lol

I expected to see more fireworks than this when I clicked on the link to this thread :)

I haven't see the film - in fact I'm not sure if it's been released here in Oz - but there is a considerable review on the opinion section of this weekend's The Australian newspaper. What is interesting about this review is that it's by a man called Christopher Hitchens who is described as a Left-wing British intellectual. Bearing in mind that probably puts him considerably to the left of most American liberals then it's a surprising review. Here's the first two paragraphs:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ia a sinister excercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an excercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of dissenting bravery.

At no point does Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up a chance of a cheap sneer or jeer. He pitylessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so on.

Not what you'd expect from a left wing commentator, is it? Maybe it's the renowned lack of sense of humour of the extreme left. Perhaps it's Moore's failure to show compassion for those ill-treated by other tyrants (later he criticises Moore for ignoring the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam as well as the distraught mother above). I don't know. But it is a surprising condemnation of the film.

Funny, I have promised myself to never post my political view here, but I feel a rant starting.

Coming from a lerker in the Chicago Burbs. .

My girlfriend and I went to the 9:00 showing. The theater was 80% full. Interestingly, I viewed the movie in Deer Park, which is an upper middle class - wealthy area of the north burbs. For those familiar with the area, it's very close to Barrington and Long Grove.

Anyhow, I was expecting it to be 30% of capacity since it is a very new theater (411 did not even have the # listed yet) and I was guessing many of the locals are wealthy and conservative.

The sociologist in me tried to get a quick sample of the patrons:

15% 16-18 year old girls
5% 16-18 y/o boys
10% couples in the 20s
30% 30 y/o or older couples sympathetic to message
40% 30 y/o or older couples wanting to see movie in the hopes of discrediting the information in the work.

The latter of the above generally were in groups of four, where one male basically stated "well, point x the Moore made was incorrect, twisted, etc, and therefore, it discredits all his points.

The 30 y/o sympathizers had a "deer in the headlights look"

The kids came out very quietly. (May I add, very refreshing as a move patron annoyed at age groups general behavior)

I have many, many, many thoughts on the work. ( To borrow a phrase, but "I don't mean to get on a rant, but ") The primary one is that like Bush, Moore makes no apologies to his point of view. It comes down to your worldview. I view the world through the eyes of one who was raised in a conservative small town, who is a register Republican, yet went to college with the assumption that "I'm not here to learn facts, I'm here to experience life." Through this, I met many people from many walks of life, and actively gathered points of view across a politically active campus. Near the end of my time, I composed a weekly column, often criticizing the liberal factions on campus.

I did so knowing that in that environment, people thought of issues as if they existed in a vacuum. I believed, and still do, that the "liberals" that I criticized (and one who subsequently called me "a conservative asshole") looked a narrow facts to support their views. It is easy to simplify the problem as "constructs perpetuate the patriarchy", but making as such into some sort of public policy to better the human condition is impossible.

When I got out "in the real world", I discovered that I was a politically liberal. It's a label that I find as a compliment. The early 1900s, a philosopher with the last name of Cohen penned "Faith of a Liberal". He states that a liberal is not one who is to the left of all issues, but rather, one who gathers all relative facts to make the best decision at that time.

Starting on September 13th 2001, I thirsted for facts to help me put what happened in perspective. I looked through my old sociology and psychology books for guidance. I gathered all I could about the Middle East, the history of the region, and previous efforts to transform regions, such as Israel and Vietnam.

So far, I will say the following "I may be, and hope to be wrong about the following. If I am wrong, it is a good thing.

In short, through the leadership of Bush, our country continues down a self-destructive path. Not only my generation, but also my children not yet born will suffer.

What does this have to do with Moore, you may ask? It reminds us that seemingly “moral” and “upright” initiatives can have, at best, questionable underpinnings. Like terrorism, those who make policy do not live in a vacuum. They need to make decisions that not only solve terrorism (and I would argue that one never “solves” this, since you would infer that you have to solve "a cultural phenomena") but also maintain or improve other important factors that may not be in the public’s best interest.

