I can't believe that there isn't already a topic about this yet. I haven't seen the movie yet, but will in 2 hours, and I just want to know what everyone feels about it.
From other posts I know there are some Moore-haters, Moore-lovers, and Moore-I-Don't-Carers.
I would be a Moore-lover. The things he says and the slack he takes makes me believe that he is a great person.
Now what d'y'all think?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
We've been discussing it here.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
And bigfoot. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
And porn.
(that's mostly Kayla's fault) Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
The only film I've seen by Moore is "Roger and Me." I saw it about 4 years ago....
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Actually that other thread isn't dealing with the film at all (as no one has seen it) but instead are worrying over Moore's take on "truth" and, as the thread title says, use of a title similar to "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury. I think a thread just for reviews and discussion of content of the film would be most appropriate.
When anyone sees it (I will be next Thursday).
fil
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hopefully I will get to see it next week. It should be interesting.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
I'm going to see it this afternoon.
<---Michael Moore fan.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I'll see it.
I'll buy the DVD when it comes out too!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I don't know what to think after seeing this movie. Sure there are parts that are disturbing, and sure there are parts that are funny, but its hard to take anything as fact when it is known that Moore mixes fact with fiction so freely.
I feel like I should have taken notes on the names and statements, but I don't know if that would even clarify anything for me. I don't know what to believe, and what I could do with the information given.
From my first viewing:
1) George W Bush is an ignorant blubbering idiot.
2) Everyone who has power is evil and cryptic.
3) George W Bush is an ignorant blubbering idiot.
4) George W Bush is an ignorant blubbering idiot.
Could anyone clarify the points that F 9/11 made and tell which are true, or partyly true, or misleading, or lies?
I need to see it again to know what I saw. (That doesn't make much sense does it?)
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
What I saw on the previews is just Dubya putting his foot in his own mouth, without the help of any Moore statements.
So, I'd have to come to the conclusion that I have every time I watch a live speech of his:
George W. Bush is a drooling idiot.
Posted by SirReal (Member # 5257) on :
All the conclusions you came to are true.
[ June 25, 2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: SirReal ]
Posted by Garick (Member # 6619) on :
What about that movie Control Room?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
why put money in Moore's pocket? Whether you like him or you hate him, everybody know's its propaganda! Everyone knows he mixes fact and fiction for the sake of self-promoting his ugly mug. Everyone KNOWS he's a freakin' gadfly, not a true artiste or scholar.
so why bother?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Everyone knows he mixes fact and fiction for the sake of self-promoting his ugly mug.
Everything I've read leads me to believe that this isn't true. It rings with the same falseness of Bush's detractors saying that the only reason he went into Iraq was to help out his oil buddies. Both men have too much integrity for this to be their only reason. The reasons for their actions are in truth so nuanced and sophisicated that they are nearly impossible discover, especially when you assume that the party with the closest information, Bush or Moore, is a liar and a cheat.
I'd rather go about the business of evaluating their arguments and deciding whom we should help, whom we should we detain, and why.
[ June 26, 2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*faints dead-away*
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I saw it, and I can say that all of the info. in this film was spot on correct, much of it was footage originally by pro-Bush parties post and pre desert storm.
This film rightly spent a great deal of time talking about Bush's links to the bin Ladens and the government's sheer ineptitude after 9-11.
There is one error that I found in the movie and it was not a falsehood, it was merely a piece of info. taken out of context: that Bush Sr. is pretty much the only living President who takes advantage of recieving daily CIA updates. This is slightly out of context, the CIA keeps up with all its former heads and constantly seeks their advice and consultation even after they retire. Besides this, I could see no errors in the film and this film had much less hyperbole than the "Big One" and "Bowling for Columbine."
I'd also like to add that anyone who says this movie is full of lies, unless you see a libel suit from Bush, then he is basically admitting to everything in it. Remember, this movie makes serious accusations, and if they are false then they are serious legal ground for Bush to try and repair his supposedly wronged image.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Ain't seen the movie, and probably won't.
But did have to disagree with a couple parts of Brian's post.
Ignoring somebody who makes false accusations against you is a legitimate tactic, especially if you don't think the accuser is important enough to deal with. It's a popular diplomatic tactic as well as a personal one, so a lack of Bush reaction doesn't mean that the statements about him are *not* lies.
Secondly, Bin Laden the terrorist has been cut off from (as well as having been the black sheep of) Bin Laden the construction/business family for most of his adult life. He's the son of the last wife Bin Laden Sr. took (who was of a different nationality than the previous wives), and therefore was not in the closest inner circle to begin with. Therefore, a connection between the Bush and Bin Laden families is not so evil as some would have you believe. (Unless you're in the camp that all large and international businesses and the cooperation between them is inherently evil, in which case please disregard and continue in your current rut.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:unless you see a libel suit from Bush, then he is basically admitting to everything in it.
You really undercut your credibility with this one. First, a libel suit would be a huge strategic mistake and Bush knows it. If he won, the people who believed the movie would just say he's manipulated the courts in order to win.
Second, Bush would have a huge uphill battle in libel suit even if he can prove there are lies in the movie, since he also has to prove that Moore knew they were lies and that Moore acted with malice. Even in this case, malice might be hard to prove. Further, the conclusions drawn from this carefully selected set of facts are probably not actionable, since they represent "opinion."
