Is anyone going to see it? Does anyone really care what Micheal Moore says?Does anyone agree with him?Does anyone really want to put more money in his pocket?Are we all sick of the press coverage of this movie?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 62
Thread: Farenhiet 911
06-25-2004, 06:08 PM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
06-25-2004, 07:23 PM #2
"I don't apologize for anything. When I make a mistake, I take the blame and go on from there." - Woody Hayes
06-25-2004, 07:32 PM #3
Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.
Which makes you wonder if Gore sees Moore's Brown Shirts any different from Bush's Brown Shirts.
Both sides can be thick on the hyperbole, but the left really seems to me to be spinning out of control. Yes, they're angry. Of course, it doesn't make sense that their angry at Bush since they do most of the same things themselves the accuse him of and say they're angry about. Wonder if they're angry at themselves in fustration of not being able to gain the upper hand politically on the a national scale since, well, um, Nixon?
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him.
Amazing what a little $$$ on the table can do to change one's attitude, huh?
Anyway, the fundemental problem for Michael Moore is he likes to stretch the truth, twist things around, and show things from points-of-view that make something entertaining. Nothing wrong with that, many a popular cartoon/tv show/play/movie does that. He just then tries to say that his work is non-fiction. By the time he's done with factual information, it has no more intellectual value than a historical novel or active (alternative) history does. Actually, active history does have some good value, so I take that part back. It's just his films bear about as much to reality as historical novels & active history does.
The left's criticisms at the moment sure don't seem focused -- much of what the complain of, pot-kettle-black. Want to present an alternate to what's going on in Iraq right now? They can stop talking about Vietnam, they could use a more appropriate and parrallel historical analogy (Phillipines Insurrection -- which cost 4,000 U.S. soldiers lives over 3 years, among many other parrallels), and they could start offering specific ideas.
The idea at the moment? "John Kerry...will figure something out when he gets in office." That's not leadership -- it's something the French called System D in WWI -- translated System D (I can't remember the word the D stood for) essentially meant we'll muddle through it when we get there. System D criticism could be shot at Bush administration (I supported & do support the Iraq operations, and my main concern was we would be a bit unprepared for the follow-up given his admin, which is what happened). But to do so, you've got to offer an alternative other than, "Well, we'd muddle through it better."
The sole somewhat of an idea you hear is to internationalize it. Which does what? There ain't many military forces in the world outside U.S. troops that could do this mission and keep military & civilian casualty rates at the level we do -- training, experience, motivation, materials, etc, etc. April's and May's death toll spiked 'cause we rotated troops too fast -- rotate in lower quality troops and see things spiral out of control. It's our mess, it's our responsibility to clean it up. If others want to help, we'll take it. But it's not something to say, "Well, you clean up the kitchen!" and go scurrying up to our bedroom to play Nintendo.
Things continue to improve (even the NPR radio reporters will say that); there's lots of problems that remain to be solved. It ain't no lost cause yet, it's a long way from that that.
While I'm getting probably way off-topic, two things stand out to me:
Americans sometimes go for the standard of perfection when things can't be perfect -- and that goes from OSHA standards to LODD to these silly lawsuits. For what's been going on in Iraq by any historical measure an incredible amount of stuff has happened for level of casaulties and costs. War can't be bloodless, but this sure hasn't been overwhelmingly bloody (we're at rates like 1/10th to 1/20th of Vietnam...perhaps 1/5th of Russia in Afghanistan). Nor will every soldier behave perfectly, every officer be clear in orders, or every policy be the best. They talk about rolling power outages -- from what I've read more than the attacks, the outages come from everyone who went out and bought air conditioners -- we now produce more electricity than Saddam did, but demand has grown even faster.
The second, we think too big sometimes -- I know we need contracts to rebuild, and we like engineering stuff. But why are their any Iraqi men with free time to join an insurgency? From right after the troops went by they should've been given shovels and some pay. Clear roads, rebuild this, rebuild that, go dig some irrigation ditches. Even if it was make-work, do something to keep them occupied and get money flowing in the economy. It didn't look to me like many people thought of simply getting make-work going (The U.S. did that with the CCC in the Great Depression, and the GI Bill after WWII was largely created to keep the returning troops occupied going to school while the economy recovered and could start employing them again).
