Rant on "Fahrenheit 9/11" SPOILERS!

[Guest homerjfry]

And apparently, you can't criticize a left-winger without being labeled a sheep.

←

I hope you are not talking about me, because I didn't mention anything about this. Extreme left wingers deserve criticism just as much as the extreme right.

I assume that was directed towards Maxx though.

Edited June 27, 2004 by homerjfry

[FunkAsPuck]

The movie is not a documentary. It's only called that because we have no other way to classify it. It's propaganda.

No problem with that. America has been full of it for decades.

Hell, the American government has been shoving so much of it down everyones neck, its hard to believe anything they say. According to them over the last few decades, Communism is this evil force that turns good hardworking Americans into evil Soviet loving zombies, the war in Iraq was perfectly justified, the Black Panthers were an evil terrorist organization, and there were enough connections between Al Queda and Iraq to justify the deaths of several thousand innocent people.

My point being - Michael Moore could be accused of making propaganda, but he is no different from the US government.

On a similar note - Anyone else finding some of the conservative reactions to the movie funny? I have heard from at least 20 conservatives on the internet who say they are going to see the movie and expose its "lies". What a great idea - Expose Moores "lies" and at the same time funding his next movie. I just don't get some people.

Edited June 27, 2004 by FunkAsPuck

[sahyder1]

We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

And they are a very small minority.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course.

Um....not when you're talking about a serious issue like people dying. That's Moore's point right there. Bush does not understand the sensitivity of the issue.

If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm.

Um...No. When did Clinton make an attempt at humor when talking about Dead soldiers, etc. Clinton would've been eaten alive by the "liberal" media.

More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse.

Why war? The President getting a briefing on 2 civilian aircrafts crashing into big buildings wouldn't be justified right there? No one would blame him if he got a briefing at that time or got in touch with his advisors etc. This is plain ridiculous.

In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such.

The kids are meant to represent the innocent civilians who they show dead in the next sequence. What's wrong with that?

Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel.

Suicide bombings in Israel do not target Americans. They're meant to target Israelis.

In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time.

First of all hostages is a ridiculous term here. People were barred from entering or leaving the country shortly before the first Gulf War. The country is about to be attacked....what do you want them to do? And all those foreign "hostages" were returned to their countryes prior to the start of the Gulf War.

the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives?

Wanting to go to war because your president was threatened.....and wanting to go to war because your father was threatened are two different things. Especially if you give a lie as a reason when using option #2.

In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews.

Celebrating when a country that's put you through hell for a decade is attacked is not that uncommon around the world. You'd do the same if the roles were reversed. Anti-Semetic incitement again is anti-Israel......where's the US connection?

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Wow, is this section retarded or what (not that the others aren't)? Moore points out that these police departments are undermanned and if it really was about a security threat wouldn't there be more cops out there? Or atleast attempts made to put more cops out there? He interviews a lady who was forced to drink her own breastmilk in order to prove that it wasn't some deadly material. Yet people are allowed to board planes with 4 matchbooks and 2 lighters. That's what his point was. What does this have do with more pocket searches? They were taking those matches and lighters in the open. That section was mixed with the anti-war group that was breached and the guy at the gym who was questioned because he talked about how 9/11 was handled.

In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.)

Yeah, because his beef is with the government and not the soldiers. He doesn't want to see military casualties.

Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do?

He never said that only those groups enter the military. His point was that the military is the only option for a lot of poor people to even earn some money. He points to the unemployment rate in his hometown. He also follows the marine recruits who go to the poor part of town instead of the rich part.

The film's amusing (if bordering on racist) Saudi-bashing sequences rely for their effect on the audience having forgotten that President Bill Clinton was every bit as friendly with Prince Bandar (or "Bandar Bush," as Moore calls him) and the Saudi monarchy as his successor. In general, the movie is packed with points that Moore assumes his audience will never check, or are either lies or cleverly hedged half-lies:

Bandar Bush is a name given by the Bush family and commonly used in the media. Moore did not create the name.

