M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Maybe it's because I love my DVX, but did was Fahrenheit 9/11 shot with the DVX? It has some similar qualities to footage of other 24p footage from this camera that I've (and others) have generated.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

WOW. The most thorough commentary I've seen on it yet (from someone who's seen it), and this guy is on the Left.

I can only imagine how purple Moore's face got when (if) he read this one:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Of course, it could be the most ingenious marketing ploy I've ever seen.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Fascinating. A guy on the far left rips it apart. And Fox News, stronghold of the far right, praises it and calls it "brilliant", saying "a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html

I guess we'll be able to find out for ourselves in a few days.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I'm not sure I would characterize Christopher Hitches as "on the Left." The Slate tends to lean left, but Hitchens is all over the place, depending on the issue.

I was, however, surprised at the Fox News review. They also called it "patriotic."

Moore must be confused.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Hi guys,

Was the film shot with the DVX100?

I read on the newspaper today that the film was criticised in the US.

The headlines of the article was: "Anti-Bush film 'is a backlash'"

Anyway, all the best

Fidel.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I would be surprised if Moore shot this flick with the DVX100. He had a $6 million budget, after all. I can't wait to see it. I'll try to go this weekend, if I can find the time.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Yeah, it was criticized here, but everything is criticized here. It was also glowingly, lovingly praised.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

This film is considered by some in the US as a propaganda film rather than a documentary.  Besides the political message, many take offense with the controversial style and editing used by Michael Moore in his films.  He has a tendancy to selectively edit together clips from interviews to distort or slant things toward his political bias.  He will conduct a normal interview with a famous person, then take minor cuts and film entirely different reaction shots and dialogue - thereby making the person look like and idiot, zealot, or criminal.

Also keep in mind the directors motivation for making this film.  Micheal Moore has publically stated on more than one occasion he wants to make sure George W. Bush is not reelected in Fall 2004.  This film is one part of that agenda.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

It's not supposed to be an objective journalism piece. A documentary tells the story the filmmaker wants to tell. Even a doc such as Spellbound is edited to tell a story, not necessarily to be an objective work of journalism. Everyone knows Moore's politics going in, so no one should be surprised. Dismissing it as propaganda misses the point. Of course it's propaganda. But is it a good film? I don't know; I haven't seen it yet.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I guess the question is, what are the criteria for how "good" it is as a film?

For example, anyone ever seen an extremely well-shot piece of crap? I have. It was called "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves."

So, upon watching this film, what's YOUR basis for judging it AS a film? If content is king . . .
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Well, whether it's "good" or not is subjective, of course. If you're a hard-core right winger, you'll be unlikely to get past Moore's politics. For me, I guess I'll judge this particular flick based on whether or not I'm entertained and whether it's thought-provoking. I would never vote for Bush anyway, so Moore is preaching to the choir in my case. But that doesn't mean I'd want to watch a Bush-bashing film made by, say, James Carville. That guy annoys the hell out of me, whether I agree with him or not. I found Bowling for Columbine to be entertaining and thought-provoking. If Carville had had the same footage Moore had, I doubt he could have put it together in a manner I would have enjoyed watching as a film.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I should add that while I don't have a problem with Moore editing the film to tell the story he wants, I would defintiely have a problem with him if it turned out he was telling outright lies. From what I've read so far, that isn't the case. I disagree with pretty much everything Sean Hannity says, but as long as he's not telling outright lies on his radio show, I'm fine with him doing whatever he wants to entertain his audience.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=eyebiter link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=0#8 date=06/25/04 at 06:12:14]This film is considered by some in the US as a propaganda film rather than a documentary.[/quote]

All propaganda films are documentaries but not all documentaries are propaganda films. And propaganda is mostly in the eye of the beholder. Basically, if you disagree with it, it's a propaganda film.

What Moore does is no different than any other opinion-editorialist. He doesn't claim to be fair. He has a point of view and selectively includes facts that support his opinion. It's not exactly unusual. If he had his own talking heads show instead of movies, he'd fit right in with the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough. Their tactics are no different than anything Moore does. Except that Moore doesn't pretend that he isn't biased.

