M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

This is such an incendiary topic, let's try to avoid personalizing it if possible.  Shooting the messenger has rarely proven an effective argument against the message.

Sean, you ask a question: is there a message, other than "hate Bush"?  I had to think about it for a minute, because the film doesn't really follow any discernable track for a while, but yes, there is an underlying message in it, which is "classism" -- Moore goes on a rampage to show how the privileged few are trampling the poor and underprivileged masses.  It took a while to see the overall common thread because I was distracted by the anti-Bushness of it, but it's not really entirely about Bush, because there's a segment about airline security and what you're allowed (and not allowed) to bring on airplanes.  And what he points out is that you ARE allowed to bring on up to four books of matches and two butane lighters.

Think about that for a second.  You can't bring on fingernail clippers, but you're allowed to bring on enough "fire"power to burn the plane down.

His question is "why?"  And his answer is: because the cigarette companies know that as soon as smokers land, they want to light up.

It's absolutely outrageous, yet if true, it just underlines his whole point.  He makes the point that Gore was the candidate who was "elected" (as in, received the most popular votes, nationwide) but that Bush was the one anointed (by the powers on high).  Whether you agree with that or not is basically irrelevant: you just have to understand that that's where he's coming from, and that's the underlying theme to this picture.  It's a classic "us vs. them", with Bush/Cheney/Rice/Ashcroft/Bin Laden/Saud Family representing the "them", and the common poor people, those who are out of work and who have to turn to the Army for jobs and any prayer of going to college, being the "us".  And that's what makes him so mad: these poor kids, with no hope of anything else, are being sent over to destroy a country, risking their lives and limbs, so that Cheney and Halliburton can secure billion-dollar contracts.

It's not "we hate America".  It's not "Bush is evil" (although there's plenty of anti-Bush-ness in it).  It's the classic struggle of the elite vs. the common man.  It's showing how the common American pays the price for the games the very rich play (and yes, people will point out that Moore is rich as well as fat, but he isn't Rockefeller rich, he's not Bush rich, he's not Saudi rich... there's a big distinction).

So, take it for what it's worth.  Nobody says you have to agree with the message, just understand what the message is.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

The airport security thing is interesting. A friend of mine flew to L.A. from Detroit a few months ago. It was a short weekend trip, so he just threw a bunch of random stuff into his carryon. When he got to L.A., he got a call on his cell from his brother saying he'd be late to pick him up. So my friend took a seat in the terminal and pulled a tupperware container full of art supplies out of his carryon, figureing he'd pass the time by drawing. It was when he started pulling out his art supplies that he realized he'd boarded a plane carrying sharp drawing pencils, razor blades, exacto knives, pencil sharpeners, etc. Typical stuff we all have in our art supplies. All that stuff had gone through the X-Ray machines before he boarded the plane.

On the other hand, I flew to Spain a few months ago and was patted down, had my carryon searched thrououghly and even had my shoes taken off and inspected.

I know that's a bit off the topic of Moore's film, but I think those are the kinds of things Moore is trying to engage conversation about (in addition to the Bush bashing).
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I just hope this films helps to get Bush out of the White House.
It will make me believe that movies (or art in general sense) helps living a better life and construct a safer world.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

$8.2 million estimated for Friday.

I guess a lot of fat people really wanted to see this movie. ;)
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Some interesting stories coming out from this weekend's papers. Surprising.

From the NY Times:

They may not be Mr. Moore's most wished-for audience, but he would be heartened to know that at least a few Republicans emerged from theaters on Friday on wobbly pins.

"All the offhand remarks they caught Bush making, he wasn't very presidential," said Jerry Murrell, a retired stockbroker in Carmel and a Republican who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000. Mr. Murrell said that he had grave doubts about the war in Iraq, and that after seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" his next vote "is going to take a lot of thought."

And in Pensacola, Fla., Monica Moody, a 20-year-old restaurant hostess who described herself as a conservative Republican, proved to be Mr. Moore's perfect target.

"Oh my goodness, I cried," Ms. Moody said. "I'm still trying to process everything. It really makes me question what I feel about the president. I'm still going to respect him as our president, but it makes me question his motives. Of course, I think that's the whole point of the film, to question his motives. But after watching it, I do question my loyalty to the president. And that's scary for me."

From the LA Times:

Before the movie started, Leslie Hanser prayed.

"I prayed the Lord would open my eyes," she said.