But this is America and we like to have politicians & pundits today on the left & right who like to jump up and down and huff and puff and say "Look at me!" rather than making good ideas happen.IACOJ Canine Officer
06-25-2004, 09:23 PM #4
i agree with steamer. its just a movie. take it how you want to.
06-25-2004, 09:56 PM #5
Holy Cow, Dalmatian! I don't think you have thought through everything enough.
Seriously though, thanks for taking the time to write down your thoughts. You bring up some interesting points and I agree with what you have to say.
As for me, I think I will wait until it comes out on DVD. It's not that I support him, but I can't deconstruct the documentary if I haven't seen it.
06-26-2004, 12:10 AM #6
I was thinking about going to see it this weekend, but I will have to wait to see how my schedule works out. Regardless, it is certainly spurring a lot conversation and debate, which isn’t always a bad thing (Dal, that has got to be one of the most interesting posts that I have read in a long time).
When the advertisement first came out I envisioned a “JKF” style movie (which, even now, when ever it is on results in hours of conversation and debate around my household). Will it be 110 minutes of politically motivated propaganda, or will it be fact based, informative, and eye-opening??? And maybe more importantly, will it draw a bigger crowed than White Chicks or Dodge-ball?? (controversy sells)"No one ever called the Fire Department for doing something smart..."
06-26-2004, 12:36 AM #7IMDB's Review of Fahrenheit 9/11
Review by: Keith Simanton
Starring: Michael Moore (II), George W. Bush
At the end of Michael Moore's new propaganda piece, Palme d'Or winner Fahrenheit 9/11, he shows George W. Bush mangling the famous adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
That certainly should apply to anyone's approach to a Michael Moore film.
What's true, what's sort-of-true, and what's false? It's hard to say (though please see Christopher Hitchin's take on the film in Slate). The new, frequently flippant work by the left's Rush Limbaugh is not nearly the heavily fictionalized work that Bowling for Columbine turned out to be (and so obviously was on first viewing), but it is the immediate successor to JFK. 9/11 is largely a conspiracy theorist's fever dream that proves valuable because of its very existence, but is a liability in the name of careful documentary filmmaking or as a political tool for liberals.
Much like Oliver Stone's still-gorgeous Kennedy film, Moore is brilliant with his use of images. He's even more brilliant about what he doesn't show. At the beginning of the film he recounts the tumultuous, heavily contested national election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The way Moore presents it, it was a landslide for Al Gore with—wait!--the state of Florida somehow stealing the election away, as if no other states went to Bush, omitting things like Gore's loss in Tennessee, his home state. No, in Moore-land, it was a landslide and the first news outlet to break the story, FOX, was so powerful the other networks had to follow.
Moore then moves on to the post-election process and Bush's swearing-in, where his motorcade was pelted with eggs. "No president ever witnessed such a day" solemnly intones Moore. Uh, didn't the South secede from the Union as a consequence of Lincoln's election?
Moore doesn't have time for those kinds of subtleties. He has to rush on to September 11th. Except Michael does one very smart thing in this movie about painful and shocking images (such as dead and wounded children): he doesn't show the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers. He blacks the screen out and only has the sounds. Then he shows the dumbfounded and aghast onlookers, and those who lost loved ones making their pleas to the camera. Why the omission? The visual of the impact was omitted because it would remind people in the most immediate sense that we were attacked, that innocent Americans jumped to their deaths rather than burn and that it was an act of war. After September 11th, we were at war. It would have set up a tone of opposition that Moore absolutely had to avoid in his attempt to build his case. He later shows painful and devastating images of children and civilians killed or maimed in Iraq (we're led to believe) but he doesn't show anything from Afghanistan (where he claims we only sent a handful of troops, implying the opposite -- that we should have sent more and killed more?). Surely, in our effort to strike back at Al Qaeda we did the same thing to women and children in Afghanistan. Isn't the overall moral point that war is bad? Moore concedes that ground early.
Regardless, seeing the dead and wounded Iraqis is the one segment in the film that is powerful and important. It's the one you want Moore to get away from, but the ONLY reason to see this movie, and, regardless of your political affiliation, the reason you probably must see this movie (with the unfortunate side-effect of making Moore an even wealthier man).