* Moore says that the Saudis have paid the Bush family $1.4 billion. But wait —the Bushes aren't billionaires. If you watch the film a second time you'll note Moore saying that they paid $1.4 billion to the Bush family and (added very quietly and quickly) its friends and associates.

Man this guy has selective hearing. He said that the Saudis mysteriously poured money over time to save Dubya's oil business and he kept blowing the money. That's 1.4 billion over a long time. Not just past 2-3 years.

Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are looking at the idea now, but nothing has come of it so far, and in any case Unocal has nothing to do with it.

Care to explain the Taliban officials visiting him in Texas?

In a "congressmen with no kids at war" stunt, Moore claims that no one in Congress has a son or daughter fighting in America's armed services, then approaches several congressmen in the street and asks them to sign up and send their kids to Iraq. His claim would certainly surprise Sgt. Brooks Johnson of the 101st Airborne, the son of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). And for that matter the active-duty sons of Sen. Joseph Biden and Attorney General John Ashcroft, among others.

Moore does not say that no congressman has a child in the armed forces. He did say there was one serving in Iraq.

Oh yeah, Boulder needs to calm down. That guy posted an article and he got responses to it.

[Boulder]

Oh yeah, Boulder needs to calm down. That guy posted an article and he got responses to it.

←

Actually, he posted an article and he was attacked on a personal level. That offended me. Perhaps if I agreed with you, I wouldn't be asked to calm down?

[Guest homerjfry]

I think the simple phrase: "Pobodys Nerfect" might ring true for everyone involved.

[sahyder1]

Actually, he posted an article and he was attacked on a personal level.  That offended me.  Perhaps if I agreed with you, I wouldn't be asked to calm down?

←

That's a rather retarded statement considering all the holes in that article I listed above and I'm sure there were some that I missed that some others will catch.

It's nothing personal against Jimmy, he's thinking he was lied to when that obviously isn't the case given all the holes in the article he posted.

Edit: This thread should be merged with the other one on Fahranheit 9/11

Edited June 27, 2004 by sahyder1

[Boulder]

That's a rather retarded statement considering all the holes in that article I listed above and I'm sure there were some that I missed that some others will catch. 

It's nothing personal against Jimmy, he's thinking he was lied to when that obviously isn't the case given all the holes in the article he posted.

Edit: This thread should be merged with the other one on Fahranheit 9/11

←

There are very few "holes" that you exposed. Your post basically involved you defending Moore's opinions and style, not the fact behind them. If that makes attitude retarded, well, then I guess that's what it is. Just because you're not drinking from the big bowl, it doesn't mean your Kool-Aid is any less toxic.

[sahyder1]

There are very few "holes" that you exposed.  Your post basically involved you defending Moore's opinions and style, not the fact behind them.  If that makes attitude retarded, well, then I guess that's what it is.  Just because you're not drinking from the big bowl, it doesn't mean your Kool-Aid is any less toxic.

←

have you even seen the movie? Have you read this review right here? Doesn't really look like it because you'd know the difference if you had.

[Boulder]

have you even seen the movie? Have you read this review right here? Doesn't really look like it because you'd know the difference if you had.

←

I never said anything about the movie being inaccurate, save for the fact that if it was, it wouldn't surprise me. All I said is that I found your "defense" of "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be far from convincing. As I've told you in the past, don't put words in my mouth.

[EndOfAnEra]

Bottom line is you always have to go into movies like these with an open mind, because you never know what you are (or are not, for the most part) being shown. Things get left out, words get twisted, but the general idea remains the same. Bush is responsible for many of the negatives presented in this film, yes, but you have to understand that any movie will always be somewhat biased, like it or not.

The movie is a bit of propaganda against him, but it also does hit on some key factors that show some problems with Bush in office, and U.S. politics in general.

