Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11 (general discussion - merged) - Page 7

Hey O'Brian you're pretty funny. The commies are our enimiers. The commies are not our enemies the terrorists are and always have been. The terrorists are not the enemy Saddam is and always has been.

A couple of documents I really dig. You should look into them sometime.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Article [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cut the treason crap for god's sake.

Seriously Common Man. Get a grip on reality. Making an anti-Bush "documentary" is not akin to overthrowing the government. It is Michael Moore's Constitutional right to make the film and your Constitutional right to decry the film as liberal trash. But no one has the Constitutional right to jail someone simply for expressing his opinion, even if it conflicts with yours or the President's.

If you suggest overthrowing or ignoring the Constitution and imprisoning Michael Moore... then perhaps you're the one committing treason.

Great link. We have no doubt which side Moore is on.



Intellectually bankrupt.

Communist? Oh yeah? You Running Dog Imperialist! (Man how I miss the sixties!)

Will you also stand up and loudly point out any truths you see in this film, even if you find them uncomfortable? Do you also call in to Rush and Hannity et al and try to correct them of the lies (sorry, conservatives don't lie, they "misspeak" ) they tell? Why don't you just make your own movie?

I'm always curious about these "God Bless such and such" pronouncements. Can we really direct God to do our bidding? Do you think that we know better than God what should be done? Do you think that God interferes in our lives rather than letting us learn from our mistakes? Was the Creation so sloppy that it requires constant intervention? And suppose Bush were impeached. Might not that be a blessing for America and the presidency, though not the blessing you had in mind?

I saw the movie yesterday. It was sold out for the noon showing.

First of all, apart from the politics I think it was a great film. Your attention was riveted to the screen from start to finish. It was also a draining film, emotionally.

Some short scenes were funny without having much importance. (e.g. Wolfowitz licking his comb then combing his hair.)

Most of the scenes were very powerful. The footage from Iraq showing the maimed and dead children and the bereft woman crying to God over her lost family were heart wrenching. It made me cry to feel her sadness.

The connections between the Bush family and the Saudis were chilling and spooky. It was eerie when the Secret Service showed up when they were standing across the street from the Saudi embassy.

Bush comes off as pretty comical. The last scene where he tries to cite the adage "fool me once..." is really funny.

Overall, the movie was too short. By that I mean it tries to cover a huge amount of material. Part of the reason it is draining is that it is so dense with information. Moore could have split this into six movies covering various topics in more detail.

One of the good things about the movie is the content it shows which has been ignored by the corporate media. If mainstream media were more balanced then a film like this would not be able to gain such notoriety. If most of the clips were easily available to the public then it would be part of the public dialog and would not have to power to stir people so strongly.

What do you think the average Joe/Jane BlubberPack will think when they see this movie?

you know, common man, you were quickly becoming one of my least favorite humans on earth until i clicked through your profile, checked your birthdate and did the f'n math.

you can rail against the communist machine WHEN YOU ARE OLD ENOUGH TO FRIGGIN' VOTE. common "man" my ass... my recently deceased war veteran father would bitch-slap you just for talking out of turn, boy.

man, they'll let anyone on the internet these days.

Wobble violently...

Blubberpack! can you buy that at WalMart?

One thing that Michael Moore's film does well is it humanizes the war. Fahrenheit 9/11 shows us the human toll exacted by oft-repeated euphemisms like "surgical strikes" and "collateral damage." We see grieving Iraqi widows, distraught Iraqi men cleaning up the human carnage from a night of bombing, and mangled Iraqi children. We almost don't need to be told that over 9000 other civilians perished during the conflict-- and continue to die every day. The scenes seem representative enough to make his point efficiently.

And then there's Lila Lipscombe, amputee veterans, adrenaline-fueled soldiers that get a kick out of killing, and solemn soldiers who get sick from killing. Moore puts a face on the consequences of war, cutting through the vague notion of "challenges ahead" that Mr. Bush often repeats. Is it worth it?