And I've already posted at least one factual error in the movie in another thread.
Dagonee
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I have to agree with that, Dagonee.
And let me add that I find it gratifying to see Bush in that situation: da**ed if he does, da**ed if he doesn't.
*has a really satisifying laugh*
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: its hard to take anything as fact when it is known that Moore mixes fact with fiction so freely.
Despite many claims of this sort, I have not seen an example of Moore presenting fiction as fact.
Actual claims, please. And don't hide behind the "I've already presented my case, if you aren't willing to do the research you're being lazy" argument.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
You might try reading the other Moore thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'd also like to add that anyone who says this movie is full of lies, unless you see a libel suit from Bush, then he is basically admitting to everything in it.
Are you kidding me? This is politics. You really think it's that cut-and-dried? The only thing Bush could POSSIBLY be said to be admitting is that it's not worth his trouble to go to a lawsuit, and I can think of a half-dozen reasons for that without stretching.
If he doesn't sue, then it's all true. Wow. Johnny Cochran would love that!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To Glenn, from the other thread, despite your rudeness:
Examples of lies:
1.) Moore claims that President Bush arranged special flights to get the bin Laden family out of America. The truth is that former Terrorism Czar and Bush Administration critic Richard Clarke has stated that the decision was his and his alone, and the 9/11 Commission supports this claim. http://www.moorewatch.com/f911flyer.pdf
2.) From http://moorelies.com/news/specials/latimes_moore.cfm, reprinting an LA Times article: Q: When you show footage of Bush in the National Guard, you play an excerpt from Eric Clapton's "Cocaine." Isn't that a cheap shot?
Moore: "I was in the editing room and there were too many documents and words in that scene, and I wanted some music to spice it up. It's an amazing coincidence that I would land on that song, isn't it?"
3.) The first of 17 lies at Moore's myriad mistakes: "Moore claims that News Corp, the parent of HarperCollins, which published Stupid White Men, "dumped [the book] in some bookstores with no advertising, no reviews, and the offer of a three-city tour: Arlington! Denver! Somewhere in Jersey! In other words, the book was sent to the gallows for a quick and painless death." Yet in a February 5, 2002 letter on his web site, Moore stated that "HarperCollins is doing their best to get the book out there - but now, even they have run into resistance, with some bookstores telling them that they are not interested in having me come to their stores on the book tour" because of the controversial nature of the book. Later in the letter, he added that "I'll be hitting a couple dozen cities on the book tour, and I'll probably add a few more (if you'd like me to come to your town, let me or HarperCollins know!)." And directly contradicting his assertion in Dude, Moore wrote in a February 13 letter that his tour "initially included only three cities: New York, L.A., and Denver." Clearly, he is spinning the publicity campaign for his own book."
quote:The Times also reported that Moore "has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation," and that he's established a "war room" to monitor attacks on the film. Lest anybody miss his threat, the filmmaker repeated it the same day on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, and will probably whistle the same libel tune all week long in publicity interviews for the film, which opens Friday.
The first peculiar thing about Moore's libel-mongering is that most American journalists disdain libel suits as a matter of principle. Even when they have good cause for a suit, most journalists refrain from filing, believing that libel threats keep topics of controversy from being aired. They'd rather contest hostile attacks on their work in the marketplace of ideas, not courtrooms. Why Moore, the former editor of the Michigan Voice and a regular purveyor of controversial journalism, has chosen to break with this tradition is anybody's guess. (One irony too good to pass up: Stringent libel laws, the sort that Moore appears to be advocating this week, have essentially blocked the publication of journalist Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud in the United Kingdom. Noteworthy only because Unger and his book are important Fahrenheit 9/11 sources.)
[ June 26, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Despite many claims of this sort, I have not seen an example of Moore presenting fiction as fact.
Actual claims, please. And don't hide behind the "I've already presented my case, if you aren't willing to do the research you're being lazy" argument.
It's not 'hiding' if it's already been done and you haven't noticed. The editing of Charlton Heston's interview in order to make him look bad is a well-known and discussed instance `round here.
But OK. Here's a few examples, so you can't say people are 'hiding' without actually looking yourself.
quote:Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol.
That's not an example of a factual lie (although those are in there, too)-it's just an example of why I can't stand the self-important blowhard.
And the big one, the most obvious example of Moore's true character (nuanced integrity, indeed):
Here's an article discussing how Moore-deeply upset and appalled at the prisoner abuse occurrences-witheld remarkably similar video footage showing, you guessed it, prisoner abuse because he was afraid of the accusation he was doing it to hype his movie.
The conclusion from THAT is simple: my reputation is more important than prisoner abuse in Iraq. If I can protect the one by aiding the other, then I'll do it.
