Think of what is achieved but not connecting the dots… there is a narrative gap that is created, a zone of undecidability. The problem may not be with such a structure but how it is fufilled. I use the prophetic term (fufillment) advisedly. There seems to be genre confusion in dealing with the Moore film. There is a distinction between polemic and prophecy. I am willing to argue that certain audiences will seize upon those gaps in the narrative (argumentation without explicit conclusions) as moments of Jetzeit whereupon the projection of a saviour-a-coming may take hold.
And that is for other audiences deeply disturbing. See Lizzie Borden’s faux-documentary “Born in Flames” for a very different set of relations to audience empowerment. That film depicts a variety of modes of organizing. The audience can not only identify with some but also resist with others. The options are not dichotomous.
A while ago there was a thread on Jason Rhody’s blog about apocalyptic narratives. Not all postmodern narratives are apocalyptic. What is unapocalyptic about Moore’s film making? Perhaps the detachable moments that play well independently (from Fahrenheit 9/11 one can think of the scene of confronting members of Congress with request that their children enlist). In a sense Moore’s films are commercials for the Brechtian gems embedded in them. As cultural interventions in a postmodern era they are perhaps not meant to provide a modernist whole and hence the scattershot form which in and of itself is not a reflection of unmangeable contradictions or paradox. Jameson’s work on Weber here might be apposite. The reaction to Moore’s demonizing of Bush et al. may also be a reaction to the charisma of Moore himself. Will Moore cross the line between art and life and run for office?