For months, her son Joshua, a college student, had been drawing her into political debate. He'd tell her she shouldn't trust President Bush. He'd tell her the Iraq war was wrong. Hanser, a 41-year-old homemaker, pushed back. She defended the president, supported him fiercely

But Joshua kept at her, until she prayed for help understanding her son's fervor.

Emerging from Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," her eyes wet, Hanser said she at last understood. "My emotions are just…. " She trailed off, waving her hands to show confusion. "I feel like we haven't seen the whole truth before."
...
In theaters nationwide, many viewers said they couldn't imagine loyal Republicans coming to see a movie the Bush administration had dismissed as a twisted montage of misleading innuendo and outright falsehoods. But for all the partisan hooting, the movie did appear to draw at least a strong smattering of the Republican and the undecided voters that Moore most desperately hopes to reach.

And some of them said they were deeply moved.

Moved enough, perhaps, to consider voting for Kerry in November.

For Richard Hagen, 56, it was the footage from Iraq: the raw cries of bombed civilians, the clenched-teeth agony of wounded American troops. A retired insurance agent from the wealthy River Oaks neighborhood in central Houston, Hagen described himself as a lifelong Republican. But then, standing by his silver Mercedes, he amended that: A former lifelong Republican.

"Seeing [the war] brings it home in a way you don't get from reading about it," he said. "I won't be voting for a Republican presidential candidate this time."

Can a film affect an election? And if so, will we see documentaries from both sides by the next election? Already, Republican conservatives are financing rebuttals and forming a film "festival" called the American Film Rennaissance whose common theme will be defending Bush and attacking Moore.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Already, Republican conservatives are financing rebuttals and forming a film "festival" called the American Film Rennaissance whose common theme will be defending Bush and attacking Moore.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Shoot the messenger, right?

Why not make their own Moore-style film, and go after Kerry? That's what I wish we'd see. I wish someone would do this kind of in-depth exposure on anyone running for president. If they're dirty, let's see it. If they're clean, let's see it. If someone wants to be leader of the free world, they'd better be able to withstand some serious scrutiny. Attacking the messenger sounds like a pathetic response -- heck, Moore is probably the most-attacked filmmaker out there already!

But, like I said, this picture may herald a new era in financing for filmmakers -- if you can make an effective, emotionally-engaging, but agenda-furthering piece of work, the power of independent cinema is going to be hard for financiers and activist groups to ignore. An anti-Moore film is just one example, and I'm sure some indie filmmkaker is going to get a million-dollar budget to make it.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Sorry about the anger in my last post. Four words- fightin' with the girlfriend!!!! That being said, I just dont have any respect for Moore as a person or a filmmaker. Seeing the way he was acting over the weekend on every news/entertainment show just strengthened that for him. Again, I want to get into this business directing, producing, editing, with a great script, great crew, great cast, and make a movie that will be immortal. What does Moore do? NO great script, records people(not actors, at least, not in the literal sense)when they least expect it WITHOUT releases, buys news stock footage, etc. Hell, Steven Seagal has pushed his political and environmental views in last flicks, but hey, at least it was in the confines of having a script, cast, crew, and for all holier-than-thou sentiments, at least he still SHOOTS people with(gasp) a GUN, DESTROYS things, and lives by the the immortal words of Chris Rock:". . .aint nobody in this world above an ass-whipping!!" Still, Seagal's last movies have sucked, but I do respect the guy.
. . .And what's the deal with Moore's horrible Austin Powers-like TEETH?(j/k) ::)
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

What does Moore do? NO great script, records people(not actors, at least, not in the literal sense)when they least expect it WITHOUT releases, buys news stock footage, etc.
Click to expand...

Um, you have seen a DOCUMENTARY before, haven't you? I mean, I know you obviously haven't seen this one, but you've heard of them, right?
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I'll try not to be personal here, but what's with you guys supporting this film and encouraging people to spend their money on it?

1. First of all, I'm going to be honest. I'm a conservative. I believe the most important unit in society is a traditional family, mom, pop, and kids (not that other units of society should be stoned or anything). I believe that courage and a strong hand are needed against enemy combatants. History has shown us over and over again that regimes of evil, including terrorists, do not respect weakness. I also believe that most social programs backfire because they often encourage people economically to behave in irresponsible ways.

OK. I'm getting off my soap box, but at least I'm honest, not like Moore who lies when he says he's not a liberal or a conservative. I know people are complex and we shouldn't attach labels to them, but why can't Moore have enough intellectual honesty to say that he is a "little" left leaning. He'd rather just lie by saying that he's Independent and doesn't register as a Democrat. Darn those snoops at thesmokinggun.com who have found his recent registration as a Democrat. But, of course, self-serving people like Moore don't mind telling a few more lies if it means more of your money at the box office.