I don't think you fellows understand, this film does beyond regular politikcal bashing and ties Bush in very closely with the number one criminal and most despised person on the planet. It would be like relating the personal story of Bush growing up with Hitler as a sandbox mate. Also, ties between the Carlyle group, bin Laden, the rest of the family and Bush are not as cut as everyone makes them out to be, but I'm sure the neocon smear machine will deny deny deny everything and say this is a vicious pack of lies. If Bush has anything to defend in his character then he must do it now if he can -- this is mainstream media making 100% accusations about him, his connections, his motives, etc. This stuff is easily provable if its not true and it would be political suicide to let some of this stuff stand without legal action if it wasn't true. You can sit here and blather on about political differences all you want and try to say it's a wash from a legal point of view, but you probably haven't seen how serious the film is.
[ June 26, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It ties him in with the number one criminal's FAMILY.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
And the criminal himself by way of continued funding. Like I said, go see the film and you will see the funding circles have not been severed. If this film is lying then it indicts Bush into a massive criminal connection and he must make a statement denying it immediately.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm sure you'd be interested in knowing that the CarlyleGroup just bought LoewsTheatre chain. I think it was the day before yesterday. Guess which media outlet besides Disney/ABC will no longer be available for Moore's outings.
[ June 26, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, that's like, a crime, ain't it?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Didn't someone on here recently point out that Osama is disinherited from the original Bin Laden family? I don't know if that's true, but if so, it profoundly deflates Moore's point. It would also give more reasoning as to why Bin Laden hates American inteference so much... we're dealing with the family that threw him out.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
While Bin Laden the terrorist does indeed get funding from Saudi Arabia and quite possibly from at least one branch of the royal family (which is so freaking huge that at least a quarter of the population is related in some way), he does *not* get funding from the main branch of Bin Laden the construction tycoon's family. Now, he may have sympathetic half-cousins twice-removed that support his ideals and send him money (speculation on my part) but that still doesn't mean that there's a direct connection between Dubya and Osama, as has apparently been asserted.
Makes for great conspiracy theory, though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I honestly didn't get the impression Moore is suggesting Bush has any support for Al Quaeda or for terrorism, but that Bush is perhaps willing to overlook possible connections to terrorism for family friends and financial compatriates. Which is probably true, given how lightly we've been letting Saudi Arabia off.
Also, there are several disturbing facts in the film that clearly are not false (for instance, Bush's complete inaction even after finding out about the second world trade center tower). I don't think he knew about it beforehand, but he certainly didn't bother to jump in and attempt to gain a handle on the situation. He ignored it.
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn't say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration
Moore mentions that Bush's old National Guard buddy and personal friend James Bath had become the money manager for the bin Laden family, saying, "James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush." The implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family's money in Bush's failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn't mention that Bath has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens', in Bush's company.
Moore tells us that when Carlyle took United Defense public, they made a one-day profit of $237 million, but under all the public scrutiny, the bin Laden family eventually had to withdraw (Moore doesn't tell us that they withdrew before the public offering, not after it).
Those are just a few, but my main problem is with the way Moore paints everything as so black and white. No moral ambiguity, just pure evil (Bush and Co.) and peaceful innocents (the oppressed people of Iraq, the oppressed people of Flint, Michigan). that's 8 bucks I'll never get back.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
James Bath DID invest the bin Ladens into Bush's companies, and Moore DID day that the bil Ladens were forced to withdraw from the United Defense deal.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
"Good for business, bad for people"
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
First, I would like someone who has enough information (because I sure don't) that can counter Dagonee's post pointing out individual faults in individual statements that Moore made.
For instance, in the movie, it shows clips of Powell and Rice saying that Sadam did not have enough technology to build WMD, and that the US had control over most of the resources that would allow him to do so. Then, after 9/11, they said that there iswithout a doubt WMD and that we will find them soon. Which of these is true? Not both. So one of them is a lie. Perhaps you can blame the problem on bad intelligence gathering but that seems to be a rather large failure of intelligence gathering to me.
Or how about the clip frm the movie (paraphrased): Bush: "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you." (Picks up golf club)"Now watch this drive."
And how about the fact that Bush spent %40 of his first eight (correct me if I'm wrong with this one) months in office on vacation. Thats a ****load of vacation time for a president of the united states.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Without Moore I would see Bush lying constantly on his own. The most effective parts of Moore's movies for me are those that let our president-appointee just put his foot in his own mouth.
Come on, Republicans. Why did you back a spider monkey for president in 2000? Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i have to agree, the real strength of the movie was in it's presentation of bush off-camera. there were some very good parts, the beginning where the trade centers were being bombed, and i really liked the last few minutes where he stoped trying to be funny and incendiary and simply said that we have a duty to the men and women who serve in the military to only send them into combat if we MUST. by and large though, what i really liked about the movie was the raw material. seeing bush talking to his friends on vacation, looking like a complete fool before announcing we're going to war, seeing wolfowitz comb his hair after spitting on the comb, etc etc. this is what i enjoyed, and what was the most convincing to me.
as for moore's attempts to link bush's incompetence to 9/11, 9/11 to oil pipelines in afghanistan, the fear of terrorism to oil profiteering, and the bush family to the bin ladens: i don't really care. maybe some of what he said is true, maybe it's not: i don't think it really matters. what matters to me is that bush mis-handled the presidency, and from watching him act like a moronic redneck i no longer wonder why.
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
I would type my opinion, be I already typed it on my site so it would be kind of redundant to put it here as well.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
First: Thanks to those who answered my question.
