It's the point if you look at everything as black and white.
Really, there shouldn't be any 'sides' when dealing with getting down to the truth of the matter. Bowling for Columbine was deceitful. I haven't seen F911, but there is at least one deceitful part of the trailer. On the other 'side' you have a paper that is totally FOS from top to bottom.
So what side am I on? I want to see a good run-down of the facts (or lack thereof) in F911 and the only thing anyone can point to as a substantial rebuttal is a trashy article that considers simply talking about the WTC a michael moore "deceit."
The point as I see it is that "59" isn't the "side" of anything except for the lunatics that think it's worth citing as an opposing viewpoint.
Well, I've niether seen the film nor read most of 50ty something (I just thought it might be good) - although I did read Newsweek's story, Isikoffs article, Hitchens article and spin sanity (oh yea, a few personal stories from the people he interviewed - one claiming he never talked to the guy).
Frankly, as I'm not into the message/entertainment mix, I don't care that much about the dustup - Moore is Moore and I'm sure I can find more reliable people who hold the same general viewpoints.
The thing I don't get is why everyone thinks they should fight moore by spewing more garbage. The Hitchens article doesn't really say anything either, and has some problems with the facts itself. I still have yet to see a clean bulleted list of the facts that moore gets wrong in the film. If moore is really so bad it should be easy to objectively demolish his case. I have yet to see that.
Just saw Far. 911 this weekend with the wife. I would be less than honest if I told you that I went in with a completely open mind however I was really impressed with most of the film. BUT the fact that the first 15-20 minutes are dedicated to the claim that Gore actually won the election ruined the rest of the film for me.
BAD:
The repeated use of footage of soldiers answering questions that made them look horribly uneducated without showing the preceeding question. The rediculous questions to the members of congress asking them to sign up their ADULT children for military service. The complete redirect of attention away from all the atrocitys that Saddam had commited. The suggestion that all of the bad things in the US are a direct result of the last 4 years of Bush's presidency. The woman who spent the entire freaking film crying HISTERICALLY in front of my wife and I (she was the only person who cried durring the film, and the whole theatre was packed) I wanted to "accidentally" spill my $8.75 barrel of coke on her.
GOOD:
I must say that Moore's research (however skewed and twisted I find it) was very good. The introduction of the woman from detroit who had kids in the military and eventually lost her son...this was extremely powerful. The research on the number of Bin Laden's faimly members being gathered and flown out of the country without being questioned after 911.
FUNNY:
Bush trying to pet his dog, which was not going well for the camera. the fact that congress passes passes bills without reading them...and Moore reading patriot act to them from an ice cream truck. 4 years of Bush's worst possible statments and absolute most humiliating responses (I think I would personally love to see a documentary on the stupid things I've said over the last 4 years, it would be 8 hours long )
I just resaw Roger and me and one of the TV Nation shows. Compared to the clips I have seen of 911 I have to say that Moore is much better as a social critic and a social satirist than as a political analyst. Or rather he is a BRILLIANT social critic and a manipulative political analyst that doesn´t ask himself the hard question "Does this really hold water?".
The description of Flint futile attempt to survive after the factory closings is fantastic. Autoworld, a new shining hotel, a big new mall and so on. All very expensive and closed down a couple of month from start. And from TV Nation there is a brilliant clip where he tries to get to talk to Bush during a fund raiser at the 2000 election. Bush yells something like "Why don´t you get yourself a job?" back to him. Next clip is Michael Moore calling his dad on a pay phone, asking him if he has a spare oil company he could run. Or perhaps a baseball team.
The thing I don't get is why everyone thinks they should fight moore by spewing more garbage. The Hitchens article doesn't really say anything either, and has some problems with the facts itself. I still have yet to see a clean bulleted list of the facts that moore gets wrong in the film. If moore is really so bad it should be easy to objectively demolish his case. I have yet to see that.
Isn't it true that John Ashcroft didn't really run against a dead guy and lose? That he ran against the dead- guy's wife who continued the dead guy's campaign in his place? Ashcroft still lost though...
And isn't it true that Ashcroft has two kids in the military?
