Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

I'm sorry to get a bit personal here but...

Many who have seen the film bash it. Just read the reviews. Even the positive reviews mostly say things like, "It distorts the truth, but in a brilliant way." And I firmly believe that in the Internet age you don't have to give money to anyone to be informed about the content of a film.

It seems to me that many people who have watched this film, while more informed about the artistic merits, are actually less informed about the content than those who maybe haven't watched it.

By the way, if we are going to have a discussion on the craft of the film, then let's keep it to the craft. You're a great guy, Barry, but some of us cringe when we hear you defend this film on anything other than its artistic merits.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=movies;num=1088435003;start=15#18 date=06/28/04 at 12:34:42]And this site isn't the whole world. You can't exactly invoke "conservative" sins in defense of your point and then want to limit "liberal" sins to what was in this thread only. [/quote]

Okay, let's look at the whole world. While liberals have certainly anticipated the film and many do think Moore's a genius (although I'm not one of them), prior to the film coming out they have not by and large opined on the merits of the filmmaking or the film itself. That is decidedly not true of conservatives, who've commented specifically on the film, calling it among other things, a distortion, a pack of lies, etc.

And even those who've let others comment for them (like posting the Hitchens review) are ill-equipped to evaluate whether or not Hitchens himself has gotten his report of the film entirely right. If, as Hitchens argues for example, that ommission of the truth is the same as a distortion or a lie, then there are examples of Hitchens's own distortions and lies within that review. But someone taking his opinion at face value, or claiming that it debunks Moore's film, can't know that without having seen the film themselves.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1088435003;start=15#21 date=06/28/04 at 13:03:03]

Okay, let's look at the whole world.  While liberals have certainly anticipated the film and many do think Moore's a genius (although I'm not one of them), prior to the film coming out they have not by and large opined on the merits of the filmmaking or the film itself.  [/quote]

Certainly they have.  But arguing about the film appears to be as divisive as the subject of the film itself.

And even those who've let others comment for them (like posting the Hitchens review) are ill-equipped to evaluate whether or not Hitchens himself has gotten his report of the film entirely right.  If, as Hitchens argues for example, that ommission of the truth is the same as a distortion or a lie, then there are examples of Hitchens's own distortions and lies within that review.  But someone taking his opinion at face value, or claiming that it debunks Moore's film, can't know that without having seen the film themselves.
Click to expand...

If you're going to take a swipe at me, drop the coyness.

I posted that, but you take my post out of context.  I commented not on the substance of the review, but on the political positioning of the reviewer and the extreme negativity he had toward the film.  I found that interesting. You'll note that I also said that it could have been BS with intent to stir up interest in the film.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

Hey Everdene, no problem...

If you'll look at what I wrote, I point out that I have plenty of problems with misleading items in it.  I said it's not "brilliant" or worthy of a 20-minute standing ovation, etc.

I just get so annoyed with people saying things like "it can't be good, because Moore is fat."  Or things like that.  What does that have to do with anything?  It sounds exactly like "24P is no good because if it was, Sony would have made it."  It's brand bigotry, and uninformed thinking.

I think there's plenty of jarring misleading going on in the picture.  The shots of "happy Iraq" stand out most to me.

But when he shows shots of Condoleeza Rice saying "absolutely Saddam has WMD", all the time while she's shaking her head "no"... and then he cuts to her a couple of years prior, saying "he hasn't been able to rebuild, he doesn't have WMD"... what would him being "fat" have to do with that?

I will grant this: Moore is fat, he is unshaven, he is unkempt, he is rich, he lives in a million-dollar apartment, and he sends his kids to private school.  There.  Apparently to a lot of people, that's good enough reason to not listen to what he says.