Moore and the Democrats



http://www.chronicallybiased.com/index.php?itemid=588

Just thought I would add that it's practically criminal that this movie was given an "R" rating.

what was left out?

Were you planning on adding anything? Or are you just here to boost that websites hit count? Or maybe you didn't comment because you're not really sure who Leni Riefenstahl is.

All of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?

Hmm?!

Scott on 'Anti-Semitism"?

it is almost like he protesteth too much about this issue. WHat lurks below that Euro cranium?

or better yet: Yawn....

F911 is number one.


FYI, F911 was edited entirely on Macs using FCP.

Interesting point. There has been a lot of talk over the last couple of years that some oil would start being priced in Euros. That could have enormous consequences for the US.

Soon......

But meanwhile:

Michael Moore is being taken to task for blatant omissions in his Fahrenheit 9-11 documentary:

QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL MOORE!
MoveOn Org is hosting a National Online Town Meeting with Michael Moore to raise voter consciousness for the next election. This online meeting is NOT open to everyone with a computer. You must make arrangements to attend one of the pre-planned gatherings. The list of locations, about 2000 nation wide, can be found at http://action.moveonpac.org/f911/

I encourage people to participate because "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a powerful antiwar statement and needs to be supported for that reason. This coming election, we need to vote out the warhawks, both Republican and Democrat.

I you are able to attend, I would like to ask you to join me in praising Michael Moore's talents as a film maker, and then respectfully and politely asking Michael Moore a few questions.

Question 1: If the Saudis were behind 9-11, why didn't they leave the United States BEFORE the attack? It is an established fact that companies like Odigo received an advance warning of the 9-11 attacks before the hijacked planes had even left the ground, as reported in Ha'Aretz and the Washington Post. If the Saudis were behind 9-11 and were kind enough to warn Odigo, then why did they themselves wait until AFTER the attacks before they left, when the requirement for special permission from Bush would only call attention to their departure?
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2...ost092801.html

Question 2: Is Michael Moore aware that the video tape of Osama "confessing" to 9-11 has been proven a fake?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

Question 3: Is Michael Moore aware that just ten days after 9-11, the FBI stated (and CNN reported) that the 9-11 perpetrators were using skillfully made fake IDs with identities stolen from Arab men?
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

Question 4: Is Michael Moore aware that FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft?
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Con...DENCE-LINK.htm

Question 5: Calling attention to the Anthrax letters case, in which letters which appeared to to be written by Arab Muslims contained Anthrax spores identified as coming from a US Government laboratory. Is Michael Moore aware that neither of the two suspects in the case, Dr. Stephen Hatfill or Dr.Philip Zack, are Arabs, and doesn't this case prove that Arabs are being framed for terror attacks in the United States?


Michael Moore rightly condemns the US Government for the USAPATRIOT act's draconian assault opon our rights. However, one of those rights as that nobody shall be declared guilty of a crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As Michael Moore professes a deep respect for American values, he should not glibly declare that someone is guilty of a crime without being able to make his case beyond that reasonable doubt.

There is a reasonable doubt.

And if Michael Moore is a reasonable man who respects American principles, he must acknowledge that.

Just came back from seeing it.

Geez, nothing I wasn't aware of already, just condensed into an in your face (but well made) documentary.

It just saddens me that although I am not a conservative, that the torch-bearers of conservatism seem to always be evil-doers who do a great job trumping up God, Country, and Freedom and who behind the scenes just make cash and power grabs. Must be a bummer to be a conservative with integrity these days.

I left the theater thinking that Satan must spend most of his time these days perparing the additional space needed for the incoming class of the damned.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

God! I really want to see this film!


It sounds like the truth really is out there.

Whoops. Seems you're dead wrong.

Actually I would put him at dead pretty close to right. The only reason this movie is "breaking records" is because it is listed as a documentary. It also opened on a record number of screens for a documentary. It opened on almost 400% more screens than any of Moore's previous films.