[zero]

I haven't even seen the movie and could have told you it was propaganda. We use the word "propaganda" like it's a bad thing, but it's not. This country has been full of propaganda ever since it became a fucking country! Whether or not you agree with it is up to you, but there's nothing wrong with making a movie about your opinion. If Moore was putting this shit in the editorial page of the newspaper, no one would care! But film is much more powerful and that gets people riled up.

[Guest Bluesman]

FYI: Hitchens is a notably left-wing columnist

Correction: Hitchens WAS a notable left wing columnist. He had quite the little spat with the Nation over his pro-war stance, and has been "adopted" by many on the right, since they can posture him as a "liberal who has seen the light".

More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse.

I'm more worried about the tools talking about the great "courage" and "leadership" Bush was to provided that day as he flew around the country (only disclosing his whereabouts right before landing) stopping only for news conferences. Now that's leadership...

BTW, would "God told me to go to war" count as a hectic, crazed impulse?

[sahyder1]

woah, Bluesman is back.

BTW, would "God told me to go to war" count as a hectic, crazed impulse?

Not as good as "Afterall he tried to kill my daddy"

[Underage Politician]

If Moore was putting this shit in the editorial page of the newspaper, no one would care!  But film is much more powerful and that gets people riled up.

←

Difference is, an editorial is presented as an opinon piece, and a documentary is presented as fact.

btw, welcome back bluesman

Edited June 28, 2004 by Underage Politician

[sahyder1]

Fahrenheit 9/11 a hot ticket

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 took in a whopping $21.8 million (all figures U.S.) in its first three days, becoming the first documentary ever to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film.

If Sunday's estimates hold when final numbers are released Monday, Fahrenheit 9/11 would set a record in a single weekend as the top-grossing documentary ever outside of concert films and movies made for huge-screen IMAX theatres.

Adding the film's haul at two New York City theatres where it opened Wednesday, two days earlier than the rest of the country, boosted Fahrenheit 9/11 to $21.96 million.

Bowling for Columbine, Moore's 2002 Academy Award-winning documentary, previously held the documentary record with $21.6 million.

Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore's assault on U.S. President George W. Bush's actions after the 2001 terrorist attacks, won the top honour at last month's Cannes Film Festival and has attracted attention from both sides in the presidential campaign.

The movie has been embraced by left-wing groups, which mobilized members to see it during the opening weekend. Conservative groups sought to discourage theatres from showing it and asked the Federal Election Commission to examine its ads for potential violations of campaign-finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.

"I want to thank all the right-wing organizations out there who tried to stop the film, either from their harassment campaign that didn't work on the theatre owners, or going to the FEC to get our ads removed from television, to all the things that have been said on television," Moore said. "It's only encouraged more people to go and see it."

The Wayans brothers' comedy White Chicks, about two black FBI agents who go undercover as white debutantes, opened in second place with $19.6 million for the weekend. That pushed the total for White Chicks to $27.1 million since opening Wednesday.

The previous weekend's No. 1 movie, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, slipped to third place, taking in $18.5 million and pushing its 10-day total to $67.2 million. Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks' The Terminal fell from second to fourth place with $13.9 million, raising its 10-day gross to $41.8 million.

Premiering in fifth place with $13 million was the tearjerker romance The Notebook, featuring Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams, James Garner and Gena Rowlands.

Despite good reviews, the family film Two Brothers, about tiger siblings separated in youth and reunited as opponents in the ring as grown cats, opened weakly at No. 9 with $6.2 million.

Fahrenheit 9/11 opened in 868 theatres, a wide release for a documentary but narrow compared to big Hollywood flicks. The film averaged $25,115 a theatre, compared to $7,190 in 2,726 cinemas for White Chicks.

Distributors Lions Gate and IFC Films plan to put Fahrenheit 9/11 into a couple of hundred more theatres this Wednesday, when competition heats up with the release of Spider-Man 2, summer's most-anticipated movie.