Second: Bin Laden is not "disinherited." He cashed out his inheritence for $300 million in advance.
Third: I guess I have to see Bowling for Columbine again. Every time I hear about how Moore "edited the scene with Heston" or some such, I had assumed they were talking about the interview with Heston, as opposed to the montages of Heston's speeches.
My impression is that these were not presented as an individual speech, but a montage of Heston quotes. If this is true, then the webpage showing how you could see that Moore was "lying" by noticing that Heston's shirt had changed are just as disengenuous as they claim Moore is being. But I'll have to watch the movie again to see.
As far as I remember, the Heston interview is presented unedited, and Heston does a pretty good job of making a fool out of himself.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Senile old men tend to do that. I think Reagan would have performed about the same that day.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Before you liberals have a collective orgasm over Michael Moore and his new movie here's something to consider:
Something comes to mind about the entire forum is being fire, and I'm just giving you all some moore (bad pun, bad) gasoline.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*fails to see how Moore hates America*
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
*isn't surprised*
Probably should have posted this on the other thread, but isn't the general concensus that titles are pretty much only around to grab attention and sell tickets? This one will do that. (and maybe in six months, he can call Mr. Moore to discuss it).
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Three disturbing things all people should understand and ackknowledge.
#3 Iraq is the 2nd largest oil reserve on earth.
#2 Soldiers expect at least one Ak-47 assault rifle in every iraqi home.
#1 Saudi Arabia's investments in America account for about a 8% ownership of the United States.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
#0 Nobody gives a rats arse, rain.
rain come again some, 'nuther day.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
quote:Bin Laden is not "disinherited." He cashed out his inheritence for $300 million in advance.
That doesn't mean that he still has any contact with Bin Laden the contruction company or any of the "legitimate" (non-terrorist) branches of the family, or that he continues to receive monetary support from them for his actions. A one-time "give-me-what's-my-due-as-progeny" payment does not make for funding terrorism, nor does it support the claim that Bush influence had anything to do with it. In fact, the fact that he "cashed out" rather than hang around and benefit from the nepotism and family connections the way his siblings have seems to be evidence that he doesn't want much to do with his father's family.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Erik, the alternative was Al Gore, who looked like an equally miserable choice at the time.
Seriously, I would have preferred a different Republican, but they didn't seem to have a chance. Maybe next year the Elephants will get a clue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think Moore hates America, I think he hates people who don't think in acceptable ways on several political and social issues. I feel the same way about Limbaugh, and replace 'hate' with 'disgust' for O'Reilly (though he's moving in that direction.
And here's a question. Why are many people more comfortable with the thought of Hussein having had control of his oil than the USA?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world? What, we aren't counting tar sands any more?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not comfortable with Hussein having control of the oil. In fact, I'd prefere if the Iraqis had control of their own resources, to do what they want with it. But, chances are, that will not happen. Why should the US have any right to that oil?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not saying the USA *should* have control of the oil, Syn. And I disagree with people who say things like, "Let the Iraqis pay for the war with their oil," for many reasons, that being one of them.
I'm just pointing out that between two conditions-Hussein having permanent control of the oil, and America having nebulous and arguable control of the oil permanently, many people seem to opt with the former.
Heck, there are some people who preferred to let Hussein have control of KUWAIT'S oil-and everything else-than have America go to war.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:Heck, there are some people who preferred to let Hussein have control of KUWAIT'S oil-and everything else-than have America go to war.
sounds reasonable to me. of course, the part about iraq invading another country sort of irks me...
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
If you cannot see any lies in Farenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine then Michael Moore has done the job he sought out to do. The whole purpose of what he is doing is to make the viewer believe opinions shown are fact. I am trying to say that while there may be some fact, there is probably a whole lot of opinion parading itself as truth. Editing is a very powerful tool.
White Whale you said
quote: And how about the fact that Bush spent %40 of his first eight (correct me if I'm wrong with this one) months in office on vacation. Thats a ****load of vacation time for a president of the united states.
His vacation is alot different than the type of vacation me or you would take. He was not lounging around sipping margaritas and listening to Jimmy Buffet down in the carribean. Also, that statistic is incredibly skewed. It reminds me of a paper I was given in statistics class about how 98% of crimes occur after someone eats white bread. In other words, its not a valid statistic.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: If you cannot see any lies in Farenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine then Michael Moore has done the job he sought out to do. The whole purpose of what he is doing is to make the viewer believe opinions shown are fact. I am trying to say that while there may be some fact, there is probably a whole lot of opinion parading itself as truth.
Halt, vultures! You will eat from Promethius brain no more today!
quote: I am trying to say that while there may be some fact, there is probably a whole lot of opinion parading itself as truth.
You haven't even seen the film! How do you know anything?
quote: Editing is a very powerful tool
Agreed.
...but by not seeing the film, you fail to see that MM's main influence is in Voice Over work, not in liberal editing.
People fail to realize that the michael moore movie is a GOOD FILM, not a rush limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Bill oreilly talk fest where THEY ARE THE BE ALL END ALL of their pieces.
Micheal Moore let's the footage speak for it self.
Like the part where he's filming and a woman accuses it of being faked.
