Rant on "Fahrenheit 9/11" SPOILERS!

[Big Red Fury]

Is Michael Moore sending people's kids off to war?

←

Is Bush? Last time I checked we don't currently have a draft going on.

[sahyder1]

Is Bush? Last time I checked we don't currently have a draft going on.

←

Um, yes Bush is sending kids to war. Ok, I should've also added in "for no reason" but you get the point. Also what they're doing now with callups is a draft. You can sugercoat it if you want....but it's a draft.

[Mishmow]

No, Mishmow. Don't even try and put any blame on the soldiers. Whatever your views are, to even suggest that soldiers want to openly shoot civilians and blow up houses is ridiculous.

←

I never said they wanted to. I said they were willing to.

[DMN in the House]

Did Michael Moore serve in the Army during Vietnam?

Where was Michael Moore during the draft?

←

Michael Moore was born April 23rd, 1954.

Link: http://www.world-of-celebrities.com/michael_moore/

Making him 19 when the draft was ended in 1973

Link: http://www.sss.gov/backgr.htm

The US signed a peace treaty leading to their withdrawal from Vietnam on Jan. 27th, 1973.

Link: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/V....Withdrawal.asp

Although there is an 8 month span in which Moore could have been drafted for the Vietnam War, one can hardly blame him for it not happening.

[conniption]

Good find, sycodmn. Anyone volunteering to serve in the Vietnam War in 1972, by which time it had become obvious that the US had lost, and the US was scaling back their involvement, would really need their head read.

[Big Red Fury]

That still doesn't stop him from volunteering after the pullout. He could have volunteered for the National Guard even, but he didn't.

[sahyder1]

That still doesn't stop him from volunteering after the pullout.  He could have volunteered for the National Guard even, but he didn't.

←

there wasn't a war to volunteer for. Who's to say he wouldn't have? Anyways, not many people were volunteering in those days after the disgrace of Vietnam, so this right here is ridiculous.

[Big Red Fury]

there wasn't a war to volunteer for. Who's to say he wouldn't have? Anyways, not many people were volunteering in those days after the disgrace of Vietnam, so this right here is ridiculous.

←

So what you are saying is that none of the American board members should volunteer because of the "iraq disgrace".

[sahyder1]

So what you are saying is that none of the American board members should volunteer because of the "iraq disgrace".

←

First of all it's not a matter of "should"....it's up to the individual to go. Under Bush's presidency I can guarantee you the signups for the military have gone down in the past year, especially the last 6 months. Army signups will be down for the next year or so. It's just the way things go. People wouldn't be rushing to go to war when they know that people before them were sent in for no reason and 800+ ended up dying. I'm not gonna speak for others but you can be sure as hell that I'm not serving under Bush and many other members have made it clear that they would not either.

Anyways, the point was that the youth in those days had heavily turned against the military leaders and the government and wasn't rushing to serve. Moore wasn't the only one.

[Big Red Fury]

First of all it's not a matter of "should"....it's up to the individual to go. Under Bush's presidency I can guarantee you the signups for the military have gone down in the past year, especially the last 6 months. Army signups will be down for the next year or so. It's just the way things go. People wouldn't be rushing to go to war when they know that people before them were sent in for no reason and 800+ ended up dying.  I'm not gonna speak for others but you can be sure as hell that I'm not serving under Bush and many other members have made it clear that they would not either.

Anyways, the point was that the youth in those days had heavily turned against the military leaders and the government and wasn't rushing to serve. Moore wasn't the only one.

←

Ok, so let's say that John Kerry is elected president. The forces will still stay in Iraq even if he is. At that point do you apply for the Army because Kerry is pres? It doesn't matter who is president if your premise is correct, because a "disgrace" will continue to be a "disgrace" no matter if Kerry or Bush is president. But I'd like to move on to a new question. So let's say Kerry wins, only problem is that in his 4 year term, the military recruitment levels keep going down. After his term is done, would you consider the lack of soldiers his fault or would you still place it back on Bush?

[sahyder1]

Ok, so let's say that John Kerry is elected president.  The forces will still stay in Iraq even if he is.  At that point do you apply for the Army because Kerry is pres?  It doesn't matter who is president if your premise is correct, because a "disgrace" will continue to be a "disgrace" no matter if Kerry or Bush is president.  But I'd like to move on to a new question.  So let's say Kerry wins, only problem is that in his 4 year term, the military recruitment levels keep going down.  After his term is done, would you consider the lack of soldiers his fault or would you still place it back on Bush?