And of course having a point of view doesn't disqualify it from being a documentary. Of all the criticisms of Moore's films, that has to be the most absurd. Was Super Size Me objective? Was there any question in the audience's mind what Spurlock thought of the fast food companies and their claims that their food is nutritious?
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I saw the film today and yes...I can safely say I saw it as a propaganda film for sure.  But like Josh said, the film is showing what Moore wants it to show.  And he does it damn well.  It's a mix of fact and opinion that is skillfully edited together and just kicks the Bush administration's ass.  As someone who is against the war in Iraq, I thought the message was a good one too, but I can see easily how it could make someone else feel VERY differently.  I've got to say, the film made me a little embarrassed to live in a country run by 'Dubya'... :-/
But by all means, go see this movie, and more importantly make sure that you have a strong opinion, be it one way or the other, walking into this film.  I think you will get much more from the film if you do.
Above all else, pray for the safety of our country, our troops in other nations, and every other human being.  Life is too short to be spent fighting wars.

-Harry
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I tried posting something earlier, but my internet connection died. It's up and running again (obviously) and I find that Harry has said basically what I was going to, but in two short paragraphs instead of my 3-page missive. Here it is anyway, in case anyone wants to read and has WAY too much time on their hands to go through all this:

Okay, I just saw it.

Propaganda? Most certainly. "Brilliant"? Er... well, I don't know about that. I was really expecting a lot more from it. "20 minute standing ovation"? Um, no. But, I will say that the people in the audience did break out in applause at the end, maybe 10-15 seconds of it, and that is *rare* in a theater anymore. I would also suspect that most of the crowd in that particular theater (first day, first screening, on a weekday morning) would be perhaps biased in favor of the picture.

I'm not going to bother with the politics of the thing, whether you're pro-Bush or anti-Bush or whatnot. That's been discussed ad infinitum.

What interested me most about the picture is that I see a new trend developing in movies: Cinema As Activism. Not only on the part of the filmmaker (as that's always been there) but on the part of other people, using the film to promote their own goals. Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" started it, and it is a perfect example, where church groups were going around buying out entire screenings and then giving the tickets away to people, as part of a "missionary" effort. That film, which had been termed "unmarketable" when it was first announced, went on to become the second-highest-grossing picture this year. People were buying tickets to it because they *wanted it to succeed*! As well as wanting OTHERS to see it. What a fascinating departure from traditional ticketbuying patterns.

I see Moore's new picture as perhaps following in the same light. "Documentaries" have traditionally been basically "unmarketable". But this one packed the theater for a 10:45 a.m. screening. People are so polarized on the issue that I would expect to see groups like moveon.org buying tickets and handing them out. Will we see election-week screenings, sponsored by democrat groups? I don't know. Seems possible. And the whole concept seems to perhaps open up potential funding avenues for independent filmmakers -- if you're a talented and dedicated filmmaker with a real opinion on something and you can exhibit the capability to make people feel emotions about an issue, perhaps an activist group is out there that would support/underwrite your film, and "grassroots" campaign for ticket sales. This will almost certainly be the path some enterprising filmmaker takes to success. We live in interesting filmmaking times.

Back to the picture. Was it good filmmaking? I'd say that at times it was absolutely compelling and riveting. But at other times it just seemed lost, totally wandering aimlessly trying to find its focus again. I found elements of it quite inspired -- the September 11 attacks were handled in a creative and respectful way. When he printed one guy's phone number, that was wonderful. It definitely had its moments, and Moore does have skills.

Was it "honest?" If you come away with any one thing from this picture, it should be the notion that none of us has any idea what the **** is actually going on out there, so who's to say what's honest? The true truth is apparently very squirrely. But we all know going in that Michael Moore is going to present the facts that make his case, and likely only those facts, and some of them "may" not be "facts" at all. While we know that going in, I will say I was disappointed in him for some of the more glaring omissions. For example, he went on a diatribe about "The Coalition of the Willing", being the countries supporting the Iraq war -- and his point was to show just what a lame group countries the US had convinced to support them, and he showed countries that DON'T EVEN HAVE ARMIES OR WEAPONS, like Morocco, and Iceland, and Tulau, etc. Not a mention ever of Britain or Australia or Korea or Japan or Spain. It would have been such a simple thing for him to have said "besides the obvious, Britain and Australia, our coalition of the willing included defenseless countries such as Iceland, and Tulau, and Morocco"... etc. By leaving out such common knowledge, it raised one's awareness to question whether he was being truthful or not.

Another point was when he declared that Iraq had never attacked the US, had never injured or harmed any US citizen, etc. He somehow neglected to mention that Saddam had ordered a hit on then-President G.H.W. Bush, and attempted assassination of our head of state would qualify in my book as an attack...

Curiously, both of these situations were addressed later in the picture, but not by Moore himself (he has G.W. Bush mention that "Saddam tried to kill my dad", and there's another reference to Japanese troops in Iraq), so it's not like he's totally suppressing facts, he's just not guiding the audience to a full understanding. But he did make the facts available for those who are informed enough to draw the full conclusion.