2. It's not hard to make a person (i.e. GW) look bad. It's certainly doesn't take brilliance. Simply take someone's weaker moments and then throw in a bunch of stuff that's completely out of context. This may sound like kindergarten morality, but would you like someone to do that to you? And last I heard, presenting statements out of context isn't exactly honest.

3. All his premises aren't exactly simple "opinions" based on fact. You can have an opinion that we shouldn't have an electoral college system in this country, but it's a lie if you say that someone voted in by that system wasn't elected (don't even get me started on the high court stopping last-minute attempts to rewrite Florida election laws). You can have an opinion that high-ranking Arabs shouldn't have been flown out of the country on 9/11, but you don't have to lie about how those flights were arranged (by the left's very own darlings). I could go on, but read a few reviews by people who actually look at the film intellectually and you'll see many other unashamed "distortions of truth," not just opinions. By the way, if you haven't checked with your church, ethics manuals, etc., the truth still counts for something.

4. I'm hopeful of a democratic Iraq. While I mourn for those who have lost loved ones, I believe our motives, as a whole, are honest. One proof of this is that the cost in dollars and lives far exceeds the potential corporate gains that Moore so insidiously portrays. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add up the numbers.

5. What real answers does F/11 give? What should we have done with Iraq? Hussein is a war criminal. Would it have been right to appease him any further? What future would that have brought to the world?

6. Finally, people don't have to see this film. And I don't believe you should encourage other people to see a propoganda film that distorts the truth about such important topics. If you want to know about this film, use the Internet. You can find sites with scene-by-scene descriptions. You can find reviews from all sides of the political spectrum. But you don't have to give your money to lying, self-serving goofballs.

I don't quite understand all the "well, yeah, it's full of lies, but it's just this guys opinion" arguments. Doesn't honesty count for anything to you guys? Don't you think that lies harm people by giving them a distorted view of the world? If a documentary isn't honest, then can it really be any good? Doesn't the definition of the word "documentary" have something to do with documenting the truth.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=15#29 date=06/28/04 at 12:30:22]I'll try not to be personal here, but what's with you guys supporting this film and encouraging people to spend their money on it?[/quote]

We like a film and we encourage others to see it. Nothing unusual about that.

OK. I'm getting off my soap box, but at least I'm honest, not like Moore who lies when he says he's not a liberal or a conservative.
Click to expand...

Moore has said repeatedly that he's a liberal. Repeatedly. He's never hid that fact. What he HAS said is that he's not a Democrat. And being a liberal does not mean being a Democrat by default any more than being a conservative mean being a Republican by default. In 2000, Moore campaigned for Green Party candidate Nader.

So if you're going to accuse Moore of distorting the truth, you should probably at least avoid doing so yourself.

Doesn't honesty count for anything to you guys? Don't you think that lies harm people by giving them a distorted view of the world?
Click to expand...

I might ask the same thing of you and your support of Bush.

And yes, if you're going to discuss the content of the film, you have to see the film. Otherwise, you'd have to acknowledge that all those people who criticized The Passion as being anti-semitic despite having not seen it were not only justified, but CORRECT. And that those who encouraged them to go see the film for themselves were WRONG. That's just asinine.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

When a camera enters the picture (filming "reality" or "fiction"), there is no longer "reality" or "fiction," but moving pictures.

I'm not defending Moore at all (even if I am as left as him), but this myth that documentaries are solidified in unbridled truth is bogus. Documentary is another genre of filmmaking, and fiction does blend in when everyone's idea of "truth" varies, i.e. look at interviews in documentaries where one person's testimony varies to the next. Truth is subjective, history is subjective.

If you can blend documentary footage into narrative films (look at Oliver Stone's work or Godard's "Les Caribiniers") you see that it works.

If Michael Moore fudges the "truth" for the progression of his own film, he ought to be called on it, but we must also question the information Moore is challenging as well. We can't go back to some memo from the military or White House and say "Here it is! Michael Moore lied!" Who's to say that THEY didn't lie, especially when they have to worry about "hearts and minds" of voting Americans and not just success, both critical and box office.