If you're on the left, and felt that not only was the war with Iraq unjustified, but all war unjustified, it will make you burn with anger (though why you're not burning with anger about the dead children in Afghanistan, or Bosnia, where we performed imprecise air strikes, is my question). If you're on the right and supported Bush, it is required to see what you signed up for. War is amputated arms and dead children and images that don't go well with people's weekday, 6:00 dinner. It's important to look at those images and recognize the impact of that decision.
It's also important to recognize how important it is that this movie exists at all. America is about the dissenting opinion being heard, even if that dissenting opinion is half-fabricated. It's a symbol of what America's Constitution means, that there is a marketplace of ideas where a "documentary" filmmaker can call the most powerful man in the world a fraud on a worldwide telecast, the second most-watched event of the year, and then become fabulously wealthy by creating films attacking the administration in power. (By the way, anyone who believes that the sequel to the most profitable "documentary" film of all time (Columbine) was going to have a tough time getting distributed hasn't seen the **** that sells at Sundance, bought by a lot of the same guys distributing this. This was a no-brainer.) In a meta-sense Palme d'Or winner Fahrenheit 9/11 is the most important film of the year and Moore a symbol of our innate strength and ability to deal with criticisms from within.
And criticize he does. Moore's case seems to be; it's Bush's fault. All of it. Well, more like it's Bush's fault as he's the evil puppet of corporate America and its machine of greed. Moore's mythos includes the shady ties of the powerful, and suspect, Bush family with the Carlyle Group, and its ties to Osama Bin Laden. My God, this is explosive. Bush, and his military complex cronies stood to profit from a terrorist attack, just like in The Long Kiss Goodnight! Moore must be poised to continue this blistering expose with further facts and revelations! But, instead of pursuing this incendiary indictment Moore then trains his ever-faithful camera on the Oregon coast (?) and his old stand-by, Flint, Michigan.
What's most shocking about Palme d'Or winner, Fahrenheit 9/11 is what, in long stretches, a truly crappy documentary it is. As if unable to actually get his lead dog to hunt, Moore focuses on the little people, something he only seems able to do with elitist pity.
In the first segment, Moore discusses the vast and open coastline of unpatrolled Oregon -- versus the vast and largely open border of Canada, where a number of the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S., including the Millennium Plot bomber, who was heading to L.A.X. -- and it's such a flaccid and silly segment one wonders if it just isn't filler. Moore's saying we need more patrols there? But, wait, in this segment, he's decrying the ridiculous and invasive techniques of those assigned to actually check people heading onto airplanes. What? Huh?
And what would a Michael Moore flick be without his own Clint Howard, Flint, Michigan. Ah, Flint, blighted by corporate greed and lack of economic incentives (is Moore's production company based in Flint? Nah!), we once again drive by your decaying ramblers as Michael deigns to place his mike in front of the tattooed trailer trash. It's not as clinically weak as the Oregon segment but it's still cutting-room floor material. We follow two recruiters as they try to entice young men and women to enter the military! And it's on tape! They even hand out brochures! Those bastards! One can see here just how and why Quentin Tarantino and his Cannes crew judged it to be on par with Taxi Driver and La Dolce Vita.
Moore's also caught in the desperate act of trying to "support the troops" when his real stance is intellectual contempt, if not profound disgust. In his view, the military is made up of the poor and uneducated, pressed into service by being nearly conked on the head and dragged from the mall to posts overseas. Once there, these deluded youths put on their metal music and blow the heads off innocent women and children. Moore shows a Christmas Eve raid of an Iraqi home as indicative of our inability to win over the hearts and minds, though he gives no context for the raid or the person taken into custody (much like Limbaugh, Moore's not big on context).
Moore makes Bush out to be a complete buffoon and implies that his motives (and the motives of those controlling him) are driven purely by their desire for profit. Moore stretches to such lengths to prove this point that the question arises, if getting richer was the Administration's only goal why, on September 12th didn't Bush and Co. say, "15 of the 19 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia. I have proof of widespread terrorist activity in the nation and thus, we must end this oppressive regime?" Given Moore's own conjecture about the Bush's clandestine ties and their obvious sociopathic approach, in this scenario Bush and Co. clear out their messy ties with the Saudis, remove a much weaker military complex, and gain the #1 oil producing-nation in the world. Why didn't the amoral greed heads do that?
