological differences -- or the ideological differences of the audiences they potentially appeal to -- there are significant similarities between "Farenheit 9/11" and "The Passion of the Christ."

*Both faced distributions hassles that seem to have ultimately served as publicity instruments.
*Both had political and private interest groups organizing mass screenings and discussions.
*Both encountered support and challenges to their "R" ratings. (In both cases that the importance of their content outweighed the violence they depict and that they should have a PG13 rating.)
*Both created quite a lot protest about their content. -- a lot of that from folks who refused to see the film.
*Both did exceptionally well at the box office for what they are -- that is, "Farenheit 9/11" was one of the highest money-maiking documentaries of all times; "The Passion of the Christ" was one of the highest money-making Hollywood features to use subtitles.
*Both directors are controversial figures, adding to the furor over each film by their comments in interviews.

For all that, I think it is important to note that the viewership of "The Passion of the Christ" is almost three times that of "Farenheit 9/11." Make of that what you will.

Now come on, Gideon, if you can't see where I am going with this argument or that it is relevant to your exercise above, then I don't think you are trying very hard. You mobilized this number-crunching as a "reality check" on (supposedly) the media's assertions of Moore's influence in America. Most of the comments that have followed your post have cheered (with a few corrections and questions about the average cost of a film) your conclusions. For example, JillUser writes: "Anyone who doesn't just regurgitate statistics but takes those statistics and applies them to reality has my respect." I simply wondered if that same method could be applied to a different film -- one where I assumed some (many?) of the supporters of your logic and conclusions might disagree with the the low number it generates.

As I stated in the beginning, I question the assumptions undergirding your methodology. What claims can you really make from the number you generate this way? Does the method hold in other circumstances? Don't dismiss this strategy or spank me and send me back to my own blog. I am following your own guidelines for debate.

In the end, I find your exercise and the 6% figure it generates interesting. Elegant, even. But also in need of some critical qualifications.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 09, 2004

No, my point is not that "Michael Moore" is always and only right, Gideon. I'll be glad to save that assessment for elsewhere. [Insert plug for my blog here.]

First of all, by all means, feel free to use my blog to promote your article once you get it together. Frankly, I would like to see a fan of Moore's analysis pull together a strong defense for the quite credible questions raised by critics, and I will be glad to help you promote it.

In the end, I find your exercise and the 6% figure it generates interesting. Elegant, even. But also in need of some critical qualifications

I didn't promote this as hard statistical facts; it was, in fact, a statistical analysis to combat the claims that many left wingers have of Moore's national credibility. Quite frankly, he doesn't have it to the degree that many pundits seem to believe. I have actually given the critical qualifications, and allowed for a margin of error. In a country of almost 300 million people, a 1% variance represents 3 million people.

To that end, though, I continually stand by the fact that qualifications need to be provided by Moore's apologists as well. I KNOW for a fact people who were drawn along by their liberal spouses "just to show you". I KNOW for a fact people who have seen it multiple times (the most extreme example I can personally provide is the guy who saw it five times over a weekend). I also KNOW for a fact that there are people with conservative ideology who went to see the film just to be able to analyze it. All three of those are statistical variables.

If I were to only include those who were voting age in my statistics, then you throw in another variable. There were certainly people under voting age that went to see the movie.

In the end, completely hard statistics on something this big are hard to come by. But I think my figure of 2-3% that hold hard to Moore's ideology is a reasonable number (actually, I consider it high; my personal theory about groupthink is that 10% of the group is actually doing the thinking, the other 90% are doing the following; this would place the numbers of Moore idealogues well under 1%. But since that is a theory with no statistical base, I can't include that in my stats).

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!