To wrap things up, from the outside, I can understand why some are challenging Moore's filmmaking, but his formal and aesthetic choices, more than anything, should be questioned. These choices, such as including anti-Bush marines and not pro-Bush marines exemplifies that there are both obvious (above) and hidden (look closer!) decisions filmmakers make. If he excludes images which render an entire sequence in Moore's film(s) null and void, he's still a documentary filmmaker, and like all documentary filmmakers, he consistently decides what to and not to include in order to further his message.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Moore has said repeatedly that he's a liberal. Repeatedly. He's never hid that fact. What he HAS said is that he's not a Democrat. And being a liberal does not mean being a Democrat by default any more than being a conservative mean being a Republican by default. In 2000, Moore campaigned for Green Party candidate Nader.

So if you're going to accuse Moore of distorting the truth, you should probably at least avoid doing so yourself.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm careful to try to state the facts. I'm certainly human, but not quite as human as Michael Moore.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html

Truth is subjective, history is subjective.
Click to expand...

That, to me, is scary thinking. And this is the type of thinking that mush, like this film, promotes. Our interpretation of events, of course, is always subjective, but truth is truth. It's something we should actually search for, not something that doesn't exist.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

(I still don´t know how to quote so cut and paste...)

2. It's not hard to make a person (i.e. GW) look bad.
Said Everdene

And it is not hard to use lies in order to make war

I haven´t seen the film yet. I did see Bowling, Roger an Me, Canadian Bacon and some Nation tv chapters. All of them were great. And i think they have a good script (script is not a matter of fiction against non fiction) They all have great ideas. All the idea of the culture of terror in Bowling it´s very neccesary and fits pretty well to the US way of life.
I don´t live there and to me it is hard to understand how Bush is still in the government. It is hard to understand how Clinton was treat when the Lewinsky affair and when is proved that Bush, and their friends lie, nobody does anything (i guess there will be some tryng to change your political views... but from what i see i don´t think is happen anything).
Powell lies at the UN/ Rumsfeld gave weapons to Saddam/ order the tortures/ ...

Now that all the reasons to go to war have been prove to be false the American society should lead the fight against the lyers. Get them out before it is too late. In just three years (from 11s to nowdays) bush administrations had lose all the international support that the horrible attack brings.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

you go, Everdene, especially on point #5: What is Moore's solution to America's problems if Bush is kicked out?
It's funny, Moore makes a movie intentionally made to make someone/some people look bad and say "oh, he's just speaking his mind" or "it's just a documentary, dont judge it", then I call Moore fat(100% FACT, not an opinion or a half truth, not catching anyone off guard, and not trying to cost someone their job), and all the Moore-a-maniacs here lose it for me "speaking my mind."
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I'm neither a moore fan or hater (kind of in the middle for now), but talking about his weight is just immature and has nothing to do with anything
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I haven´t seen the film yet. I did see Bowling, Roger an Me, Canadian Bacon and some Nation tv chapters. All of them were great.
Click to expand...

Here's some information about Bowling.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Yes, there's a little bit of shooting the messenger, but with some reason. I like the conclussion of that essay, which has this to say, "plenty of his followers don't care a bit about whether they were misled."

I don´t live there and to me it is hard to understand how Bush is still in the government. It is hard to understand how Clinton was treat when the Lewinsky affair and when is proved that Bush, and their friends lie, nobody does anything (i guess there will be some tryng to change your political views... but from what i see i don´t think is happen anything).
Powell lies at the UN/ Rumsfeld gave weapons to Saddam/ order the tortures/ ...
Click to expand...

This takes me back to why the truth and context is so important. If we don't try to promote the truth, we get statements of people around the world saying stuff like, "Powell lies at the UN/Ruumsfeld order the tortures." And intelligent conversation goes out the window.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Dan_Lahav link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=30#36 date=06/28/04 at 16:08:43]I'm neither a moore fan or hater (kind of in the middle for now), but talking about his weight is just immature and has nothing to do with anything [/quote]


-another satisfied customer because of the weight reference; you're right, it IS immature, but stalking people, invading privacy, and filming them without their expressed permission is VERY mature and rational!
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Moore has a DVX. He did the video for System of a Down's Boom and there were DVX's in that video.

I thought the movie was pretty good. I just wish he would have thrown out Moore facts and less hard to believe theories (not that they're untrue, I just think that a lot of people will be skeptical of things that can't be proven). The facts are more than enough to make a case against Bush. He failed to mention that at least 12000 Iraqi civilians have died in this war... over four times the civilians killed on 911. Why not mention that?

As a film, I think it's great though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top