That's a powerful scene.
OW.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
beautiful film!
kinda ugly. kinda dumb. kinda dysfactual. beautiful all the same.
not as entertaining as it could have been, IMHO.
fallow
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Interesting article by Richard Cohen in the Post today (registration required, use someoneelse@bugmenot.com, someoneelse):
quote:...Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival -- lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission.
The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless. ...
Dagonee
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
quote:The whole purpose of what he is doing is to make the viewer believe opinions shown are fact.
That's the whole point of any persuasive piece, wether it be an essay, a debate, or a movie.
Does it say the word documentary ANYWHERE in there? Nope. This is a movie. It's not a documentary at all. Moore never claims it is. He's showing his opinion. He's said it's opinion countless times. The ONLY reason people are calling it a documentary is because that's the only thing that comes close to what it is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then he didn't break any box office records last weekend, nor will he be eligible for an Acadamy Award for Best Documentary.
Dagonee
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
He doesn't decide what people call it. They do. He's calling it a movie. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fine. And when he turns down the nomination for the Acadamy Award I might respect him a little.
Dagonee
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Asking him to turn down the academy award because they put him in the wrong category is like turning down money because you were supposed to get a gift card.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it just means he's purposely trying to have the best of both worlds - the credibility of a documentary maker and the freedom of an op-ed writer. If he has itnegrity, he'll say, "I cannot rob true documentaries of their chance at this award by accepting it for a movie that shed the difficult constraints they labored under."
I know there have been people that turned down awards because they were in the wrong category. The only one I can remember is Mathew Perry turning down an Emmy nomination for best actor in a comedy on Friends because it was an ensemble cast. But it's happened before.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed?
What year did that happen?
Also, do you know how often Isreal breaks UN sanctions? Should we invade them too?
Or how about China for all their human rights violations?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Theoretically, we should invade China. But the chance of winning (in the sense of ever defeating them and having a stable government and a majority of people survive) is too low for it to be worth the cost.
Israel breaks UN resolutions for one reason--to survive. The UN treats Israel as if it had no right to defend itself against the terrorists who want to annihilate it.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I dislike the pretense that we are the World's police, bringing light and Democracy to every corner of the globe.
At least be honest in the assertion that we protect our interests.
I dislike the notion that we know what is right, just and best for every culture, every people in the world.
It helps keep the moral issues much simpler all the way around.
-Trevor
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I freely admit that we do act to protect our own interests. Nonetheless, I believe there ought to be a "world police", and that the UN is doing a lousy job of it (perhaps because so many of the "crooks" are allowed a vote). Much of Europe, as well as some other countries--Australia, Canada, Japan, to name a small few--could do an acceptable job, but they don't seem to have the power or the will by themselves. Who's left?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
The U.N. can't be a world police because it's considered intergovernmental; it's a bunch of nations agreeing or not agreeing to do this or that. With policing, you don't "agree" to be arrested and detained. To have a world police you'd need something supragovernmental, something less susceptible to the whims and interests of states. Which I don't think will ever happen. The closest the world has to anything supragovernmental are a few branches of theEU, and their success is somewhat dubious.
[ July 01, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Yes we should do something to China. I do not understand why we trade with them and do not put sanctions on them(Well, I know why, its because of money but...) Their human rights violations disgust me. They are communist, we are not supposed to trade with communist countries. Why China but not Cuba? Arg, stupid stupid stupid politics which do not make sense.
I am at a loss as to whether I should see farenheit 9/11 or not. On one hand I do not want to support michael moore and his whole political view. On the other hand I really want to see it because everyone will be talking about it. I feel that you should spend your money how you want the world to be. Like not buying ivory because you dont want to support killing elephants.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
As law is relative and standards tend to vary from country to country, I find it frustrating that American lives and resources are wasted in vain efforts that have no real hope of succeeding.
If the World needs a police force, then the World needs to agree and cooperate.
By leaving the enforcement in the hands of any particular nation leads to accusations of "Pax Americana" in this case and with some reasonable justification.
-Trevor
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:Why China but not Cuba
good point, although i would argue that we're in the wrong regarding cuba, not china. prosperity brings heightened expectations, not only regarding standard of life, but the ability to live as one chooses.
regarding the UN and the possiblity of an eventual world government of some sort, i think of the UN as somewhat analagous to the pre-constitutional american government: more of an organized method of negociating between interests than an intity itself. nevertheless, the process of establishing the rule of law has been a slow and progressive one. i could see the UN as a precursor to something more powerful, especially given how many "hotspots" are demanding the world's attention, and the persistance of genocide and the like.
i also see iraq as a potentially crucial waypoint along this hypothetical trajectory: we've (hopefully) realized that removing opressive regimes is a bit more difficult than it looks on paper. the pragmatics are hard, and the international politiking is harder...