So, in the end, was it successful as a film? People in the audience definitely seemed to enjoy it, there was much laughter at appropriate times, and there was some gasping, and there were some moments where tears would be appropriate. But again, there were times where it wandered and seemed to get lost.

I guess the ultimate test of its "success" will be, will it succeed in the filmmaker's stated goal of driving Bush from office? We'll find out in five months. However, I would say that a lot of viewers will have a harder time voting for Bush this November. There will be diehards and "party faithful," and there will be single-issue voters, but I would suspect there will be more than a few who will fall into the category of one of the soldiers in the movie who called himself a "recovering Republican". Unfortunately, this will likely inspire more of what depresses me about the state of American politics: oftentimes we don't vote FOR a candidate so much as we vote AGAINST the other guy. There's nothing in this picture that will make someone want to vote FOR Kerry or Nader or any other candidate, it can only inspire you to vote AGAINST Bush. It'd be nice if the system evolved to the point where we could actually vote FOR someone because we think that candidate is best...

Finally, should "all voters of all parties" see it? Absolutely yes. If there's even a half of a smidgeon of a grain of truth in this picture, then yes, all voters should be exposed to it. If this is how government really, really works, a housecleaning is in order that would make Hercules' cleansing of the stables look like a housewife with a swiffer mop. So, see it for yourself, decide what is true, and expose what isn't. I'm sure there are legions of people at work on both sides of the issue right now.

In summation -- a very interesting piece of work. The next few months will reveal whether it should be classified as "fact" or "fiction".

Interesting side note 1: there was a commercial for the U.S. Army playing before the picture.

Interesting side note 2: Someone asked if it was shot on a DVX. Most of the interviews were either 35mm or HD. It was intermixed with all sorts of other footage, most of it looked to have been taped right off of CNN by a VHS deck. There was some embedded-troop Iraq stuff that I will guess was PD150's. No specific evidence of DVX's in use.

Interesting side note 3: In the pre-release hype, I had heard much about there being footage of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. I wonder if a lot of that was cut before the US release. While there was a very brief mention, it was maybe 30 seconds out of the 2-hour running time. Either that segment of the film was deliberately over-hyped, or much of whatever used to be in there was cut out before the domestic release, because it earned only a very minor amount of screen time.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

i'm gonna see this movie tonight. I already know bush is a moron, but i wouldnt mind seeing it on the big screen!
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

for those who saw the movie, does the movie actually have a message, other than Moore hates anything or anyone on the right(what about that waistline? Should'nt Moore be hating CARBS, as well as republicans? Is BowFlex, NordicTrack, and an excercise gym a rightwing conspiracy?)? Anybody can talk **** about anyone and edit it in a way so that the person comes out a 100 times worse, which Moore does. Okay, so "Dubya" is lazy and doesn't care, but does Moore actually have a REAL solution to solve America's woes, let's say, if Bush was kicked out? We all know Moore hates Bush(if you what I mean. . .not that there's anything wrong with that), but what's his solution to countries/organizations/factions that, if they could, would blow up the U.S. in a New York minute? Why do I feel sick, knowing that F/9-11 will break box-office records in certain parts of Iraq, Afganistan, and in secret Al-Queada Strongholds? All of us on this board and more, could only dream about making it to the big time as a Hollywood director, only to live nightmares where hyprocritical psychophants like Moore ruin the art of cinema. The only message I see is from F/911 this: only in America can you talk **** about war, forgetting about those who died fighting wars so we can have an opinion and voice it, so that we can disagree with our leaders and make a movie about it, and laugh all the way to bank(and in Moore's case, McDonald's). Now, I can't stand extreme lefties as much as I cant stand extreme righties, and after spending 10 bucks to see something that won't really make you change your stance on anything, where the director talks out of two sides of his mouth on what his intentions are/were, then, bites the hand that fed him(yes, Disney. . .what, no honor amongst thieves?), all I can say is that Michael Moore is, was, and will always be, a FAT, OUT-OF-SHAPE, TERRORIST-SYMPATHIZING, BABY-HUEY, HERMAPHRODITE CANDY-ASS JOBRONI, who wouldn't last 5 seconds in the hood'!!! (Hell, at least Limbaugh did drugs, booze, ****ed around, and then LOST WEIGHT). To be fair, I am willing to watch the movie in it's entirerty as long as it's for free--I'm not going put money in that assclown's pocket, I mean, does he really need my money to go for forths and fifths at the all you can eat buffet line? You'd think with all the dough he's making he'd at least WALK BY a gym, let alone go in one for heavens sakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top