In my opinion, Moore did a great job of drawing out emotion, especially since I am one who tries to leave emotion out. In the midst of that effort, logical leaps occur. Does this mean that I should throw out all the conclusions? I say no. Does it succinctly gather information that the mainstream media shy away from? Yes. Is this part of the big picture, and it does not definatively explain it? I say yes. Did it change my mind? No. Did I learn something? Yes.

Most of all, I believe the answer to the last question is most important.

Anybody have the current odds that the Fox News Channel will be reporting that Farenheit 9/11 is #1 at the box office this weekend?

I have $10 in my pocket that says they will not.

I predict that they will either not include F-911 in their tops at the box office because it "does not qualify" or will accidentally forget to include some of the smaller independent movie houses that are currently showing Farenheit 9/11.

Mac,

Hitchens is a 'leftist' in name only. From what I know, he was a rising political star in the mid-late 70's, but while...the fact he's a bit of a drunk caused him to crash and burn when many people thought he'd be a Prime Minister. He made his 'name' in the states by attacking Clinton for almost his whole Presidency and also kept his street cred by saying even though Bush's reasons for going to war was wrong, the ends justifies the means - or the lies for that matter. The guy can still write like hell, and probably wrote that piece half sloshed.

BTW, if you want the 'response' to Hitchens, here's a decent one I saw...

hxxp://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150

Now, on to my own F911 rant...

For what it's worth, I thought the movie was very good, not perfect, but great. From the beginning where you had the Congressional Black Caucus standing up against what they thought was black disinfrancisement in Florida (which, if you don't beleive it happened... gregpalast.com) against a Senate where not one man or woman, Repub or Democrat was willing to sign to it to the absolute pathetic way the Armed Forces recruit in the worst neighborhoods because ya' know Bobby and Sally who have new cars from Mummy and Daddy - not going to Iraq. The kid in the area with 30-40% unemployment. BTW, all you guys crowing about unemployment not being that high? When you're 26 weeks is done, you're not officially 'unemployed' anymore. I've heard estimates that the 'real' unemployment rate is anywhere from 7-9%. Google it if you want to.

Yeah, I'm a Liberal and damn proud of it. But, I also read (since I'm 21) about a time when sure, Republicans and Democrats disagreed but they also could debate without calling each other 'Unamerican' and 'Crooks.' The current people in office, Bush, DeLay, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, all of 'em have helped to further fracture this country into the 'Red's' and 'Blue's. From day one when Bush, depsite the fact he 'won' by one vote didn't appoint one Demcrat to his Cabinet to the fact they wanted to bomb Iraq from second one. I hope Kerry wins not just for the 300 milllion Americans, but for the other 5.7 billion or so lives on this planet.

Here's the thing. Every site I go to, I'm reading things about the theater being packed, another showing having to be put in for the overflow. Remember, it was only on 700-800 screens this week. Even with the Spidey juggernaut, F911 will probably add a couple hundred screens and probably only drop 30% next week. People will see this and it will gain good Word O' Mouth (84% 'fresh' rating on rottontomatoes.com). Pure econmics will make theater owners keep it in circulation. This will not quietly go away like some want it to. I may not agree with everything lock step with Moore, but hell, if he wants to face the fire, I'll let him. The film itself will finish somewhere around 65-85 million and might change a few minds.

But, hey, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

have I ever mentioned that I wish moore would choke on a ham biscut?

People are getting worked up over a movie. Truth must hurt.... To bad because people are still going to vote Bush either way it goes... nothing short of him saying he is the antichrist will change their votes.

Nice post, Esquared.

This I question. Does Moore succinctly manufacture information that the mainstream media does not? Yes.

So, in your opinion, how was the movie?

I refuse to hand the guy my money. I assure you, he has done enough lying in his films and interviews over the years to make me assume that everything he says is a lie. Every point he makes, even ones I would wholeheartedly agree with were someone else to say them, instantly become more questionable the moment he utters them. He is that qustionable a source of information.

I just hope that when it comes time for documentary awards, people remember that Moore himself refers to this film (indeed he also considered Bowling for Columbine this as well) "an op/ed piece."