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
No sanctions with China is part of Clinton's "Deep Engagement," which I think is a pretty good idea. You get as economically involved with your enemy as possible so then you're co-dependent, and then you have leverage with each other. Besides, cultural ideas get translated along in the process (hopefully liberal democracy, in this case). Right now China has the most American investment than any other nation in the world, I believe.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Book, did I sense sarcasm? Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Where? The liberal democracy quip? I actually think it'll work out. Money is the great communicator.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
In an interview with Conan O'Brian, Moore stated something like "This movie is my opinion. I'm not expecting you to embrace it, it is just what I believe to be right. Who knows? You're right, I'm right? They're only opinions"
Hard to argue against a point like that. (But I'm sure someone will)
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
He's not right! He's Left, right?
fallow
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
For your reading pleasure...the definition of "Documentary" with regards to the Oscar category:
quote:Rule Twelve Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. DEFINITION 1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
II. CATEGORIES The Documentary Awards are divided into two categories: 1. Documentary Feature - films more than 40 minutes in running time, and 2. Documentary Short Subject - films 40 minutes or less (including all credits) in running time.
Having just seen this movie (and keeping in mind his last Oscar win for "Bowling...") he seems to fit THIS definition of Documentary film. So, for him to turn it down would be him stepping away from his material and saying it isn't worthy. Why would he do that? Just to make the Republicans happy?
Discuss.
fil
[ July 02, 2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Wait, I thought that the vultures pecked at and ate Prometheus's liver...
Feyd Baron, DoC
Edit, because I missed a letter. And to add this little quip, from Farenheit's webpage ...
quote: With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Moore considers the presidency of George W. Bush and where it has led us.]
I love hollywood. If I went around calling myself a designer of unique and inspirational buildings, I'd be arrested the first time I actually did it.
[ July 02, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Architraz Warden ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
Well, I think the problem might be with this part of the definition.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: quote:as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
Well, I think the problem might be with this part of the definition.
Dagonee
How so? He takes actual video feed of the President and his mates and uses it the film. He didn't stage those Iraq war scenes, did he? The woman in Flint who lost her son REALLY lost her son, didn't she? He drew conclusions from existing information about Bush connections (that exist) with the Sauds, Big Oil, and so on. One may not agree with those conclusions, but that doesn't make the information in the movie fictional. I am curious, what parts are fictional?
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That part of the definition leads no place for opinion. And as Moore stated, it's an opinion piece, not a reporting piece. Which means it emphasis conclusion over facts.
Dagonee
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Dag, I read your Richard Cohen bit above. I do agree with one thing, he does make a point to show ONLY the shiny, happy version of pre-War Iraq in ONE scene. But Cohen is a bit wrong. There are plenty of scenes in the movie with Bush talking about the Weapons of Mass Destruction and they showed the infamous scene were Powell was forced to walk the plank for the administration by presenting "factual" information and assurances of the locations of the WMD and the vehicles they were stored in. They also showed a TON of footage of Bush making his "Saddam and Al Qaeda are buddies" speeches. Snippets from lots of sources. I think Cohen is guilty of the same "pick and choose" technique that he accuses Moore of doing.
The Oil thing that Cohen feels is "conspiracy" is silly. Most people don't need Moore's movie to tell them that oil is a pretty big factor in the war. We hear DAILY that Iraq is the second largest oil field in the world. Who is working the oil rigs now? American workers for American companies. A scene in the movie took place at a conference where tons of big corps were brought together to talk about how much money can be made off of the war. Was that staged? Made up? What was the biggest talking point in this conference? "When the oil starts flowing, so will the money." Sure, maybe Moore didn't show scenes from that same conference when the big money people talked about helping the Iraqi people gain their freedom, yadda yadda yadda. Right.
Cohen points out the human rights abuses that Saddam committed against his own people as being the reason for going to war. Moore points out that Saudi Arabia is also known for human rights abuses yet we aren't invading them. Yet Cohen thinks THAT is why we are invading Iraq...because Saddam is the worst of a whole slew of bad dictators in the world. But it isn't why Bush initially said "go to war." It was a story used later when the WMD story flopped. And one used again when US troops were torturing Iraqi prisoners..."at least we aren't as bad as Saddam when HE tortured people here."
Try again, Mr. Cohen. I think it is cool that he disagrees with points raised in the movie, but calling it fiction is pretty weak and desperate. There were no "re-enacted" scenes of the Bush family and Saud family and their connections. No faked footage of war and interviews with soldiers (who, by the way, aren't all saying things Moore wants to hear...he talked to Hawks AND Doves). And if Cohen (and those who agree with him) can't see ANY connection to oil, well...
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
There is absolutely no part of the definition that excludes "opinion." If so, please point out.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Look, Moore is outraged that people are using generally accepted standards of documentaries to criticize his movie because it's not a documentary. If he's going to play that card, he needs to not accept all the consequences, good and bad, of his movie not being a documentary.
He could have chosen to make the case that his movie is a documentary and that it meets those generally accepted standards. Instead, he took the easier route and said it's not a documentary.
Fine. We'll take him at his word, even though we know his word is worthless.
Dagonee
quote:There is absolutely no part of the definition that excludes "opinion." If so, please point out.
The part that says it emphasizes "fact."
[ July 02, 2004, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Actually, I am only a small part of this whole discussion of Documentary vs. Not. I am only pointing out one aspect of the discussion...his eligibility for the Oscar for Best Documentary. According to THAT definition, he is eligible.