←

1) I would not serve in Iraq even under Kerry. It wasn't a war I believed in.....it wouldn't be a war that I turn to start believing in.....barring a miracle

2) People are gonna blame Bush for the lack of signups in the military. It was his war. We're gonna end up having to go to the draft under Kerry.....and the right will go crazy blaming Kerry for instituting the draft. This is how I see things playing out.

[The Third Dukes]

I don't understand this attitude at all. Moore's work is known precisely because of his oddball charisma and unique ability to present arguments and political views in unconventional, thought-provoking and funny ways.

It's also known for being sarcastic, caustic, and completely unfair. Everything he's put his hands on is biased -- a documentary, in the classical sense, is supposed to believe in res ipso facto.

If he never put himself on-screen, if he tried to prevent his personal touch coming out in his shows and documentaries, he certainly wouldn't be putting out a film that became the highest selling documentary ever in JUST ONE WEEKEND.

Moore's work is known because he's Michael Moore. And your statement about it being the highest selling documentary shows you CLEARLY don't understand American movie receipts. Michael Moore's documentary did well because he's Michael Moore. The goodness or badness of the documentary has nothing to do with it -- the first weekend of a movie is all about hype. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle was crap, but it made as much as this documentary did in the opening weekend.

This whole idea that he's a glory hog, in it for the money and/or publicity... is he supposed to keep his opinions to himself and make sure he never goes past the stating of facts to actually draw some conclusions in his work? Hell no.

Yes, if he wants to be seen as a documentarian. That's the definition of a documentary.

He's an artist, regardless of whether you think he's a good artist or not, and it's his role to get his message out and present it in the most effective and memorable way he can.

Right, fine, okay, I get it. Michael Moore can say whatever the hell he wants. That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean it's true or should be presented as such, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean the message is devoid of himself. Look, I could write whatever I wanted here, and this argument -- that I have something to say and want to say in the best way possible -- would apply. But I have (quite rightly) been called for making the posts sound self-centered and egotistical. I'm doing the same thing to Mr. Moore's movies that gets done to me. Is that wrong?

Hasn't the Disney affair (and the trouble he had publishing Stupid White Men before that) tought everyone that if he didn't bust his ass to promote his work, they'd simply be shut down and suppressed by big corporations with their own reasons not to upset the applecart?

←

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- oh, you're serious.

Michael Moore has a reputation, well-earned. His next documentary -- whatever the subject -- would've created waves because he is an amateur political activist, and because it would be "the first work since he went off at the Oscar ceremony". It would have had buzz. Add to that that it discussed the Presidency -- a Presidency he has sworn to end -- and it gets more buzz. And in the first weekend, buzz is all you need.

Two random thoughts:

1. Does Michael Moore want the world to be like Flint, Michigan, which my dad (a Michigan grad) assures me is a miserable place?

2. Could this be the greatest example of "pot, kettle, black" in history?

Okay, one more... sahyder...

1) I would not serve in Iraq even under Kerry. It wasn't a war I believed in.....it wouldn't be a war that I turn to start believing in.....barring a miracle

If your avatar is any indication, you wouldn't be serving in Iraq under Bush OR Kerry.

[Guest Iron Mary]

It still remains true: You can't criticize America without being labled a traitor or a "coward" and you can't be a patriot without loving George Bush. Nice.

I'd love to see what actually happens to Moore in America when it's all said and done. Remember the guy that wrote High Noon during the height of McArthy's anti-commie hysteria? Ostracized... and then John Wayne made a bunch of more "patriotic" westerns. Does that mean that we're going to see pro-Bush documentaries? :/

[Big Red Fury]

It still remains true: You can't criticize America without being labled a traitor or a "coward" and you can't be a patriot without loving George Bush. Nice.

How I missed this quote I have no idea. If this quote is in context to the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 then I must say that he really isn't criticizing America. He is criticising everything Bush. How he operated in the private sector, and how he now operates as President. As for the second part...I consider myself a patriotic person, and I very much dislike Bush. I know a lot of people I would consider patriotic and they all dislike him either. So where you heard anyone come up witht that irrational notion is beyond me.

[Maxx]

Yes, Bush is sending people's kids off to war. He started the whole Iraq War and thus, sent kids there.