If he wants to make op/ed films, more power to him. It just pisses me off to no end when he presents his opinions and editorializing as fact. They are not.

So you haven't seen it?

You see I hate Bill O' Reilly with a passion. (I actually hate the political Al Franken. ) If O'Reilly made a movie about Bush, I could make some assumptions about what it would be about. I also probably wouldn't pay money to go see it. But the third thing I wouldn't do is post in a thread about something I haven't seen. And don't tell me you wouldn't be all over any liberal from the board if they posted what you posted in the O'Reilly movie thread.

Dola:

The other thing I find funny is how the conservative element of the board usually has about 1000 arguements to refute the liberals on this board. (I will give them that a lot of them are legit) The only things they can say about F911 is that Moore didn't make a true documentary and he may have lied in the past. Why not refute any of the bold claims made about Bush in the film? Cat got your tounge?

because most of them haven't seen it and revert to their usual blind bashing of any negative to Bush.

"He puts down Bush? He's por-terrorist!!!" :rolleyes:

You and panerd seem to be making the same mistake - assuming that because I hate Moore, I am a conservative, blinded by my love for Bush. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I align myself with neither party, thinking both are thieves interested only in attaining and keeping power, I actually agree with the basic premises of Moore's last two movies - that guns are too easy to come by, and that Bush has led the US astray in Iraq. That does not change the fact that Moore lies. I have seen the clip from Bowling in Columbine in which he presents it like he showed up that day, with no prior contact, and walks out with a gun. I have seen interviews in which Moore emphatically states that he had no prior contact with the bank. And I have seen the faxes sent between his production company and the bank setting up the piece weeks (or months, I forget) in advance.

As for not having seen the movie making any comments I might have irrelevant, answer this question. Why are you so willing to accept Moore's opinions (which he himself calls his films) that are based on secondhand accounts (he witnessed very fewm, if any of the events he comments on) but when anyone does so to criticize Moore, they are ridiculous. Moore can read on CNN.com that Bush went on vactation, he can accept it as fact and blast Bush in the film for doing so, and he is making a good point. Yet when anyone reads "X is shown in Moore's movie" they cannot accept that as fact?

Whoa. That's a good point. Actually, how can we believe Peter Jennings? I don't think he witnesses everything that happens that he reports. Jesus. It's all a bunch of bullshit secondhand accounts.
Ok. We're talking about the difference between criticizing a movie or any other piece of work you haven't seen and stating facts. You don't have to be a first hand witness to state a fact. You do have to watch a movie to present a valid criticism of it.

Huh?

So if Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Anne Coulter goes on Fox and says something stupid, only those who were watching at the time get to comment on it?

FoxNews.com

I'll take cash or money order.

There's a difference between a quote and a scene in a movie.

Take a sporting event. "Did you see the end of that game???" "I heard it was great" "It was nuts!" Now obviously, the person who saw the end of the game has a much better handle on how great the finish was compared to the person who only heard it was great.

I just want to get things straight for a second. If a conservative doesn't see the movie out of an objection for Michael Moore, then they can't comment on the Moore, the film, its facts or lack thereof, or even the political underpinnings. If they do see the movie and give their opinion, they are idealogues who shouldn't be listened to anyway? Is that about the abridged version of this thread?

I suppose. But let's be honest: nobody is going into this film with an open-mind. I defy you to find very many on the left who are saying "gosh, I really thought I'd like it but after seeing it I changed my mind."

Both sides are playing the same game here. They're reading about the movie's claims (from the partisan news source of choice) and choosing to believe them or not based on how neatly that belief fits into their political worldview. Some people are actually going to see the movie, but that's only a formality. And of course more folks on the left are seeing it than on the right -- they're the intended audience, after all.

I think there are various healthy debates to be had here, about Moore in general, and about his work here in specific. But to claim that only those who spend the time and money to see the film are allowed a ticket to the debate -- when virtually every media source in the country has already covered its claims in great detail -- is just silly.

I haven't seen the film -- I hope to, but I haven't yet. But I don't need to see it to know that much of what Moore is showing is misleading to the edge of falsehood, any more than you need to be a regular Fox News viewer to criticize their bias.

