Moore recalls: “We opened the movie in 868 theaters on a Friday and by Monday we were in 2,000 theaters. It was the biggest opening ever for a documentary. We were doing $50,000 a screen in those first days.”
Moore believes that Fahrenheit 9/11 – which went on to become the highest-grossing documentary of all time – did indeed have an impact on the 2004 election, in which Bush narrowly defeated John Kerry, a Democratic senator. “It didn’t do its job,” he reflects. “It didn’t get rid of Bush but it did its job in terms of making a statement that will be true for all time: that this was a crime, an unnecessary crime, and that we were lied to.”
Moore, who was recently honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, adds: “It’s going to be one of the great mysteries of history how this could have happened, how this could have been allowed to happen and how we got into this mess, which we’re still in today.”
2008: W.
Photograph: Allstar/Lionsgate
In 2008, Oliver Stone directed W., a biographical film about Bush with Josh Brolin in the title role. It was released in October, just weeks before the election in which Barack Obama defeated John McCain, the Republican nominee. Stone’s portrayal was not exactly flattering but he steered clear of overt campaigning.
“I never felt that it was a persuasive movie in terms of trying to get people to vote one way or the other,” Stone says in an interview from his home in Los Angeles. “I think it was more about looking at an individual’s life and his relationships with his father, his mother, his brother, and his wife and the people around him. It was not an explicit message but there’s a lot to be learned from the film.”
Stone adds: “It was not a passionate movie in the sense that I wanted to get people to vote. It was a compassionate movie in the sense that I wanted to show the complexity of a man who went into a war that was not necessary, that was a mistake, and that has cost this country dearly in terms of reputation, lives, and treasure.”
Stone notes that the film’s release was delayed because of its sensitive nature. “The studio was very nervous about putting it out because it was the first movie about an ongoing president while he was still in office. I think they were uncomfortable with the idea of putting out a movie that was potentially critical of the president, but the movie was not just about that. It was about the American presidency.”
Stone reflects on the impact of W.: “I think it was a movie that helped to put Bush in perspective. It was not a movie that was an attack on Bush but it was a movie that was trying to understand who he was and where he came from. I think that’s what movies can do. They can help us to understand our leaders and where they come from.”
2012: Zero Dark Thirty
Photograph: Allstar/Columbia Pictures
“We killed Bin Laden,” an anonymous CIA official bragged to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty, a film about the hunt for the al-Qaida leader that was released in December 2012, a year after his assassination in Pakistan.
The film, directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Mark Boal, was praised for its gritty realism but criticized for its depiction of torture as an effective method of extracting information. It was released during the 2012 presidential election campaign in which Obama was seeking re-election against Mitt Romney.
Bigelow, a two-time Oscar winner for The Hurt Locker, says by email: “We were acutely aware that the film was coming out in an election year, so we were careful to stay out of the political fray. Our mission was to bring a story to the screen that had been years in the making, and we were grateful to those who trusted us with their stories.”
Zero Dark Thirty was a critical and commercial success, earning five Oscar nominations including best picture. But it did not appear to have a significant impact on the election, which Obama won comfortably.
Bigelow adds: “We were grateful for the warm reception the film received, and we remain proud of the work we did to bring this important story to the screen. We hope that Zero Dark Thirty will be remembered for honoring the real-life heroes who played such an important role in this chapter of history.”
2016: The Ides of March
Photograph: Allstar/Sony Pictures
The Ides of March, released in October 2011, was directed by George Clooney and starred Ryan Gosling as a press secretary for a Democratic presidential candidate played by Clooney. The film was a critical success but a box office disappointment.
Clooney, who is currently promoting his new film The Tender Bar, says in a statement: “While The Ides of March was released five years before the 2016 election, it’s always been relevant because it shows the dark side of politics and the lengths people will go to get power. It’s a cautionary tale about the pursuit of power at any cost.”
The film’s themes were certainly resonant in 2016, a year in which Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton for the presidency. But Clooney is not convinced that movies can sway elections.
“I don’t think movies change elections,” he says. “But I do think they can shine a light on the issues and the people involved in the political process. The Ides of March was a way to explore those themes in a fictional context, and I think it’s still relevant today.”
2020: The Trial of the Chicago 7
Photograph: Niko Tavernise/AP
Released in October 2020, The Trial of the Chicago 7 was written and directed by Aaron Sorkin and told the story of the activists who were charged with inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
The film was a critical and commercial success, earning six Oscar nominations including best picture. But Sorkin, who was campaigning for Joe Biden against Trump, does not believe that movies can change elections.
“I don’t think movies can swing an election,” Sorkin says. “But I do think they can start conversations and get people thinking about important issues. The Trial of the Chicago 7 was a way to shine a light on our history and the struggles for justice and equality that continue today.”