Everdene, I read what you wrote on the other thread, where you said "doesn't truth count for anything?"  Truth is the only thing that does count, regardless of who it inconveniences.  Which is why I said in my review of it, something like "we may not know what the "true" facts are, those will come out, but if there's even a tenth of a grain of truth to what this picture is saying, then our upper echelon of government needs a thorough cleaning out."
but some of us cringe when we hear you defend this film on anything other than its artistic merits.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I'm defending this picture as a film at all, whether on its artistic merits or not.  There are points where it has artistic merits, to its credit, but I'm more interested in it as a cultural phenomenon than as a movie.

As for defending it, I'm just occasionally trying to weigh in and say what it's actually about.  There's a tremendous amount of bashing going on, by many people who don't even know what the underlying intent of the film is.  Before seeing it, I, for one, was absolutely floored when I read the review on Fox News that called it "patriotic"... that sounded impossible and ridiculous to me.  But after having seen it, I can now understand exactly where that reviewer was coming from.  Doesn't mean I necessarily agree, but I do understand.

Look, there were people (such as rabid Laker fans) offering death threats to Kobe Bryant's accuser, under the idea that "how dare she break up the Lakers"?  That concept is an obscenity to me.  If she was raped, they should lock Kobe up.  If she's a liar, she should be locked up for perjury, extortion, or whatever else she's guilty of.  But how people could stand around with signs protesting her (or him) without knowing any of the facts, is utterly beyond me.

Look, I got my come-uppance with the Marv Albert thing, where some woman accused him of just outlandish behavior, including "biting her back" and stuff.  I was prepared to bet my left arm that there was no way he was guilty of anything like that -- how could he be?  It was just some golddigger going after a rich TV personality, right?

Then he confessed.  I was stunned.  And I learned at that point that the facts aren't necessarily what seem to make sense, nor are they what we expect.  But they are what they are.  And I'd sure like to know what they really are.

(and yes, I know that Michael Moore is fat, I got that one already...)  ;)
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

Hi Barry,

I must admit that you have actually been pretty level-headed about this. And when you said that people should watch it for themselves, I know you're not really saying, "Let's throw truth down the toilet and join the terrorists." However, I'm still strongly opposed to encouraging attendance to this propoganda film.

Some facts (truth) will come out in time and some are already in our face. But you won't find many of them by watching cynical mush.

And for the record, I don't think I said Moore was fat. I just said he was a cowardly, lying, evil, self-centered, American-hating goofball.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=movies;num=1088435003;start=15#22 date=06/28/04 at 13:27:12]If you're going to take a swipe at me, drop the coyness.[/quote]

Actually someone else in this thread posted that link. I forgot you posted it earlier. I've seen it all over the web at this point.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1088435003;start=15#24 date=06/28/04 at 14:03:21]However, I'm still strongly opposed to encouraging attendance to this propoganda film.[/quote]

Once again, you haven't seen the film.

As for distortions, I find it ironic that Moore's critics hold a documentary filmmaker to a higher standard of truth than they do their own president. Either your confidence in Bush is just that low, or you believe Bush has never distorted the facts and never engaged in propaganda. Neither one is particularly encouraging.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

beeblebrox,

Nope, I haven't seen the film. And I will not watch it in theaters. But after I have watched the things that I've been reading about, will you then respect my regard for the truth and my lack of confidence in Michael Moore? Or will you just say, "It's just about agreeing or disagreeing. It's just an opinion against an opinion. This critic's truth isn't any more valid than Michael Moore's truth."
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1088435003;start=15#24 date=06/28/04 at 14:03:21]And for the record, I don't think I said Moore was fat. I just said he was a cowardly, lying, evil, self-centered, American-hating goofball.
[/quote]
I don't think you said he was fat either -- it just seems to be a common thread. Besides the obvious references here and in the other threads, I mean. I went to moorelies.com, and the first thing on the page is an ad for the book "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man." There's an ad right next to it that calls him "a big fat liar." And another site I went to said something like "a big fat slob like him is going to lecture us on consumption??"

So it seems to be a trend -- people call Moore fat. Well, he is -- downright obese, in fact. Does that mean nothing he says can possibly be true? What if he were short? Or black? Or Jewish? Or gay? Would any of those be reasons to dismiss the message?