Can anyone verify this information? B/c if it is, then saying that Ashcroft ran against a dead guy isn't neccesarily true or false. It depends on how you say it. Manipulating words to suit your point. Everybody does it.
"In the year 2000, [John Ashcroft] was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy."_
So this is the article the above statement comes from:
_"Sen. John Ashcroft on Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to call off any legal challenges." Eric Stern, "Ashcroft Rejects Challenge To Election; Senator Says He Hopes Carnahan?s Victory Will Be ?Of Comfort? To Widow,"St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 9, 2000 .
So leave out the part the Mel Carnahan's widow took his place during the campaign. Doesn't that make it kind of misleading?
"In the year 2000, [John Ashcroft] was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy."_
So this is the article the above statement comes from:
_"Sen. John Ashcroft on Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to call off any legal challenges." Eric Stern, "Ashcroft Rejects Challenge To Election; Senator Says He Hopes Carnahan?s Victory Will Be ?Of Comfort? To Widow,"St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 9, 2000 .
So leave out the part the Mel Carnahan's widow took his place during the campaign. Doesn't that make it kind of misleading?
No, it's not misleading because the voters chose Mel Carnahan. Mel Carnahan was the man elected though he was dead. The voters knew Mel was dead yet they voted for him anyway. It's of little consequence who continued Mels campaign because in the end a dead guy beat an encumbent. Hell, Bugs Bunny could have carried Mels campaign to fruition and defeated Ashcroft.
But naysayers or M.Moore haters will still say that Mel's widow was who the voters voted for. I got into a discussion about this after seeing the movie and didn't know what to think...
I say, bring back all of the troops from Iraq and send the big coirporate business executives there...if those corprorate bozo's want to make millions send them there to do it themselves..
'cause you know in the end, the Rich will get Richer and the Poor will get Poorer...
I saw the movie . . . I was dissapointed in a number of ways:
one, he didn't cover enough of the lead up to the war, the arguments and the relationship to the "Pax Americana" document or the issues around the Office of Special Plans . . .
He also showed good footage from Iraq, but I think that it was rushed and could have been an entirely different film
On that point, There is a rather scathing article in SALON The author invites members of a local military base to see the film and they have severe criticisms that seem pretty on target.
One of them puts his finger on sonething that I didn't even know bothered me until he said it: he called it too "pop" and said that he went from trying to be funny to being serious . . . so the whole thing was not serious enough.
They also point out that their perspective was not shown properly, such as in the scene where a house is being searched, the reasons why they are searching for the "student" are never made clear, and that even young kids and 'soldiers are involved with fighting them . .
They were also very upset about showing the suffering soldiers.
Well, it was an ok film but I think it could have been better.
The absolute best technique he employed as a filmwas NOT showing the now-iconic images of the buildings and planes of the WTC but rather using the sounds . . . it really re-invoked the dread of that event and sidestepped teh accumulated aura that the iconic/images have accumulated.
I agree. There was much left out that should not have been. It was too short. And lots of dumb humor like him driving in an ice cream truck, and his commentary over Bush footage, was annoying and unnecessary.
Just saw it today and it was better than I thought.
For me the first half was weak to say the least. We now have a new version of why US went to Iraq: To get attention away from the saudi connection between the Bushes and the royal family and the Bin Ladens. Its a different message than the "Neocons wanted to get Iraq for a long long time for ideological reasons" and the petrodollar argument (it actually in some ways contradict Moores argument) and the "we did it ourselves" argument. And I usually don´t use that word much but it was both racial (Iceland as a nation of vikings aso) AND it did stereotype the Bin Ladens (that if someone in the family at one point was at a wedding where Bin Laden was present the whole family in some way is connected to him) and saudi arabia (if most of the hijackers was from saudi arabia the whole country somehow had responsibility for it). The only part that really said anything powerful in this part was the times the administration contradicted itself, but the daily show does that much better.
The last half was excellent. The cross clipping between life in america, putting up flags in the neighbourhood and the situation in Iraq with killed innoncent children aso was brilliant, War zones are often made out to be belonging to another reality. Here it was argued that reality in Iraq and in US is the same and a lost Iraqi lifeis no less than an american one. Following the social worker at her work,talking proudly about her family in the military and then after the death of her son and her at the white house almost made me cry.
Moore is becoming a better director. The black screen during the TwinTower attack and the pictures of the people and the paper falling was almost beautiful in its cruelty. And the wrapping with all the insiders getting make up in the beginning and taking their headpiece of at the end while Moore quoting 1984 was also quite powerful, even if also contradicted the overall theme (do they want neverending war or was Iraq a war per proxy (instead of a war against SA)
I saw an interview today with a woman who was married into the Bin Laden family and left in order to be able to raise her daughters in a free manner.
She was asked if there were ties between teh family and OBL.
She said something to this effect: "well, you know in this family and that part of the world the bond of brotherhood is much too strong for a brother to be ostracized because of his religious ideas'
Which implies that there probably is some contact with the family by OBL still . .
just a point
another point, the black screen was a great and powerful scene in that movie . . . it is a very delecate issue to deal with such a level of horror in an aesthetic format . . . it demands more than aesthetics and yet at the same time aesthetics are always at play . . . how do you treat such a reality without dishonoring it?
The worst thing, perhaps would be to make it into a kitschy iconoc image of heroism and suffering . . . which I think has been done to death . . . I think the best way is to show without adornment or fancy editing or slow-mo and absolutely NO music . . . I think that Moore came close to making a 'Great' decision by not even showing it . . . but ir still rides a fine line, in a sense because he came close to 'making art' out of it . . . an issue which I have some touchiness about . . .
Lars Von Trier use sound in his films like all other directors to emphasize the emtions in the film. But he often make use of special tricks that are different than others. He often use silence ("the music flee") in very tense passages to make it more powerful. You normally expect very emotional music during those passages. But when you are alone with the situation without music making the "translation" for you it becomes more personal and direct. The non use of the icon images of planes against buildings and falling buildings and the new focus on frustrated people looking up is new. You can´t use the stereotypical version stored in your brain and that forces you to realise the situation once again.
Its an artistic trick but its used to make the scenes more real.
She said something to this effect: "well, you know in this family and that part of the world the bond of brotherhood is much too strong for a brother to be ostracized because of his religious ideas'
The article I read with her was much more direct. She essentially said that OBL was somewhat idolized for his religious faith, and this after 9/11.
Comments
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The approach is open-minded, the sources are partisan. There are a lot of critics of Moore, it might be worth reading a few prior to seeing the film.
Now, if one just wants to feel 'good' about the film's message and enjoy the show, by all means don't read anything critical.
Even if you already knew alot of this stuff and agree with the message?
Look I don't want to appear one sided but the way things have been with the Bush administration this isn't that difficult to swallow.
Sorry....
But it's really gotten to that point.
Originally posted by giant
It's the point if you look at everything as black and white.
Really, there shouldn't be any 'sides' when dealing with getting down to the truth of the matter. Bowling for Columbine was deceitful. I haven't seen F911, but there is at least one deceitful part of the trailer. On the other 'side' you have a paper that is totally FOS from top to bottom.
So what side am I on? I want to see a good run-down of the facts (or lack thereof) in F911 and the only thing anyone can point to as a substantial rebuttal is a trashy article that considers simply talking about the WTC a michael moore "deceit."
The point as I see it is that "59" isn't the "side" of anything except for the lunatics that think it's worth citing as an opposing viewpoint.
Well, I've niether seen the film nor read most of 50ty something (I just thought it might be good) - although I did read Newsweek's story, Isikoffs article, Hitchens article and spin sanity (oh yea, a few personal stories from the people he interviewed - one claiming he never talked to the guy).
Frankly, as I'm not into the message/entertainment mix, I don't care that much about the dustup - Moore is Moore and I'm sure I can find more reliable people who hold the same general viewpoints.
*instead of only reading a bunch of one-sided articles written by people that hate michael moore and want you to hate him too.
BAD:
The repeated use of footage of soldiers answering questions that made them look horribly uneducated without showing the preceeding question. The rediculous questions to the members of congress asking them to sign up their ADULT children for military service. The complete redirect of attention away from all the atrocitys that Saddam had commited. The suggestion that all of the bad things in the US are a direct result of the last 4 years of Bush's presidency. The woman who spent the entire freaking film crying HISTERICALLY in front of my wife and I (she was the only person who cried durring the film, and the whole theatre was packed) I wanted to "accidentally" spill my $8.75 barrel of coke on her.
GOOD:
I must say that Moore's research (however skewed and twisted I find it) was very good. The introduction of the woman from detroit who had kids in the military and eventually lost her son...this was extremely powerful. The research on the number of Bin Laden's faimly members being gathered and flown out of the country without being questioned after 911.
FUNNY:
Bush trying to pet his dog, which was not going well for the camera. the fact that congress passes passes bills without reading them...and Moore reading patriot act to them from an ice cream truck. 4 years of Bush's worst possible statments and absolute most humiliating responses (I think I would personally love to see a documentary on the stupid things I've said over the last 4 years, it would be 8 hours long
The description of Flint futile attempt to survive after the factory closings is fantastic. Autoworld, a new shining hotel, a big new mall and so on. All very expensive and closed down a couple of month from start. And from TV Nation there is a brilliant clip where he tries to get to talk to Bush during a fund raiser at the 2000 election. Bush yells something like "Why don´t you get yourself a job?" back to him. Next clip is Michael Moore calling his dad on a pay phone, asking him if he has a spare oil company he could run. Or perhaps a baseball team.
Originally posted by giant
The thing I don't get is why everyone thinks they should fight moore by spewing more garbage. The Hitchens article doesn't really say anything either, and has some problems with the facts itself. I still have yet to see a clean bulleted list of the facts that moore gets wrong in the film. If moore is really so bad it should be easy to objectively demolish his case. I have yet to see that.
That's because the facts are correct.
And isn't it true that Ashcroft has two kids in the military?
Can anyone verify this information? B/c if it is, then saying that Ashcroft ran against a dead guy isn't neccesarily true or false. It depends on how you say it. Manipulating words to suit your point. Everybody does it.
So this is the article the above statement comes from:
_"Sen. John Ashcroft on Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to call off any legal challenges." Eric Stern, "Ashcroft Rejects Challenge To Election; Senator Says He Hopes Carnahan?s Victory Will Be ?Of Comfort? To Widow,"St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 9, 2000 .
So leave out the part the Mel Carnahan's widow took his place during the campaign. Doesn't that make it kind of misleading?
Originally posted by O-Mac
"In the year 2000, [John Ashcroft] was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy."_
So this is the article the above statement comes from:
_"Sen. John Ashcroft on Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to call off any legal challenges." Eric Stern, "Ashcroft Rejects Challenge To Election; Senator Says He Hopes Carnahan?s Victory Will Be ?Of Comfort? To Widow,"St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 9, 2000 .
So leave out the part the Mel Carnahan's widow took his place during the campaign. Doesn't that make it kind of misleading?
No, it's not misleading because the voters chose Mel Carnahan. Mel Carnahan was the man elected though he was dead. The voters knew Mel was dead yet they voted for him anyway. It's of little consequence who continued Mels campaign because in the end a dead guy beat an encumbent. Hell, Bugs Bunny could have carried Mels campaign to fruition and defeated Ashcroft.
But naysayers or M.Moore haters will still say that Mel's widow was who the voters voted for. I got into a discussion about this after seeing the movie and didn't know what to think...
I say, bring back all of the troops from Iraq and send the big coirporate business executives there...if those corprorate bozo's want to make millions send them there to do it themselves..
'cause you know in the end, the Rich will get Richer and the Poor will get Poorer...
Originally posted by O-Mac
'cause you know in the end, the Rich will get Richer and the Poor will get Poorer...
The Radiators - "Shake It Loose"
words and music by Ed Volker
http://www.rads25.com/lyrics.html
THE RICH GET RICH AND THE POOR GET POOR
THE POOR KEEP DROPPING, WELL THERE'S ALWAYS MORE
THE MAN GOT A GRIP, SQUEEZE YOU DRY
I NEED TO CIRCULATE BEFORE I DIE
SHAKE IT LOOSE, SHAKE IT LOOSE,
SHAKE IT FREE
SHAKE IT LOOSE, SHAKE IT LOOSE,
SHAKE IT FREE
SHAKE IT LOOSE, SHAKE IT LOOSE,
SHAKE IT FREE
NAA NAA NAA NAA
YOU'RE MUCH TO DRY FOR ME
one, he didn't cover enough of the lead up to the war, the arguments and the relationship to the "Pax Americana" document or the issues around the Office of Special Plans . . .
He also showed good footage from Iraq, but I think that it was rushed and could have been an entirely different film
On that point, There is a rather scathing article in SALON The author invites members of a local military base to see the film and they have severe criticisms that seem pretty on target.
One of them puts his finger on sonething that I didn't even know bothered me until he said it: he called it too "pop" and said that he went from trying to be funny to being serious . . . so the whole thing was not serious enough.
They also point out that their perspective was not shown properly, such as in the scene where a house is being searched, the reasons why they are searching for the "student" are never made clear, and that even young kids and 'soldiers are involved with fighting them . .
They were also very upset about showing the suffering soldiers.
Well, it was an ok film but I think it could have been better.
The absolute best technique he employed as a filmwas NOT showing the now-iconic images of the buildings and planes of the WTC but rather using the sounds . . . it really re-invoked the dread of that event and sidestepped teh accumulated aura that the iconic/images have accumulated.
All work no play makes Jack a dull boy.
For me the first half was weak to say the least. We now have a new version of why US went to Iraq: To get attention away from the saudi connection between the Bushes and the royal family and the Bin Ladens. Its a different message than the "Neocons wanted to get Iraq for a long long time for ideological reasons" and the petrodollar argument (it actually in some ways contradict Moores argument) and the "we did it ourselves" argument. And I usually don´t use that word much but it was both racial (Iceland as a nation of vikings aso) AND it did stereotype the Bin Ladens (that if someone in the family at one point was at a wedding where Bin Laden was present the whole family in some way is connected to him) and saudi arabia (if most of the hijackers was from saudi arabia the whole country somehow had responsibility for it). The only part that really said anything powerful in this part was the times the administration contradicted itself, but the daily show does that much better.
The last half was excellent. The cross clipping between life in america, putting up flags in the neighbourhood and the situation in Iraq with killed innoncent children aso was brilliant, War zones are often made out to be belonging to another reality. Here it was argued that reality in Iraq and in US is the same and a lost Iraqi lifeis no less than an american one. Following the social worker at her work,talking proudly about her family in the military and then after the death of her son and her at the white house almost made me cry.
Moore is becoming a better director. The black screen during the TwinTower attack and the pictures of the people and the paper falling was almost beautiful in its cruelty. And the wrapping with all the insiders getting make up in the beginning and taking their headpiece of at the end while Moore quoting 1984 was also quite powerful, even if also contradicted the overall theme (do they want neverending war or was Iraq a war per proxy (instead of a war against SA)
I saw an interview today with a woman who was married into the Bin Laden family and left in order to be able to raise her daughters in a free manner.
She was asked if there were ties between teh family and OBL.
She said something to this effect: "well, you know in this family and that part of the world the bond of brotherhood is much too strong for a brother to be ostracized because of his religious ideas'
Which implies that there probably is some contact with the family by OBL still . .
just a point
another point, the black screen was a great and powerful scene in that movie . . . it is a very delecate issue to deal with such a level of horror in an aesthetic format . . . it demands more than aesthetics and yet at the same time aesthetics are always at play . . . how do you treat such a reality without dishonoring it?
The worst thing, perhaps would be to make it into a kitschy iconoc image of heroism and suffering . . . which I think has been done to death . . . I think the best way is to show without adornment or fancy editing or slow-mo and absolutely NO music . . . I think that Moore came close to making a 'Great' decision by not even showing it . . . but ir still rides a fine line, in a sense because he came close to 'making art' out of it . . . an issue which I have some touchiness about . . .
just another point
Its an artistic trick but its used to make the scenes more real.
Originally posted by pfflam
She said something to this effect: "well, you know in this family and that part of the world the bond of brotherhood is much too strong for a brother to be ostracized because of his religious ideas'
The article I read with her was much more direct. She essentially said that OBL was somewhat idolized for his religious faith, and this after 9/11.