Additionally, Moore makes much of the military lives lost in Iraq but never mentions that, in theory, we didn't need to land a single troop. As so many right-wing nuts have mentioned, we could have turned Iraq into a sheet of glass and never had an American put a foot on the soil. We certainly didn't in Bosnia. No, it was precisely because we were trying to mitigate the amount of civilians killed that young American men and women are dying. Moore skirts issues such as this, even though they're the logical results of a lot of his hypothesis, because they don't fit in with his conclusions.
This movie's timing, agenda, and its enormous failings are absolutely the best thing that could have happened to the Bush campaign. It reminds everyone of ugly facts like the poor post-war planning, the very scary nature of the Patriot Act (sunshine clause or no), profiteering and excesses of Halliburton, Enron, and the Carlyle Group but then, because they're all trashed in with the rest of the hyperbole, bathos, and Jim Garrison conspiracy theories, it all turns into a diatribe trough, full of an undistinguishable mash.
06-26-2004, 10:07 AM #8
I have seen the movie and I would recommend it to every one. I really found it very interesting, but that is just me.
06-26-2004, 10:12 AM #9
That fat ____ couldn't pay me enough to watch anything with his name attached to it. I'd rather sit through the opera.Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.
06-26-2004, 11:18 AM #10
- Join Date
- Jul 1999
- Flanders, NJ
I am organizing a massive conservative counterattack. It's called DON'T GO SEE THE MOVIE! That is all the counterattack that is necessary.
06-26-2004, 02:58 PM #11
I think most people who are capable of thought will see mr. moore for what he truly is. Sometimes that whole free speach thing is hard to take.(and stomach) He is allowed to say what he wants, but an official act of congress removes Rush Limbaugh completely off of armed forces radio. Makes you think, and wonder. I guess free speach only applies to the left.
06-26-2004, 05:08 PM #12
- Join Date
- Jun 2000
- 911 N. Sycamore St. Yep, that's really our address.
I can think of much better ways to spend two hours and $9.
06-26-2004, 05:52 PM #13I think most people who are capable of thought will see mr. moore for what he truly is.
That fat ____ couldn't pay me enough to watch anything with his name attached to it. I'd rather sit through the opera.
06-26-2004, 06:10 PM #14
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Westlake, Ohio
06-26-2004, 11:40 PM #15Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
I am organizing a massive conservative counterattack. It's called DON'T GO SEE THE MOVIE! That is all the counterattack that is necessary.I dont suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
06-27-2004, 12:49 AM #16
I wasted 2 hours of my life trying to stay awake watching the "Criticly Acclaimed" Bowling for Columbine. Fortunately it was on cable at work and I didn't have to pay to see it. I had to see it to see what the big hub bub was and it had so little to do with firearms violence that I couldn't figure a lot of his points out. What the heck does socialized healthcare have to do with gun control? But I digress.....
I would watch it if the same situation presented itself where I did not have to pay for it. I don't like Mr. Moore, he has extremely weak arguments and substantiation for much of what he "believes" and most of his statements, clips, materials, and items are easily rebuked, and have little truth behind them. As with most films that come out nowadays, "documentary", action, drama, love, etc..., most are garbage, not worth my time and degrading to my intelligence and society."Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers
The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker
"As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry
www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org
06-27-2004, 07:29 PM #17
Really looking forward to seeing this movie, Saw an interesting bit on CNN this afternoon. A film reviewer from that bastion of left wing propaganda The Christian Science Monitor lol. He said that many film directors feel that in this day and age, with the Networks being owned by large corperations, there is no avenue for political expression outside of the party line. Mr Moore is if nothing else defeating the evil forces of censorship (Disney).
Bottom line, like The Passion Of The Christ before it. It is stirring controversy, and in the movie business controversy means moneyA'int No Rocket Scientist's in The Firehall
06-27-2004, 11:14 PM #18
Hmmm, as opposed to having to toe the party line when their was a ton of independent studios who your sold your sole to when you signed the contract, and McCarthy was around? Whining about corporate ownership is just the same old whining to a new tune.
It's probably a great piece of *satire* that he just keeps calling a documentary...IACOJ Canine Officer
06-28-2004, 01:21 AM #19
I would not a waste my time watching anything that scum had anything to do with. He is a disgrace and should be ashamed of himself, as I am ashamed of him. We are fighting an all out war for our very survival and this idiot pops his crap in the middle of it like he is some big expert. Documentary my a##.
Last edited by xploded; 06-28-2004 at 01:25 AM.
06-28-2004, 09:41 AM #20
Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
"Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)