Shooting the messenger is just pathetic, regardless of the message.

This "fat" attack reminds me oh so well of the character assassination Bill Clinton's team used against Paula Jones: "drag a $100 bill through a trailer park and you're bound to catch something." I am just not really sure of the message here: would it be somehow OKAY to abuse someone if they lived in a trailer park? Was that what they were trying to say?

Let's focus on the message, not on the faults of the messenger.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

Just thought I'd chime in...

To introduce myself, I HAVE seen the film. I appreciate what Moore tries to do, but often hate how he goes about it. I think he finds topics and information that really should be explored and shared, but often find that cheap shots ruin his message.

Anyway, re: Fahrenheit 911 - I'd say Moore was athis most restrained, and had less that was complaint-worthy than usual. There are many, many bits of contextual information missing that have potential to change viewer opinion, and some typical cheap shots. But certainly much interesting and legitimate material and opinion.

Moore, especially with this movie, is in a tough spot. Sure, I find, say, Bob Woodward's book "The Path to War" (which was approved by both Bush administration folks and outspoken democrats) to be a more thorough, factual document. It provides pretty much the same picture as F911, without the humor or whiney voice-overs. But how many people will read it? Or extrapolate from the arguments? Moore's churlish humor seems effective for getting the message out... that is, if it wasn't for his WAY of making his points, far fewer people would see his movies. However, that same cheap humor, for me anyway, weakens his point.

I think in this particular movie he could have toned it down and been more factual... and I would have appreciated that. I don't think he had to worry much about pulling in the audience. I think the cheap humor really hurt the seriousness of this film more than others, and will make many people dismiss it - such that Moore stays in the saafer zone of "preaching to the choir" rather than really trying to persuade people to a new opinion. Sad, because I think this movie could - and should - have done that. I wish he had contextualized his information with, for example, comparisons to behavior of other administrations. I could go on with wishes.... but I'll close by saying that in every Moore movie I've seen, there's a dangling tidbit that's really more interesting than anything else in the movie, which Moore brushes off or ignores. In "Bowling for Columbine", it was in the discussion with Charlton Heston, who mentioned that in some other countries per capita gun-ownership is higher but crime rates are lower. Moore ignored this essential idea, which could have led to MEANINGFUL dialogue with the head of the NRA, and instead started sayingthings deliberately designed to provoke Heston instead. In F911, a democratic senator states that most legislators do not read the documents that they vote on. Aside from the stupid ice-cream truck stunt, he doesn't deal with this... which to me is far more important than anything else. As Moore doesn't state, the entire Congress, very close to unanimously, voted to give Bush the power to go to war against Iraq. On what basis, we should ask. Yes, it's important that Moore now start asking those questions as loudly and publicly as possible... but he shouldn't go for the cheap shot at Bush when the people who are really responsible for asking and acting on these same questions don't... and even admit to being disinterested. There's the real story, if you ask me...
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

right or wrong, good or bad, I think after 7 pages of discussion across 2 threads Michael Moore ultimately achieved what he set out to do.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

I think after 7 pages of discussion across 2 threads of Michael Moore, sometime I'm telling myself; American won't really need some enemies one day. :(
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

[quote author=Shadow link=board=movies;num=1088435003;start=30#34 date=06/29/04 at 10:53:03]I think after 7 pages of discussion across 2 threads of Michael Moore, sometime I'm telling myself; American won't really need some enemies one day. :([/quote]

Sadly, we're at a rather divided time in our history. Not sure what to make of it just yet, or how it will turn out. One thing I *do* know is that Moore happily contributes to that division.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2651756

Pretty much makes the title of that upcoming anti-Moore movie a dead-ringer, I'd say.
 
Re: Michael Moore/Fahrenheit 9/11

No, I think Dead Ringer was the title of that Cronenberg movie with the gynecologist twins...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top