I don't know why "Fact" and "Opinion" have to be mutually exclusive. What else would he have opinions on? Fictional characters in fictional situations? It simply says it needs to be a movie around factual information and it is. And he shares his opinions around those facts. So while the bigger argument of documentary can and should continue I don't think he needs to step down from Oscar consideration based on their...er...liberal rules and requirements.
fil
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Fil's point is pretty good, actually. Particularly as most of the stuff Moore brings up are facts, if facts in dispute (and even if only facts not in dispute were counted, I think most of the movie would remain -- its not the factual nature, but the implications and selective use that are contentious).
It is mostly a movie about facts. A good part of the movie is taken up with real video clips (from the news and such) -- definitely facts that those video clips happened, and usually what they show as well (for instance, Bush sitting on his rear end and doing nothing even after hearing about the second plane).
Many of the financial connections he states (though sometimes presented in the worst possible light) are facts. The statements by people associated with September 11th are facts in the sense that those people did say them -- Moore is merely interviewing them (and he didn't just pull people in off the street, he found a former (as of recently) FBI official who thought the Bush admin trampled on good investigatory procedure, a woman in Flint who got notified of her son's death in Iraq by telephone, et cetera). There are tons of facts in the film, and the film is heavily concerned with them. Denying that is just being contrary.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't deny that the movie has scores of facts, bushels of `em. I just say that Moore cherry-picks his facts, and shades and distorts them when frequently.
Denying that is just being contrary.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*shrug* I didn't.
The Oscar definition doesn't exclude it, either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And yet the larger point remains: If Moore is defending his movie not by showing his use of facts is acceptable for a documentary, but rather by denying it is a documentary, then he should be a man and live with that decision.
If the Acadamy of Motion Picture's definition of a documentary isn't the one Moore's using, he might want to let people know.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I know you didn't, fugu. But it appears many people are defending the film by saying, basically, that it's full of true facts.
Well, there's more to it than that, is all I mean.
And Dag is right. Even though he is not specifically barred from the Academy Award for Documentary, if his first defense against criticism is, "It ain't a documentary!" he should not, as an honest man, accept it.
But he will, because he ain't.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As far as I can tell, he's not denying its a documentary either, he's just avoiding mentioning the term. Perhaps its because some people might try to task him for doing so.
He is emphasizing that its filled with his own opinions and tries to suggest his side of the story, but that's not substantially different from a documentary on the civil war portraying the North as interfering aggressors and the South as righteous defenders of freedom (or the North as fighting selflessly for the slaves and the good of the nation, and the South as slaveowners out to destroy the union).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is different in one major respect, in that the events being documented are going on right now.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I don't deny that the movie has scores of facts, bushels of `em. I just say that Moore cherry-picks his facts, and shades and distorts them when frequently.
Denying that is just being contrary.
Who is denying it? Moore surely isn't. He was asked point blank, "are you being fair?" and he said, quite clearly..."no." Doesn't sound like denial to me.
Who doesn't cherry-pick facts and information? The news media does this daily. Bush is in the White House because of such media 'cherry-picking.' What movie ISN'T cherry-picked information? If you don't, you have C-Span..which is simply an open camera on an event without edits or choices in what is seen. The moment a filmmaker enters the editing suite, he or she begins to cherry pick. And in Moore's own words, they aren't fair. I fail to see a problem with this. If Fox and CNN can do it, why can't Moore? If Rush and Franken do it, why can't Moore? I am curious...which filmmakers, documentary or not, don't pick among takes and facts and scenes to make a movie?
fil
[ July 02, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not saying he can't do it. It's just annoying when anyone does it, and that includes Franken and especially Rush.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: It is different in one major respect, in that the events being documented are going on right now.
How does this make it different? fugu made a great comparison. Two movies can be done about the exact same situation (now or then) and both can be equally factual yet you can come away from the event with two different understandings of that event. Should all movies about the Civil War be "North Good/South Bad" because the North won? Or is it better to see all sides, even if I would completely disagree with opinions that pain the South in too good a light? How about WW2? Or Viet Nam? Or the Clinton Administration? Or the War in Iraq? Bush has had his chance to make his case for years now. Taking the same information, we see things in a new light. Doesn't change the facts of the situation.
I think the Republicans would have done better to make their OWN documentary (if you don't count the nearly silent major media outlets footage) that shows the Iraq War in the light that THEY want. Simply attacking the filmmaker to discount the movie vs. showing their side is having the counter effect. Look at Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ." The more people attacked Gibson as being anti-semitic and "picking and choosing" his point of view for the story, the more people who wanted to go see it. Moore loves the attention and I have seen him publicly ask for more outrage from the Right! He said the more the Right tries to block the film, the better sales have been.
fil
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh -- *shrug* why temporality should have meaning here escapes me. Either all three examples (Moore and the two civil war documentaries) are biased in essentially the same sort of way, or they aren't. If we still consider the civil war documentaries documentaries despite the biases, then we should consider Moore's work a documentary despite the same types of bias.
A similar situation could also arise contemporaneously wrt globalization. Lots of news shows spin globalization as either the solution to man's ills, emphasizing all the good things it does, while others highlight the bad side. True, each often glosses the other side, but its typically pretty clear which side is favored -- just count the minutes spent on it, if nothing else. Yet all of these shows are, essentially, fact based reporting, and are classified and represented as such.