Only reason he hasn't thrown his support behind the draft bills that congress is currently voting on is because its an election year.

[Big Red Fury]

Yes, Bush is sending people's kids off to war.  He started the whole Iraq War and thus, sent kids there.

Only reason he hasn't thrown his support behind the draft bills that congress is currently voting on is because its an election year.

←

Judging by your avitar there's an unbiased answer if I've ever seen one.

[sahyder1]

If your avatar is any indication, you wouldn't be serving in Iraq under Bush OR Kerry.

I'm a Canadian citizen presently living in the US.

1. Does Michael Moore want the world to be like Flint, Michigan, which my dad (a Michigan grad) assures me is a miserable place?

Um.....he points to Flint to show that cities like that have been screwed over and could use the money more then Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.

[Big Red Fury]

If the children of Flint are so horribly off then how did Moore manage to get so rich(by their standards)?

[Mishmow]

He didn't get rich in Flint. He went to college and made money from his works....

[conniption]

Look, Dukes, I'm not asking you to like Michael Moore. All I'm pointing out is that your accusations of him being a glory hog are absurd. He has a set of strong beliefs (whether or not you agree with them), and a strong desire to promulgate them (fair enough) and his methods - namely his humorous, opinionated stunt-filled films / TV shows carried by his everyman charisma - have proved extraordinarily succesful in doing that. Attacking him for being a glory hog by putting himself on screen could hardly be more off-base - was Martin Luther King, Jr a glory hog for standing behind his podium and using his magnetism, charisma and flair for rhetoric to present his views? Of course not. Note that I'm not asking you to think that Moore is as good a person as MLK or whatever - you can think he's the devil for all I care - but merely that that particular attack on him is ludicrous.

If he never put himself on-screen, if he tried to prevent his personal touch coming out in his shows and documentaries, he certainly wouldn't be putting out a film that became the highest selling documentary ever in JUST ONE WEEKEND.

Moore's work is known because he's Michael Moore. And your statement about it being the highest selling documentary shows you CLEARLY don't understand American movie receipts. Michael Moore's documentary did well because he's Michael Moore. The goodness or badness of the documentary has nothing to do with it...

Read what I said again. Slower. Did I say anything about the goodness or badness of Fahrenheit 9/11? Of course not. The film hasn't even come out in New Zealand. I said, in effect, exactly what you said - you say people go to the film just because it's Michael Moore and it's hyped. well, why is it hyped? Why do people want to see his film just because it's Michael Moore? Well, because of his past film and TV work, particularly his directorial style which has always seen him put himself in front of the camera. That seems pretty reasonable - I'd go to most Coen Brothers or Tarantino films just because based on their previous works I think I'll enjoy it.

is he supposed to keep his opinions to himself and make sure he never goes past the stating of facts to actually draw some conclusions in his work? Hell no.

Yes, if he wants to be seen as a documentarian. That's the definition of a documentary.

No, it's not. All documentarians make choices about what material they include and what material they exclude from their films, and these choices reflect the documentarian's editorial concerns. A list of facts on screen with no conclusions drawn would be crushingly dull, and can't fail to be incomplete. Of course, they're not allowed to lie, and if Michael Moore lies (he hasn't been caught out for any in Fahrenheit 9/11 yet that I know of yet) I'm not going to support him. But he's free to express his opinion - just think of it as an op-ed piece in your newspaper, but in film form instead, if that makes it easier for you.

Right, fine, okay, I get it.  Michael Moore can say whatever the hell he wants.  That doesn't mean I have to like it...

Yes he can. That's free speech. And no, of course you don't. Just try not to dislike him for such phony reasons.

Hasn't the Disney affair (and the trouble he had publishing Stupid White Men before that) tought everyone that if he didn't bust his ass to promote his work, they'd simply be shut down and suppressed by big corporations with their own reasons not to upset the applecart?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- oh, you're serious.

Michael Moore has a reputation, well-earned.

And he got that reputation by promoting himself and (more importantly) his work, and breaking through the considerable barriers that stand in front of his style of political message - whether you agree with it or not - getting mainstream exposure.

2. Could this be the greatest example of "pot, kettle, black" in history?

What do you even mean by that? It's not like Moore's done many of the major things he's accused Bush of, like starting a war for fraudulent reasons that's killed millions, and so on.