Sorkin adds: “I think it’s important for artists to speak out and tell the stories that need to be told. We have a responsibility to use our platform to make a difference and to stand up for what we believe in.”
As the 2024 election approaches, it remains to be seen how The Apprentice will impact the political landscape. But history suggests that while films may not directly sway elections, they can certainly shape the conversation and influence public opinion.
And then a few weeks later, the 2000 presidential election happened and I thought, ‘Oh my God, that’s it. That’s what I’ll write about.’”
Strong believes that Recount had a significant impact on the public’s understanding of the election. “I think it did. We were very careful to be as accurate as possible and to tell the story in a way that was compelling and dramatic but also educational. There were a lot of people who watched that movie who didn’t quite understand what had happened in 2000 and I think that movie really helped them understand it better.”
He adds: “I had people coming up to me who said, ‘I didn’t know that’s what happened in Florida. I didn’t know about the Supreme Court decision. I didn’t know about the butterfly ballot.’ People who lived through it and didn’t quite understand it until they saw the movie.”
Strong believes that movies can have a political impact. “I think they can. I think they can inform people, educate people, motivate people to get involved. I think they can change people’s minds. I think they can make people think about things in a different way. I think they can inspire people to take action. So I do think movies can have a political impact.”
As the 2020 election approaches, Strong reflects on the importance of political movies. “I think political movies are important because they can help inform the public about what’s going on in our country, what’s at stake in our elections, and how our government works. I think they can also inspire people to get involved, to vote, to speak out, to take action. So I think political movies can play a really valuable role in our democracy.”
“It’s a story that needed to be told, regardless of the political climate at the time. The themes of power, morality, and the struggle for equality are timeless and important to explore. I didn’t set out to make a film that would sway an election; I wanted to create a piece of art that would spark conversation and reflection. And while it’s gratifying to see politicians and leaders engage with the material, the ultimate goal is to create something that will stand the test of time as a meaningful piece of storytelling.” But I don’t think we do. I think the movie is part of a larger cultural conversation that’s happening right now, which is about reassessing and re-understanding a period of American history that feels very relevant to the present moment, and that’s why we made the movie.”
Abbasi adds: “I think a movie can have a cultural impact and can contribute to a conversation that is happening. But I think to influence an election, you need an infrastructure that we just don’t have as independent filmmakers. I think it’s really important to remember that movies are not the same thing as politics. They’re not the same thing as activism or organising or any of those things. They’re stories and, at their best, they can contribute to a conversation that’s happening.”
And, he notes, movies have a much longer shelf life than election cycles. “I think that’s why it’s important not to see movies as just tools to influence elections or something like that. They’re part of the fabric of our culture and our history and they can enrich our understanding of ourselves and our world and the past and the present and the future.”
As for the impact of The Apprentice on this year’s election, Abbasi says: “I think that’s a question that will be answered by the American people in November. I think it’s really up to them to decide whether they’re interested in this movie and what it has to say and whether it has any impact on their understanding of the world or their political beliefs or their voting decisions. But I think it’s really up to the audience to decide that, not us as filmmakers.”
2028: The Social Network
The Social Network is a movie that has already had a significant impact on American politics. The 2010 film, directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin, tells the story of the founding of Facebook and its controversial co-founder, Mark Zuckerberg. The movie was critically acclaimed and won three Oscars, but it also had a lasting impact on the public perception of Zuckerberg and Facebook.
Since the release of The Social Network, Zuckerberg has faced increased scrutiny over his company’s handling of user data and the spread of misinformation on the platform. The movie has been credited with raising awareness of these issues and contributing to a broader conversation about the role of social media in society.
As for the impact of The Social Network on future elections, only time will tell. But it serves as a reminder of the power of film to shape public opinion and influence political discourse. And as filmmakers continue to grapple with the complexities of American politics, their work will undoubtedly play a role in shaping the political landscape for years to come.
That would be great.
Abbasi adds: I don’t think movies change elections, generally speaking – not in India, not in Iran, not in the US, because people have bigger, other very concrete worries, like things that affect their everyday life.
What I want to achieve is not changing the election. I want to achieve the change of mindset, if I can, with people, because, look, as dangerous as is the rhetoric of alienating people by saying they’re eating cats and dogs and they’re rapists and whatnot, as dangerous is alienating the other side, so much that people feel it’s legitimate to shoot them, you know?
Some observers have suggested that the film might in fact elicit sympathy for Trump by turning him into a three-dimensional character rather than a cartoon villain. People keep saying, oh, you guys are humanizing too much, Abbasi says. I’m like, there is no such thing as humanizing too much.
If I can somehow get the American people to realize that it’s not about Democrats, it’s not about Republicans, it’s not about the political system, it’s about the whole justice system, the whole way you keep and manipulate power in this country, and then there’s the story of this guy – Roy Cohn is a complicated guy – flawed people, but still people. If I can get people to experience that, then whoever they want to vote for, that’s their business.