I’m struggling to articulate this concept, which means I may be completely off course (or simply trying to defend what is clearly the film’s biggest flaw). Moore’s “scattershot” style in the film *may* be intentional, but I think the unintentional (and unconscious) significance of that style reflects something about cultural contradictions (or contradictions within the neo-con/Halliburton/religious fundie alliance) that Moore’s film can grasp only partially. In other words, I’m trying to do a “symptomatic” reading of the film, and it’s not quite working.

Moore’s inability to put all of the pieces together might be understood as reflecting all of the contradictions in Bush’s America (the lack of accountability in Congress, the exploitation of working class people, the lack of media pressure on Bush, etc).

But as a rhetorical effect, it is a problem precisely for the reasons you describe. 2 or 3 of my students came into class after seeing the film and felt that Moore’s argument failed becaues of the lack of connections.

I’m still having trouble making this idea work, so I’m starting to think that I’ve talked myself into a corner. But does this explanation make more sense?