If you take the same numbers and look at it in the context of general films, it is hardly impressive at all. Box Office Mojo has it ranked as the 19th biggest opening film all year. It was beat by films like Scooby Doo 2 and Starsky and Hutch for example. Passion of the Christ, which Fahrenheit is frequently compared to in terms of having little to no marketing, lots of buzz, and needing distribution help, did almost $84 million it's opening weekend.

Most films do their biggest business the first weekend and then fall off dramatically. Drops of 25-50% are very common. If it does $14-15 million next week,(35% drop off) that would be pretty good.

Now consider the real competition it has this week. (In otherwords, not White Chicks)

Spiderman 2, I suspect Spiderman 2 might do even better than the $114+ million that the first movie did. We are talking about Fahrenheit being buried by $100+ million if it even stays in second place.

Nick

You missed out the fact that although 9-11 is the week's largest grossing movie, ahead of all the feature movies...9-11 was being shown on only 800 screens nationwide, compared to the competition, the Hollywood feature movies, which not only grossed less but also were being shown on an average of 3 times as many screens, some 2500 nationwide

Although I do predict that like non-mainstream rockbands with a solid following whose fans line up to buy the album as soon as its released, 9-11's big opening splash will not last as long as that of a regular feature movie. The F9-11 response I reckon will be like that of the X-Files movie...a big start and a quick tail off. But as with all documentaries, there will be showings in small theaters etc as it makes its way through the smaller towns of America.

Here's a good read: A conservative's critique of Fahrenheit 911:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/grigg-w1.html

Check out http://www.moorelies.com/

I have not looked at it yet, but you can guess the nature of the website by its name.

I would love to see Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore duking it out in MTV's Celebrity Death Match...

IMHO both of them are blowhards.

What's your point, Nick? No film of that nature has ever been as successful. When talking about documentaries, it's entirely appropriate to evaluate it as financially successful if it makes more money than any previous documentary. Comparing films in different genres is worthwhile-- but you're saying a film's financial success only matters when compared to films in general.

Edit: Removed bad metaphor.

Desperation, I think. You're looking really insecure actually.

SPIDERMAN 2 will open on roughly 4-5 times as many screens. If it grosses ~$114 million like the first, it will gross rougly 5-6 times as much as this documentary. To say that's irrelevant or unheard of is just not true.

The reason this movie opened on so many screens is because there was and is a demand for the movie. Documentaries don't usually create any demand. This is an important fact.

There's so many responses to this post!!

Who says people don't care???
Everyone's got their opinion.

What would it have been like in the 80's if there were forums like this to post your views??

So what is this movie supposed to accomplish?
Is it just entertainment?
Is it supposed to open our eyes to what's really going on?
Is it something that should movtivate us to discuss what's going on so that hopefully we as a country can come up with something to make peace and make this world a better place for our kids years from now?

I haven't seen the move yet so I have no opinion.

Actually Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't even do the largest gross per screen this year. (I believe it was second to Passion which pulled a higher gross per screen on over 3000+ screens) So even when considered in the per screen context, it wasn't tops. Now it did do better than the very meager competition this week. But the only thing it truly had to compete against in terms of opening was White Chicks.

I think what will truly be interesting is to look into the future and see if what Moore does is truly called a documentary anymore. I mean how many other "documentaries" have budgets and marketing campaigns in the millions? Spike Lee makes movies that are certainly less fictional than some of the Moore stuff. They often feature him in a story telling role, take very contemporary issues in only a slighly fictionalized context. Yet Spike is considered a movie maker, not a documentary maker. Moore creates fictional scenarios and basically records the result. Reading the Patriot Act from an ice cream truck, etc.

Also consider the "Brief History of America" footage from BFC. Is that truly documentary work, or is it entertaining editorial cartooning? When Matt and Trey do it for South Park are they documentarians? They use experiences from their youth, but it isn't a documentary.

Obviously some of what Moore does is still considered a documentary. But more and more of it is contrived, staged, scripted, and written. While it can be smart, funny, editorialize, etc. That isn't documentary making.


Well I made most of my point to Sammi so you can read that. Also note what Box Office Mojo leaves out in terms of documentary definitions.