Well said Maple Leafs.

No, there's nothing wrong with one side of the aisle saying such and such ideas are wrong. It's completely another to say a movie is full lof lies when you haven't seen it. If people want to bash Moore for his beliefs than fine, that's no different than the other 9000 political threads on here.

It's like saying "Lord of the Rings sucked. It was a terrible movie full of lies and deviated from the books" when you haven't seen it. Go see the movie, then bitch about it. It's a copout to say "I don't want to give Moore any of my money but I want to bitch about the movie anyway." You're not giving him money but you'll give him publicity? How can I comment on White CHicks when I haven't seen it? I can't.

The people who won't go see the movie but want to blast it and those that have seen it (I haven't seen it yet either, hence I haven't been praising it or putting it out) are wasting server resources. Once again it shows that some people will just blast the other side with nothing to back up their argument.

I guess we just agree to disagree here. Moore's biases (I won't call them "lies" because I don't believe Moore does lie) have been well-documented for weeks, by observers on all sides. I don't need to see his movie to know that it's outrageously biased any more than I need to see Shrek to know that it's animated.

This is a perfect example actually. Let's say that I heard O'Reilly put down the NEA on a segment of his show. You watched the whole show and realize the context of the statement he made. I come on here and blast O'Reilly for his anti-education viewpoints. Wouldn't you respond with what really happened? All I see is a group of people who have not seen the movie blasting it (because of something that they heard happened in Bolwing for Columbine) and telling a bunch of people who have seen the movie what is wrong with it. They can make any comments they want, but until they have actually seen the movie I will take them with a grain of salt.

EDIT: And when you see the movie your opinion is just as valid as any liberal who has seen the movie. Until then your opinion is not as valid.

If I told you that White Chicks was a movie starring Tom Cruise, was a Civil War costume drama, and ran for eight hours with three intermissions... would you simply accept it because I'd seen to the movie and you hadn't? Or would you refute it because you know enough about the film, even without seeing it, to know with some certainty that I was misrepresenting it?

There's a difference between that example and people arguing about stuff that is supposed to be interpreted by the viewer. I don't see anyone saying Tom Cruise was in Moore's film.

Sure, but there's a difference between countering or even correcting someone, and trying to shut them completely out of the discussion.

Which is fair enough, but that you seem to be ignoring the massive blitz of coverage, pro and con, that this movie has already had. I will grant you that someone on the right who had just emerged from a cave (insert punchline here) and had no knowledge at all about the film would be unfit to comment on it. But that's not the case here. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I don't need to see it to know, for example, that Moore engages in that ridiculous "send your kid to war" stunt with members of congress. I'm not sure I see where that's really in dispute.

Let me declare my bias here. I'm not a Moore fan, but that has less to do with his politics than with his style of work. I've worked in the field as a journalist, and I've made documentaries. I find people like Moore, regardless of political leanings, to be an embarassment. And it makes me sad when people seem to so eager to swallow what Moore and his ilk are spoonfeeding them. I'm always amazed in particular at how our "media savvy" youth are so incapable or unwilling to ask tough questions.

Do you have the same problem with op-ed columnists? Moore himself says that this is what he is doing, not straight journalism. If he is doing satirical op-ed, which is what I think is the best description of what he does, I'm not sure what line he crosses that people like George Will, William Safire, Molly Ivins, Maureen Dowd, Richard Cohen, Robert Novak, and any other famous opinion columnist don't also cross when they need to do so to make their points.

I am curious - run me through some of the "facts" that you object to in the movie.

I'd agree with that, but Moore is playing both sides of the fence here. He claims that he's in the entertainment business, but he also claims that his movies are factual and accurate. And of course, he certainly hasn't got around to returning that best documentary Oscar.

Beyond that, I like to think that even the most opinionated columnist has certain responsibilities. Some acknowledgement of the other side is a nice start. Using quotes within their proper context is another. Avoiding misleading cheap shots is nice as well.

I'd agree with you that plenty of "journalists", if held up to scrutiny, would do just as poorly as Moore does. I suppose that's in some way unfair to him, but then again he's far more into self-promotion than most others so I'm tempted to say that it comes with the territory.