Lions Gate and IFC came on board after Disney refused to let subsidiary Miramax release Fahrenheit 9/11 because of its political content. Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and went looking for independent distributors.

Following are estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at North American theatres, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc.:

1. Fahrenheit 9/11, $21.8 million.

2. White Chicks, $19.6 million.

3. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, $18.5 million.

4. The Terminal, $13.9 million.

5. The Notebook, $13 million.

6. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, $11.4 million.

7. Shrek 2, $10.5 million.

8. Garfield: The Movie, $7 million.

9. Two Brothers, $6.2 million.

10. The Stepford Wives, $5.2 million.

[zero]

Difference is, an editorial is presented as an opinon piece, and a documentary is presented as fact.

←

Yes, and Moore consistently refers to it as a "movie." In fact, I haven't heard him mention "documentary" once. In the TV ads they say, "only one FILM has received a twenty-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival." Regardless, no documentary/film from Moore or anyone obviously taking a stance on an issue (which Moore certainly is) should ever be taken entirely as fact. I beg of you to show me a documentary where there isn't some sort of bias. The facts are the facts, but the movie is Moore's opinion and he doesn't deny that. On the Daily Show this week, he said he was being unfair towards Bush and the movie is his opinion.

[Underage Politician]

Yes, and Moore consistently refers to it as a "movie."  In fact, I haven't heard him mention "documentary" once.  In the TV ads they say, "only one FILM has received a twenty-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival."  Regardless, no documentary/film from Moore or anyone obviously taking a stance on an issue (which Moore certainly is) should ever be taken entirely as fact.  I beg of you to show me a documentary where there isn't some sort of bias.  The facts are the facts, but the movie is Moore's opinion and he doesn't deny that.  On the Daily Show this week, he said he was being unfair towards Bush and the movie is his opinion.

←

Yes, I know the purpose of a documentary is to "swerve" the viewer (and at this Moore is one of the best), and I know that there is no truely unbias film/doco/book/whatever. I know Moore claims the film is not a documentary, that's it's simply just "his movie", but that is horse shit. It's portrayed as a documentary everywhere apart from Moore's mouth.

Regardless, I personally don't take "it's his opinion" as a good excuse to blatantly lie and twist truths.

btw, just for the record, I don't mind Moore films. They're generally pretty entertaining, it just annoys me the Moore "followers" who believe automatically everything they say... you know the type, the 16 year old who saw Bowling For Columbine and read Stupid White Men, so now he's a political activist.

Edited June 28, 2004 by Underage Politician

[zero]

btw, just for the record, I don't mind Moore films. They're generally pretty entertaining, it just annoys me the Moore "followers" who believe automatically everything they say... you know the type, the 16 year old who saw Bowling For Columbine and read Stupid White Men, so now he's a political activist.

←

Oh, I agree with that as well. I can't stand Moore's sheep, but that's not fair to blame Moore because people take everything he writes or says as fact. He does his thing and how people react is up to them. The good thing about those 16 year olds though is they can't vote.

[Maxx]

Ok, Jimmy hasn't seen the movie and apparently hasn't seen any Michael Moore interviews, but insists on touting that review as a credible source on what the movie is about.

I can't call him on that cause its a "personal attack"

right.

[Big Red Fury]

What would a Michael Moore movie be with out the obligitory pimping of Flint. I love how the mom pimped over the army on her kids, then all of a sudden *shock* *gasp* *horror* her son dies. Wait, what's that? Oh you mean people die in war, well holy fuck! Then she attempts to place the blame on Bush and the military. Last time I checked there is no such thing as a draft. And what does that mean? Yep you guessed it, YOU CANNOT BE SEND TO WAR IF YOU DO NOT VOLUNTEER YOUR SERVICES TO THE FUCKING MILITARY. So if you don't want your son to die, then don't pimp the military on him. It's a sad story that he died, and that you couldn't afford to send him to college, but how can you in right mind blame the military for your son's death when he wouldn't have been there if it was for you. Absolutely sickening.