That leaves a lot of movies, that follow similar semi-documentary forms, and make plenty of money, out of the picture. For example Jackass from MTV was made for $5 million, features everyone authentically as themselves. It opened with $22 million the first weekend which would best Moore for example. My point is basically that Moore has left behind true documentary making and instead has moved to something that features some documentary making, some comedy bits, some scripted sequences, some animation, etc. I love what Bill Maher does which involves real news and real people, but it isn't a documentary.


Way to open with a personal insult about motivations. So becoming of you bunge. You are right that documentaries don't usually have this sort of demand. But then again how much of this movie is truly a documentary anymore vs. enlightening, entertaining, scripted social commentary.

Nick

Let me see if I get this straight. It seems you refuse to accept Fahrenheit 9/11 as the "highest grossing documentary ever," thus evading admitting that it's actually financially successful. Although It just seems that you're more interested in maligning Moore's film than in defining genres, let's go down that road. Nick, what is a documentary? Do you deny that a documentary is "customarily an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view?" What is your criteria for a documentary and how does Moore's film fail to meet them? According to the definition I supplied, which is probably what most people think of as a documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 easily meets the criteria.

Personal insult? Please. If I wanted to insult you I could come up with something much stronger than what I posted. Just my insight into your psyche, that's all.

As for demand, it's there, and it is a documentary. Documentary does not mean no bias. Quite the contrary. Documentaries are often riddled with bias and should be viewed with skepticism. But that doesn't make them any less viable or significant as a documentaries.

EDIT: I think it's a common misconception that documentaries are bias free, accurate and completely upfront and honest.

'Cinema verite' is merely a historical school of documentary. . . but it is that alone.
There is no thing as cinema verite as far as content: it is impossible.

But if one wants to make a documentary that is as close to 'objective' as possible then it is best to allow 'reality' to dictate the narrative as much as possible, while also reflecting on the impossiblity of that narrative's limitations. All narrative is someone's narrative . . . and whether it is legitimate or not is dependant on the felicity to the idea of 'reality' which supposedly guides its hand, and writes its story . .
as well as the viewers idea of the narrative's relationship to 'reality' . . . what is the over-arching story that each believes is truth?

I never claimed that documentaries had to be bias free. Rather that they often involve documenting something versus creating and contriving something.

Nick

So that's what a documentary is.

Let's look at that for a minute because I already pointed out several examples in Moore films that I didn't think met that criteria very well.

I mentioned the cartoon in Bowling for Columbine, A Brief History of America, while entertaining, it wasn't factual, even in the context of presenting a point of view. It also wasn't documenting anything. It is editorial cartooning.

I also mentioned the very contrived scene in Fahrenheit of reading the Patiot Act from the ice cream truck. It is entertaining, but what does it document or present? It is political satire.

I'm not even saying it has to be free of bias. Oliver Stone made some very entertaining and very profitable movies about JFK and Nixon. They historically represented the thoughts of parties involved, etc. But they weren't documenting anything. They were works of historical fiction.

When you are no longer documenting with commentary and instead are creating with commentary, I think you have moved from the realm documentary as is the commonly understood definition. Political satire, editorials, comics, etc. can be great, entertaining, funny, scathing, etc. However they are not documenting anything, or even presenting documented material with a bias or slant.

Al Franken can be (depending upon your view) funny as hell with something like Supply-side Jesus. However Supply-side Jesus isn't considered a documentary for example, even if it were in cartoon instead of comic form, (Which btw Al should probably consider doing since it would probably make enough money to finance AirAmerica Radio) it wouldn't be a documentary.

Moore does have aspects of his films that are still documentaries. But increasingly they are something other than a documentary. They are sketch comedy, political satire, cartoons and so forth that do not document, but rather allow Moore to be the star and read his political invective without any context, support or relationship to the reality he claims to be documenting.