Where are his movies not factual and accurate?

The disagreement over his movies comes from the interpretation not from what is presented. You can take the Bush "Now watch this drive" any number of ways, it doesn't change the fact that it happened and he said that. The interpretation of that scene is different for different people tho.

Try the Christopher Hitchens' piece - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

And during the ask members of Congress stunt, he cut out at least one that said his son/nephew was going over there right now.

EDIT - It's usually not so much that he lies (although that happens occasionally), but that he only selects and edits to present one side of the argument (insert WMD joke) and then just expects everyone to agree with what he presents.

Is anyone else amused that the film is being released by FAG?

And the estimates say it should make 22 million, about 4 more than white chicks.

It depends on how semantic you want to get. His movies are factual and accurate in the same way that the old "Man denies beating wife" headline is factual and accurate. Technically true perhaps, but still misleading and unfair.

I must have missed the memo stating all movies must be fair. Particularly one's that take on political topics.

Bishop - And? Did he say not one person answered yes? If so then he lied, if not then he didn't.

How about this, all movies shall be run past political commitees to make sure they are "fair" :rolleyes: There would never be any political movies EVER because at least one side would have a problem with something that wasn't "fair" to their side.

Again, it comes down to interpretations. yes, Moore wants you to interepret what he presents in a certain way. That is different than presenting something as fact however.

Geez, ya post a perfectly good point by point response to Hitchen's piece and everyene ignores it. :-)

hxxp://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150

Also, another person on another forum said it best about Hitchens, who still can write his ass off....



I didn't say that...if you want to flame him....go here -> hxxp://forums.delphiforums.com/newmedievalism

Aren't you the one that said it was factual and accurate?

As far as the house of representatives stunt goes I say it was right on! His film may be prodominently blasting Bush, but I took this part of the film as blasting all politicians. (Didn't Congress vote unimously, including Sen. Kerry, to go to war?) Look how quick they are to vote to send all of the soldiers over there, but I think he nailed them when he asked about their own kids. This particular part of the flim wasn't a slam on just Republicans, it was a slam on all of those crooks! So who cares if he didn't show the one politician? I am 99% certain Congress "selectivly edits" shit like that everyday!

And in my opinion I also thought Bush telling him to get a real job was funny and actually made Bush look good. I interpreted it as "I don't give a fuck what kind of documentary you are making I will do my job however I see fit".

No. I haven't seen it, someone said it wasn't and I said show me where. All people have "shown" is that they take the interpreted message as the "fact that is wrong".

Maybe he could if the unemployment wasn't so high :p (now begins the debate over whether who don't have a job but don't collect unemployment are counted in the #s)

In that article Chris Parry wrote that the Saudi's own Citibank. What a fool. One of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns 4% of stock in the company, but I'm almost certain that he's not even on their board.

Moore and his ilk love to twist the truth. No one who gives a shit about politics and follows it with any regularity gives this guy an ounce of respect. He's a joke.

Umm the suckups on both sides of the aisle do that.

I already posted one link.

This movie just makes Moore look like a whiner. "WHAT? WE DIDN'T SEND ENOUGH TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ?" (huh??)!!! "WILL YOU NOT SEND YOUR KIDS TO IRAQ?" Since when do parents make decisions for their adult-aged children?

Moore is a petty fool who can't even control himself. How does he expect anyone to talk him serious?

So since politicians lie, it makes Moore's lies OK?

Considering I haven't seen the movie, I can't say whether what he states is explicitly in there. However, take that a lot of his "lies" are his interpretations -> "6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)" He divines? Oh really, then it must not be stated as fact but what he took from the facts presented.

That article is as politically slanted as Moore's movie is. How am I supposed to take Hitchens seriously? Sheesh, next you'll be posting anb O'Reilly article as the be-all end-all of the "truth"

He hasn't lied. You disagree with what Moore wants the film to suggest to people.

It was the Congressman's nephew who's in Iraq. The reason it probably wasn't included in the film (I doubt it was "cut") is because the question Moore was asking was about the sons of Congress members who went to war, not extended family members.