The only reason this movie is "breaking records" is because it is listed as a documentary.
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.
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?
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:
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
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.
Quote:
NOTE: Large format, concert (music and comedy) , compilation and reality TV movies omitted.
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I never claimed that documentaries had to be bias free. Rather that they often involve documenting something versus creating and contriving something.
customarily an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view?
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.
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:
Quote:
And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.
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 President?s 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 President?s 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 President?s 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?
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.
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!"
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?
I find that picture comparing Auschwits to Gitmo more than just a little insulting !!. . . its completely out-of-line and sick!!
and deprecates serious critique of this administration!!
Probably. The point of the link was to answer common man's ridiculousness with a little ridiculousness from the other side.
But, the comparisons about the need of leaders to use the media to control the population is relevant to the discussion.
Bush has Rush Limbaugh and the Fox (Faux) News Channel to promote his agenda. Very few people from the left have made a huge stink about that, but now that Michael Moore makes an openly biased movie, they start to cry about it because it is a huge threat to their dominance.
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?
As far as I can tell #3 is no . . . I thought it was Richard Clarke who arranged those flights?
I would venture to guess that #8 is also a no . . . what does 'not being read' mean?
Someone clearly 'read' it . . . . prehaps those who voted on it didn't read it too closely . . . but I will venture to say that not one person who voted for it will say that they didn't 'read' it.
I would also say that #s 16-19 are all Kind-of-sort-ofs
#16 - I'm sure that they are always 'working-vacations'
#17 - DId he 'not' read them? He says he did . . . . what he did with that less than scant reading is another question . . . or rather, what he DIDN'T do . .
#18 - The Soldiers went abroad and then their schedules were changed on them without any choice in the matter on their parts . . . to phrase it in the manner in which #18 does is to imply forthought to the deed . . . and I somehow think that the need for their staying came about after they departed . . . simple matter of phrasing, that's all.
#19 - I would say that it appeals to anybody who needs a job . . . sure that is the poor and needy bt it doesn't need to be seen clearly . . . *ehem* I mean need to be seen as overtly manipulative and class biased . . . you could also say that those who need money statistically tend to be more patriotic . . . No?
There are some impossible-to-know-for-sure questions in Wade's list (8 and 17), others are depends-on-how-you-look-at-it (16, 18 and 19)...but the point remains that Moore is not 'telling lies' or 'spounting propeganda' in this film. He's asking uncomfortable questions that become even more uncomfortable to the Bush admin when they are all put together. The fact that Moore wants to make Bush look bad doesn't invalidate the questions.
The moore I spend time here the more I am convinced that you simply cannot cannot cannot CANNOT convince politically-identified people of ANYTHING !!!!
No matter how rationally argued and reasonable your presentation is!! It is the same for those who are proud of their Identification with the Left as well as those on the Right!
they would argue that the sky does not seem blue on a cloudy day if it ran counter to their rigid ideology
My time here, with Trumpt and SDW and Naples has made me lose faith in human reason and willingness to think things through . . .
how does this apply to Moore?
His film will remain 'trash' for people who want it to be no matter what . . .and it will remain 'great' for those who want it to be no matter . . . .
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
The only reason this movie is "breaking records" is because it is listed as a documentary.
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.
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.
Originally posted by sammi jo
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
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.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
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.
NOTE: Large format, concert (music and comedy) , compilation and reality TV movies omitted.
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.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
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
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by bunge
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.
I never claimed that documentaries had to be bias free. Rather that they often involve documenting something versus creating and contriving something.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
customarily an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view?
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
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:
And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower?the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, ?There's one terrible pilot.? And I said, ?It must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there?I didn't have much time to think about it.
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.....
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 President?s 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 President?s 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 President?s 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?
Originally posted by sammi jo
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.
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!"
BBut not entirely no . . . with some reservations and some kind-ofs in the mix and a few resounding yeses.
Originally posted by Common Man
Moore and the Democrats
http://www.chronicallybiased.com/index.php?itemid=588
Bush and the Nazis.
comparisons
Originally posted by buckeye
Bush and the Nazis.
comparisons
I find that picture comparing Auschwits to Gitmo more than just a little insulting !!. . . its completely out-of-line and sick!!
and deprecates serious critique of this administration!!
Originally posted by pfflam
I find that picture comparing Auschwits to Gitmo more than just a little insulting !!. . . its completely out-of-line and sick!!
and deprecates serious critique of this administration!!
Probably. The point of the link was to answer common man's ridiculousness with a little ridiculousness from the other side.
But, the comparisons about the need of leaders to use the media to control the population is relevant to the discussion.
Bush has Rush Limbaugh and the Fox (Faux) News Channel to promote his agenda. Very few people from the left have made a huge stink about that, but now that Michael Moore makes an openly biased movie, they start to cry about it because it is a huge threat to their dominance.
Originally posted by Aquatic
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?
As far as I can tell #3 is no . . . I thought it was Richard Clarke who arranged those flights?
I would venture to guess that #8 is also a no . . . what does 'not being read' mean?
Someone clearly 'read' it . . . . prehaps those who voted on it didn't read it too closely . . . but I will venture to say that not one person who voted for it will say that they didn't 'read' it.
I would also say that #s 16-19 are all Kind-of-sort-ofs
#16 - I'm sure that they are always 'working-vacations'
#17 - DId he 'not' read them? He says he did . . . . what he did with that less than scant reading is another question . . . or rather, what he DIDN'T do . .
#18 - The Soldiers went abroad and then their schedules were changed on them without any choice in the matter on their parts . . . to phrase it in the manner in which #18 does is to imply forthought to the deed . . . and I somehow think that the need for their staying came about after they departed . . . simple matter of phrasing, that's all.
#19 - I would say that it appeals to anybody who needs a job . . . sure that is the poor and needy bt it doesn't need to be seen clearly . . . *ehem* I mean need to be seen as overtly manipulative and class biased . . . you could also say that those who need money statistically tend to be more patriotic . . . No?
Ok, I'll concead #19 to ya.
The moore I spend time here the more I am convinced that you simply cannot cannot cannot CANNOT convince politically-identified people of ANYTHING !!!!
No matter how rationally argued and reasonable your presentation is!! It is the same for those who are proud of their Identification with the Left as well as those on the Right!
they would argue that the sky does not seem blue on a cloudy day if it ran counter to their rigid ideology
My time here, with Trumpt and SDW and Naples has made me lose faith in human reason and willingness to think things through . . .
how does this apply to Moore?
His film will remain 'trash' for people who want it to be no matter what . . .and it will remain 'great' for those who want it to be no matter . . . .
It all is very disheartening . . .