Nick

If there was a movie about 9-11 which was packed with inaccuracies, lies and blatant propaganda, it was that pathetically sanitized made-for-TV abortion of a film called D.C. 9-11, (I think it was called that?) with Timothy Bottoms. It was released some 6 months back I recall. I have watched it twice, once when it was first broadcast on TV, and then again on a friend's video a few weeks after. The scene where Chief of Staff Andrew Card whispers in the president's ear "the 2nd tower has been hit by a second airplane, America is under attack" was unbelievable, truly incredible in how it deviates from reality.

In the movie, Bush responds with visible shock, horror and panic, then immediately takes charge of the situation within seconds, and he was on his way in minutes (!)

In reality: Bush knew about the first plane before he went into the classroom at 9-01: \tBush later makes the following statement:
He has repeated the story on other occasions. However, it has been noted that Bush doesn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. A Boston Herald article later says, Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit, which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit. The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building,...as it happened?

Card then tells Bush about the 2nd plane at 9-06 am. Bush sits there with this partially bemused, almost blank expression on his face. He was probably wondering something like "yikes, it's happened....I wonder if everyone pulled their part according to plan"...or "what the f*** am I going to do now". He looked very indecisive, and while he dithered, Ari Fleischer stood at the back of the classroom holding a large white sign, with "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" printed with a magic marker pen. He sat there reading that goat-and-girl book to those kids for another TEN MINUTES, until 9-16 am. Between 9-16 and 9-29, he is still in that school, talking with advisers on the phone. At 9-29, he makes a short speech in front of schoolteachers and children. At 9-34, his motorcade finally leaves the school.

Phew. Did the rightwing complain about the legions of lies and misleading, fictitious and fanciful scenes that peppered that movie? And the legions of the clueless who allow CNN and Fox News to mold their political perception were probably going yugga yugga yugga, Dubya's our man, go stick it to those AY-rabs.....

I just read an interesting op ed piece by Anthony Wade, where he discussed the various tactics being used by right wingers in an attempt to prevent people from seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 and/or to discredit the film.

Wade (as Moore has done) freely admits that the film has a political agenda. Wade also points out that this agenda is presented with a significant number of facts regarding the Bush family, the House of Saud, the current Bush presidency and the war in Iraq. He lists several of these facts, wondering if anyone is able to refute them. I thought it might be interesting to see if any of the films detractors from AO can provide sources that allow the following questions can be answered with a definitive no.


1. Do the Saudis 'own' 7% of this country? [ie, do they invest as much money in the US as Moore asserts they do?]

2. Does the Presidents family have deep ties to the Bin Laden family?

3. Did the President arrange for members of the Bin Laden family to be flown out of this country on 09/13, while there was a ban on flights, and then lie about it for two years?

4. Have [the Presidents family] made billions of dollars from the Saudis?

5. Did the Taliban meet with GW Bush in the late 90s to discuss a pipeline through Afghanistan?

6. Did GW Bush sit in that classroom reading My Pet Goat while we were under attack?

7. Did the White House really turn over the Presidents military records with the name of James Bath crossed out with marker?

8. Did the Patriot Act get passed without being read?

9. Did that mother lose her son in Iraq?

10. Did those children die, and are they still dying in Iraq?

11. Did Halliburton make billions upon billions of dollars in no-bid contracts from this war?

12. Did Dick Cheney used to run Halliburton?

13. Is [Halliburton] profiting from a war?

14. Was the man GW Bush named to run Afghanistan, Hamid Karzi, a consultant for Unocal, the same company that wanted that pipeline?

15. Is there more than one Senator who has a kid in Iraq right now?

16. Did GW Bush spend 42% of his first year on vacation?

17. Did [GW Bush] not read the intelligence briefings [on terrorist activity prior to 9/11]?

18. Were the soldiers lied to about how long they would be in Iraq?

19. Is recruitment for the armed services aimed at minorities and the poor?

Didn't he play Bush in 'That's My Bush' as well?

"One of these days Laura, I'm gonna punch you in the face!"

I actually think that a lot of those answers are no.

BBut not entirely no . . . with some reservations and some kind-ofs in the mix and a few resounding yeses.

Which ones are "no"? Looks like a "Check, check, check, check" list. Some are a little debateable but mostly, just yes yes yes. Which ones wouldn't be?