[ July 02, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I fail to see a problem with this.
And I fail to see a problem with us saying 1) we don't like him, 2) he's unfair and manipulative, 3) he has a proven history of lying and near-lying through creative editing, 4) his conclusions are ludicrous, and 5) we hate him.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't dispute those ideas.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You have to register, so here's a name and password from bugmenot.com.
w.mazuchowski@comcast.com muzzy
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Kayla, thanks for the link (didn't need to register, either...it went right there). That actually was a neat article and one that takes a broader look at the movie and what it shows about us as a nation. Neat.
fil
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
OSC has a bit on Fahrenheit 9/11 in his latest column:
quote:When Michael Moore in his recent propaganda film ridicules President Bush for continuing his session with schoolchildren for five whole minutes after hearing about a plane crashing into the World Trade Center, let's ask ourselves: What else should the President have done? Rushed from the room and frightened the children? Was he supposed to leap into an airplane and patrol the skies himself?
Besides, it was not clear until fifteen minutes after the first crash that there was more than just one plane involved, and therefore that it was a terrorist attack.
But what do we expect from Moore? He's a hero of the Left because he tells lies about the Right.
If President Bush weren't such a good president, his enemies wouldn't have to lie about him outrageously in order to defeat him.
And what does it say about America's intelligentsia that they would rather believe lies than admit that George W. Bush has been smarter, on the issues that matter, than they are?
Don't know if OSC saw the film or not, but he didn't get the part about the planes right -- when Bush was in the school, he was told about the SECOND plane hitting the Twin Towers, and the clip from the movie was of Bush sitting there in the classroom after hearing about the second plane...
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
quote: If President Bush weren't such a good president, his enemies wouldn't have to lie about him outrageously in order to defeat him.
Apparently even without his enemies lying, he still puts his foot in it.
The lights just aren't on. Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Forgive me if this has already been posted: Michael Moore
'Nuff said.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
HRE
That's almost as funny as the photo of Rumsfeld and Saddamn shaking hands.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:Forgive me if this has already been posted: Michael Moore
'Nuff said.
So because he is very overweight, that is how we should judge his works? Rush Limbaugh...the Right's Michael Moore...is also overweight (though looking better). 'Nuff said?
Weak.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
OSC, in addition to getting the story wrong from the movie (methinks he didn't see it and is relying on reviews to make his point) also is wrong about the reaction. Obviously Bush shouldn't have "rushed out of the room" and "frightened the children." But he knows that. Bush, when hearing the news, could have quietly stood up, excused himself and left. It wasn't like he was actively reading to the children. He was flipping through the book while the teacher did the reading. It wasn't hard to get out of.
I think the opposite statement from what OSC said is true: If Bush were such a good president, he wouldn't need his allies making excuses for him all the time.
fil
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Calm down, fil.
Whether I like Moore or not is immaterial there. That's just funny. I'm sure you laughed when you first opened it, before the little monkey in your brain told you to get pissed.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
No, the monkey didn't make me stop laughing. Fat jokes and Moore are about as funny as...er...fat jokes and Rush Limbaugh. The monkey just rolled it's eyes. Plenty calm here. Just rather sad. There has been some great discussion about Moore's film and its ideas but it has been typical here and in the press and elsewhere on the internet that half the time people just comment on how fat he is.
Now funny Moore stuff was on www.fark.com a while back where people photoshopped Moore doing some odd interviews (iirc). THAT was funny. Or some were, anyway.
Speaking of making fun of Moore, I heard on the Daily Show tonight they were interviewing the guy who is doing the documentary about trying (unsuccessfully) to interview Michael Moore. Someone posted a link about it a while back. Can't wait to see how he handles the Daily Show interview style!
fil
[ July 07, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote:WASHINGTON, DC—According to a study released Monday by the Hammond Political Research Group, many of the nation's liberals are suffering from a vastly diminished sense of outrage.
"With so many right-wing shams to choose from, it's simply too daunting for the average, left-leaning citizen to maintain a sense of anger," said Rachel Neas, the study's director. "By our estimation, roughly 70 percent of liberals are experiencing some degree of lethargy resulting from a glut of civil-liberties abuses, education funding cuts, and exorbitant military expenditures."
San Francisco's Arthur Flauman is one liberal who has chosen to take a hiatus from his seething rage over Bush Administration policies.
"Every day, my friends send me e-mails exposing Bush's corrupt environmental policies," said Flauman, a member of both the Green Party and the Sierra Club. "I used to spend close to an hour following all the links, and I'd be shocked and outraged by the irreversible damage being done to our land. At some point, though, I got annoyed with the demanding tone of the e-mails. The Clear Skies Initiative is bogus, but I'm not going to forward a six-page e-mail to all my friends—especially one written by a man who signs his name 'Leaf.' Now, if a message's subject line contains the word 'Bush,' it goes straight into the trash."
This, btw, is a familiar phenomenon. It was a real problem during the Nixon years. Posted by Melchior (Member # 5519) on :
George W. Bush is a drooling, blubbering TWIT Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And thus is the level of political discourse raised ever higher.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)