Given all the anti-Bush sentiment in Brazil, I had expected the documentary film "Fahrenheit 9/11" to receive even greater acclaim here than it did in the United States and Europe. After all, it presents a scathing critique of someone whom most Brazilians consider to be an unscrupulous and incompetent leader.

But the press here crucified the film and even in progressive circles it became in fashion to criticize it. Why? After all, it won the top prize at Cannes. In research done by "Editor and Publisher" magazine, 56 of 63 American film critics praised the film.

The Brazilian press reached a far harsher conclusion. In Folha de S. Paulo one columnist compared the film to "the propaganda films of Stalin or Hitler" and another called it "tendentious" and "packed with lies, but historic."

In "Estado de S. Paulo," a columnist called it "Manichean" and a critic called it "manipulative" and "self-declared political pamphlet."

In "O Globo," an opinion-page writer claimed the film was only "lies" and "distortions," and called it "garbage." So did a critic in "Bravo" magazine, who also called Michael Moore "the perfect idiot."

Many of my progressive Brazilian friends also called the film "political propaganda" although some liked it despite this "defect." And a friend who teaches cinema at a Rio de Janeiro university said the film divided his 300 students into two arguing groups, a majority who called the film "manipulative," and a minority that praised it.

Perhaps Americans and Brazilians reacted so differently to the film because of clashing cultural values. In the United States, there exists a long tradition of advocacy journalism, a declared, usually progressive, editorial position found in certain films, books, newspapers and magazines.

This form of journalism - more of a dense essay than an investigation - argues that the hidden, built-in point of view of the mainstream media causes it to ignore, distort or trivialize the news. So advocacy journalism must fill that media vacuum with a lucid, alternative voice.

Moore's film did that in an extremely playful and entertaining way. It also provided something most documentaries don't - new documents. It provided the only footage of Bush sitting paralyzed in front of an elementary school class for seven minutes after the second airplane hit the World Trade Center.

Why? The American mainstream media was too omissive to find it - or to challenge the government's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Yet, it's Moore whom the media here calls tendentious.

The mainstream media in Brazil propagates the myth that news must be objective and impartial. And the media market here is too small to support hardly any advocacy journalism. It's no wonder no Brazilian book, film or magazine article has ever critically examined the life of late Roberto Marinho, who was the all poweful owner of Globo TV network.

Most Brazilian documentaries about the famous - like recent ones about Pelé, Nelson Freire and Paulinho de Viola - just fawn over them. Their distortions don't offend.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is also part of another tradition, alien to Brazil, the aggressive "gottcha" interview style pioneered by TV news programs like "60 Minutes" since the late 1960s.

Because Moore is the satiric, on-camera provocateur who wages personal attacks against the powerful, his provocative manner makes Brazilians - used to off-camera, "cordial men" like documentary filmmaker João Moreira Salles - uncomfortable.

The Brazilian press preferred "Bowling for Columbine" to "Fahrenheit 9/11," perhaps because its far more radical theories weren't accompanied by personal attacks.

Except for one scene in which Moore goes to Charlton Heston's home to debate the politics of a group he heads that advocates unrestricted gun sales in the United States. Critics here castigated Moore for picking an aging, easy target in his own home - not the mark of a "cordial man."

In short, many Brazilians criticized "Fahrenheit 9/11" because its provocative, advocacy attitude clashed with their cultural traditions. That's why most Brazilians trash Hollywood musicals or films which use baseball as a metaphoric backdrop.

They lack the cultural vocabulary needed to appreciate such films, maintaining their thermometers in low Centigrade degrees in regards to "Fahrenheit."

This article was originally published by "Folha de S. Paulo."

Michael Kepp is an American journalist who has lived in Brazil for the last 21 years and who has written for Time, Newsweek and many other U.S. publications.  He is the author of the book of crônicas "Sonhando com Sotaque - Confissões e Desabafos de um Gringo Brasileiro." For more information on the author and book consult www.michaelkepp.com.br.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites