Fahrenheit 9/11

[diskobolus 3]

Go see it.

I was really pleased to see that this film took the #1 spot for the weekend, and moreoever is being widely shown at many mainstream theaters, at least here around Boston. I went last night to a late Monday night showing and the theater was nearly full.

[John Crichton 4]

I have many things I want to say about Michael Moore and his new "film", but out of respect of the rules I'll limit myself to emoticons.

[MrScratch 294]

All this movie proves is that controversy sells, not unlike Passion of the Christ.

Jeff - aware of the rules and saying no more

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Can we expect a full review, plus the reviewers opinion on the content.

[Lurker 5]

Movies can be discussed here.

Neil

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

This thread has little potential.

Ray Barnsbury

[David Coscina 3]

I heard the score to F911 was pretty good. One review said there was a section that evoked Herrmann's beautiful music for F451.

Personally, I admire Moore for making documentries palettable and frankly entertaining as much as they are insightful.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Movies can be discussed here.

Neil

Naturally.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Moore tries to show the military-industrial complex at work, but the persuasiveness of his case -- fueled largely by a paranoiac reading of circumstantial evidence -- is likely to hinge on the viewer's level of cynicism and his political inclinations.

His interview with the mother of a soldier killed in action in Iraq is blatantly manipulative (and some would say exploitive), though even the most callous or jaded viewer may lose himself in the weepy sentimentality of the moment. To be witness to a mother's grief makes for a potent emotional case against war in general, but this segment, like the rest of the film, fails to address the moral dilemma at the heart of the second Gulf War -- does the liberation of an a severely oppressed people justify a pre-emptive war on a sovereign nation conducted on the basis of intelligence information now found to be dubious? I won't venture an answer not only because I would be veering away from discussing the cinematic merits of the film to discussing its political content but also because I don't have an answer myself.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

but also because I don't have an answer myself.

Only when these events have become history can they be properly judged.

By the generations that succeed us.

[David Coscina 3]

Hilaroo, you do make several valid points about Moore. In Bowling For Columbine, he cites Canada as much safer and shows our idea of what a slum is. Well, this was incorrect. He was standing in from of a Co-Op Housing unit, and they are very well taken care of. In my line of work, I've seen what bad buildings are like in bad neighbourhoods, and Toronto has them, maybe not to the same extent as major cities in the States but we do have them.

Regardless of this, and yes, I'm forgiving of Moore's film tactics, I think he ultimately wants to provoke discussion about these current issues. And I think that's an honorable thing.

[HPFAN_2 0]

Ray Bradbury is pissed that his title was stolen.

[John Crichton 4]

Regardless of this, and yes, I'm forgiving of Moore's film tactics, I think he ultimately wants to provoke discussion about these current issues.  And I think that's an honorable thing.

I'm not at all forgiving of his tactics. He has no interest in sparking debate, only in manipulating emotion and public opinion to his point of view with a mix of what many people agree are everything from deliberate manipulations to outright lies.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

A co-worker of my mom's went to high school with Moore, and said that he was then just as he is now: a person who tries to stir up trouble and attention for himself.

Ray Barnsbury

[A24 4,346]

So, I take it you are all big fans of Heston, hey guys? Interesting.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[David Coscina 3]

Yes, I heard that Moore was anti-establishment even in his youth.

[King Mark 3,631]

I forsee this thread beeing locked,or a few people accidently getting themselves banned.

K.M.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Yeah me too, though I don't think anything unacceptable has been posted yet, since the posts are dealing with Moore as a filmmaker.

Ray Barnsbury

[David Coscina 3]

to get things a little back on topic, how do people find his use of music in his films? While Bowling for Columbine had what I'd call the requisite roll of music in documentary film, I've heard that F911 uses music as a larger player in the fabric of the film.

Can anyone confirm that? I understand that an Arvo Part piece was played under the footage from 9-11.

[Adam 1]

Music played a very key role. It was used effectively for mood and, often, it was used to comment directly on the visuals. That had a lot of comic effect, I thought. For example, we hear the "Believe it or not I'm walking on air" music for when Bush gave his speech in his flighter outfit on the aircraft carrier. Somehow, that helped bring out the ubsurdity of that over-the-top public relations attempt. Plenty of other examples.

There was less self-promotion by Moore in this movie as compared to some of his others which was good. His style can be manipulative and propagandistic, but then again, he's upfront about it which is more than I can say about some "straight" news. He lets people know where he's coming from and, like anything, we should watch critically. Hearing the voices of a mother who has lost her son or Iraqi civilians impacted by the occupation was very moving and important. Its not the whole story but its a part of the story we don't hear enough of.

There's lots of stuff I would quibble with, but, on the whole I'm happy to see somebody like him break through and reach a large audience. I've noticed so many critics on TV and elsewhere who haven't seen the movie but, nonetheless, feel comfortable criticizing him or the film, usually for knee-jerk ideological reasons. There's plenty of stuff in the film that are simply facts - undisputed. His critics should have the intellectual integrity to confront these on their own terms.

- Adam

[Guest]

I'm not real wild about Moore, simply because he's such a negative person. He's always griping about something and he's crabby. I don't care how innovative or original his method of presenting is, I don't like movies that rant like that. Although I did think Canadian Bacon was pretty entertaining. But it was even ranting, if I'm not mistaken.

[Morlock 11]

So, I take it you are all big fans of Heston, hey guys? Interesting.

I am decidedly NOT a Heston fan, irrelevent of what field.

I find Moore films (the "" are unnecessary no matter what your politics are) at least give you something to think about, even if you reject every conclusion he draws. Kinda like The Day After Tomorrow. A terrible, terrible movie, but gosh darn it- I left the theater thinking about global warming! (though I personaly am a fan of Moore)

[HPFAN_2 0]

Yes but it's propoganda, one sided, he should give you the other side and leave it up to you to make a decision.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Yes but it's propoganda, one sided, he should give you the other side and leave it up to you to make a decision.

Michael Moore is not under any obligation -- artistic or otherwise -- to present both sides. He's trying to present what he's already decided, and it's your job, as a viewer, to decide whether or not to agree with what he's decided. Basically, you're saying that Moore should be a journalist, not an opinionated documentarian. Well, it's up to him what his profession is.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Alan is very ...very right.

[nja 0]

Full of half-truths and implications without factual basis.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Full of half-truths and implications without factual basis.

I would say that it's full of speculation and hyperbole with "factual basis." On the other hand, if you could point out several assertions Moore makes without using facts to back them up somehow, I would be happy to concede the point.

[HPFAN_2 0]

Yes but it's propoganda, one sided, he should give you the other side and leave it up to you to make a decision.

Michael Moore is not under any obligation -- artistic or otherwise -- to present both sides. He's trying to present what he's already decided, and it's your job, as a viewer, to decide whether or not to agree with what he's decided. Basically, you're saying that Moore should be a journalist, not an opinionated documentarian. Well, it's up to him what his profession is.

And yet it's still propaganda.

[Hlao-roo 389]

And yet it's still propaganda.

For the most part, I agree.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

so what, its propaganda, its interesting to see a documentary take the #1 spot at the boxoffice. The bigger news would be for it to stay atop the boxoffice a 2nd week, and that simply won't happen

[Guest]

Narratives, here I come!

[Rogue_Leader 2]

GO SEE IT?

I think not!

I, unlike some people, do not need others to tell me how to think on politics. I can make up my own mind without seeing some guy's propagan ...... errr I mean ......... sermon ........ err I mean "documentary". Gee I almost told the truth there. That would be unfitting for a Michael Moore movie now wouldn't it? I can make up my own mind on who to vote for based on considering the issues, not a bunch of mistruths. That way I get to make my own decision without having to pay 8.50 in the process. Truly a "WIN! WIN!" situation IMO.

Oh and just for the record before someone chimes in I am NOT a Bush man. I think the guy is a doushe bag. I am definately leaning towards Kerry at this point. I can assure you people despite what many of you think the dislike for this guy goes WELL beyond just ultra-conservatives.

As for the movie being number 1 this weekend? Well I cannot say I am that surprised or impressed. So the movie was number 1? So what? There was nothing else of signicance released this weekend and the movie had a ton of hype behind it. The Blair Witch Project proved that any cheaply made garbage movie can make money if it is promoted heavily enough. Not to mention the fact this is a REALLY heated poltical time so that certainly helped. Plus there are enough liberal zombies out there who will go see propaganda like this in droves. So the movie being number 1 is not a big deal for me. This coming weekend I predict a huge ass drop off and by next week it will be yesterday's news.

[Morlock 11]

Yes but it's propoganda, one sided, he should give you the other side and leave it up to you to make a decision.

Michael Moore is not under any obligation -- artistic or otherwise -- to present both sides. He's trying to present what he's already decided, and it's your job, as a viewer, to decide whether or not to agree with what he's decided. Basically, you're saying that Moore should be a journalist, not an opinionated documentarian. Well, it's up to him what his profession is.

Alan is very ...very right.

Yes. Yes he is.

And yet it's still propaganda.

So? He's not pretending that it isn't! (Unlike Fox News, which pretends to be journalism)

[TIEfighter 0]

I´m absolutely comfortable with moore´s movie, and the effect he wants to achieve...but political opinions are not allowed, so let´s try this:

You´re in a supermarket and see two different bars of chocolate.

the first one is cheap, has a beautiful package which promises you that the chocolate is very tasty...and you know you´ve eaten a very similiar one some years ago.

The other one has a not so beautiful, boring package, so you don´t even read the information on the package and buy the first one.

But when you try the bought chocolate, you immediatly get a terrible stomachache of it.

So would you buy the same chocolate again the next time you go to the supermarket? or would you give the other one a try?

(I hope everyone understood what i was trying to say)

[Morlock 11]

I'm not sure if you're talking about Moore's film, Someone's current career, or a deep comment on modern capitalism

[CYPHER 1]

Ray Bradbury is pissed that his title was stolen.

So I heard. Here's hoping people will still remember Fahrenheit 451 when all this is said and done. (Hey, that rhymes! ) Oh well, Bradbury will always have Dandelion Crater on the moon named in honour on his book Dandelion Wine.

CYPHER

[A24 4,346]

I can make up my own mind without seeing some fat guy's propagan ...... .

Are you sure you don't want to edit that?

[Rogue_Leader 2]

I can make up my own mind without seeing some fat guy's propagan ...... .

Are you sure you don't want to edit that?

Nope!

I am definately sticking by that statement. I REALLY dislike this Moore guy.

Edit: OK I got rid of the weight comment. That was wrong, but the rest stays!

[Adam 1]

There's a happy medium between letting others tell you how to think and close-mindedly dismissing something you've never seen. There's information in this that I learned from and I benefited from his perspective and, as far as I can tell, no one here is saying that his word is the gospel.

Its interesing how many people want to participate in the backlash against Moore without seeing the film or without dealing in any substanitive way with the very important issues he raises or inconveniant facts he presents (issues that go way beyond simply his choice for president). Not that this would be the forum to go into it but... striking none the less. Those who completely dismiss this film as propaganda or reduce Moore to a simplistic caricature are in no position to be saying they are opposed to one-sided presentations.

- Adam

[David Coscina 3]

Very well put Adam. Very well put indeed.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

OK for starters I am tired of this lame "You aint seen it so you cannot criticise it" line. Its really tired guys. Gibve it a rest. I have read and hear more than enough about this movie to dismiss it as the propaganda that it is.

Those who completely dismiss this film as propaganda or reduce Moore to a simplistic caricature are in no position to be saying they are opposed to one-sided presentations.

First off it is propaganda. Nearly everyone admits this. Hell, even Harry Knowles over at AICN who is a big Moore supporter called it as such. To deny this movie is propaganda is to be in denial. The movie is propganda by its very definition. Now I dont have a problem with Moore making propaganda. What I have a problem with is this guy making propaganda and spinning lies trying to claim it as a documentary. A documentary attempts to show the reality of a situation or issue through an unbiased eye. It attempts to fully encompass the different arguments and factors of an event or a issue showing both sides. Documentaries dont have some hidden agenda. This movie is none of these things.

It is propaganda! Period! Say its not and you are lying to yourself!

Like I said this is America and we have free speech here, but I have that works both ways. We have the right to speak the truth (which is something Moore rarely does) and call the movie what it is.

[Adam 1]

Your definition of documentary is flat-out wrong and using exclamation points doesn?t make it any less wrong. Every documentary I?ve ever seen has a point of view. I conceded in my initial post that his style can be propagandistic. Having actually seen the movie, though, I also

recoginize its value for providing information that is rarely heard, provinding a point of view that is provokative and challenges people to think through important issues and, not to mention, for being pretty entertaining for a documentary.

In your earlier post you say, ?I, unlike some people, do not need others to tell me how to think on politics.? But, of course, that?s exactly what you?re doing for this movie - relying on other people?s opinions in order to form your own. Telling us you ?speak the truth? is the technique of the demagogue and certainly not correct as most people can see from these few cases I?ve mentioned. Persuade us with your logic and we?ll decide what?s true and who is ?spinning lies?.

Once again my previous quote seems appropriate - ?Those who completely dismiss this film as propaganda or reduce Moore to a simplistic caricature are in no position to be saying they are

opposed to one-sided presentations.? To be more blunt, its sheer hypocricy for you to say you?re opposed to ?propaganda? all the while spouting out a completlye one-sided line which you?ve come up with by assessing the reaction of others. In comparison Moore looks quite unbiased.

- Adam

[Morn 8]

does the liberation of an a severely oppressed people justify a pre-emptive war on a sovereign nation conducted on the basis of intelligence information now found to be dubious?

The answer can be found by the body count, 9000 civillians already not counting military casualities. And I'll be interested in how Moore deals with that, I haven't seen the film but I read about it and how it features some of the suffering of the war.

His interview with the mother of a soldier killed in action in Iraq is blatantly manipulative (and some would say exploitive), though even the most callous or jaded viewer may lose himself in the weepy sentimentality of the moment.

I'm sure from Moore's point of view, he was doing what he felt was right with that event. The mothers grief is exploited to show that her son shouldn't have died? Perhaps it's more sympathy, I don't know.

Full of half-truths and implications without factual basis.

Hehe, why aren't you on MSN any more, I'd love to discuss stuff like this with you again.

[David Coscina 3]

 

It is propaganda! Period! Say its not and you are lying to yourself!  

Rogue Leader, I totally see eye to eye with you on Michael Giacchino. But when it comes to Michael Moore, we couldn't be more disimilar. it's fine to state your position on his methods or whatever, but please don't tell those of us on this board who do find Moore to be a valid, thoughtful director the how to feel or think about his style of movie-making. That's a fascism.

Thankyou.

[nja 0]

Once again my previous quote seems appropriate - ?Those who completely dismiss this film as propaganda or reduce Moore to a simplistic caricature are in no position to be saying they are opposed to one-sided presentations.?  . . . in comparison Moore looks quite unbiased.

- Adam

Your wording is a rather general . . . but the jist seems to be that to oppose the techniques used in this film is to be one-sided. Aren?t we getting a little restrictive here? Other posts in this thread seek to defend manipulating footage or slanting facts in order to communicate a certain point. Wrong.

I could take the past posts of anyone on this board, take phrases out of context, and by interposing them with other member?s statements make them appear to say something they didn?t. That might be funny, but it could get really ugly really fast. Moore does essentially the same thing with his footage.

In his film Bowling for Columbine, Moore is trying to tie racism with guns.

He shows a near-hysterical Columbine High School student telling how the girl next to her was shot in the head and a black male student was murdered 'because he was black.' Right at that line about him being shot 'cuz he was black' the footage is stopped (the frame freezes) and in a zoom in fade transition accompanied by a few seconds of black screen, there is an immediate clip of Charlton Heston at an NRA convention (over a year after Columbine), colonial long-gun held high over his head, saying:

"I have only five words for you . . . From my cold dead hands!"

The girls full comments aren't shown and Moore intentionally shows footage of the sobbing student, stopping at the feed at the ?racist? line (paused and zoomed in) to demonize Heston.

Now, someone could argue that Moore is making a point- that?s very obvious. But he is doing it by unethically slashing at the character of a person, taking his words out of context and making him say something he didn?t. I don?t think Moore would want us doing that with various clips of his speeches.

Biggest issue here- taking someone?s words or footage out of context can dishonestly make them ?say? something they didn?t and it is never okay to slander a person untruthfully simply because one disagrees with their convictions. What Moore does in Farenheit is not dissimilar and no more ethical. While we can?t outlaw such ?dirty journalism,? we should recognize it for what it is and the damage it could wreak on both sides of the aisle.

[A24 4,346]

Strange, critics say that in Fahrenheit Moore is finally using good arguments this time, something they claim wasn't the case with Columbine, which was mostly based on him being witty and attacking easy victims.

I'm really looking forward to see his new film.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[David Coscina 3]

. While we can?t outlaw such ?dirty journalism,? we should recognize it for what it is and the damage it could wreak on both sides of the aisle.

Please, do you think the American press has been been completely objective in their assessment of Bush? Previous presidents were not given the same leniency as the Bush administration. The only reason I mentioned this is that you opened this can of worms with your statement above.

where Moore in concerned. He's simply providing another perspective of the same events. We as citizens having both angles can make our own minds up.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Yes, I've read quite a bit about Moore's trickery and occasional outright mendacity in Bowling for Columbine. These revelations served to dampen my initial enthusiasm for the film.

I'm still waiting for someone to produce a similarly devastating critique of Fahrenheit 9/11, but I haven't seen one yet. Christopher Hitchens' harangue in Slate, when it's not settling for attacking Moore's character, tries to point out "inconsistencies" in the film, but I don't buy much of his argument.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Something that's worth reading is Roger Ebert's June 18th essay in the Chicago Sun-Times:

On documentaries:

A reader writes:

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

On Moore's obligation as a filmmaker:

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

[WLW 0]

I've written scores for about 5 or 6 documentaries. In working directly with the filmmakers, I can say that ALL of them, without exception have a definite point-of-view in their works. Several of these works have won major awards.

Regarding Moore. In my opinion, no one film should ever be the sole basis of how you think on a given subject. Although I've yet to see this film, if it offers even a few minutes of information or suggests links between things that I was unaware of, I think it is worth it. If it sparks interest in me, I'll dig deeper on my own to try to get at the root of his suppositions. Sometimes that digging may disprove his points. This thread also provokes me to be more proactive. So now, I'll see the film, and continue (or not) from there.