Farenheit 9/11
#1
What did you think of Farenheit 9/11???

*(I suppose this thread is more for the americans here... I don't know if they even show it in other countries. :o(
*Back to the Future~ George McFly: Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told me that if I didn't take Lorraine out that he'd melt my brain!
Reply
#2
They are showing it over here in the Uk. And I think it's had quite a good reception. I havent been to see it as yet, havent had a chance but I hope it stays in the cinema a few more weeks.

Sara Lou
Reply
#3
It's showing in Canada, but I haven't seen it.
Life sucks. Unless bad things happen, you can't be sure you're actually alive.
Reply
#4
Like with most documentary type movies, it has a spin on it for you to believe the one sided approach to the topic at hand. Once again Michael has created an incrdible documentary on something that you either agree or disagree with. My personal opinions of the information presented are irrelevant to the way the movie is presented. Excellent movie, a must see for 'both' sides. It will either make you more angrier at the fact people are in Iraq, or it will make you an even larger Michael Moore hater.
I'd rather be a nobody than a somebody, because somebody's always to blame.
Reply
#5
I'm a really big fan of Micheal Moore (the film maker, not the former WTO head and Former New Zealand prime minister) so I'm really waiting to see this movie.
Reply
#6
Michael Moore, when pressed, calls this a commentary, but it is repeatedly described as being a documentary.

It is not a documentry though.

At some point I'll watch it, but from what I can gather from reading various reports about this film, it is an opinion piece that leaves many questions unanswered.

There is another similar film which I would rather see, called 'Control room'.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wk...ol11f.html
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#7
The one thing I've heard of this film is that it erroneously states that Bush allowed the Bin Laden family to leave the US when in fact the man responsible, Richard Clarke, a rollover from the Clinton administration as the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism and then demoted in position during the Bush administration had already admitted it was his decision before the movie came out.

This man claims to have found at least 59 errors in the film.

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
:alien: Sci-Fi needs reality TV as much as it needs a Hammer! :mad:
Reply
#8
I really want to see Fahrenheit 9/11, and I'm planning on going to see it sometime over the next week. How well is it doing at the box office, does anyone know?
"Cali rules these forums. I think that whatever she says, she's always right, so I'm abdicating my throne for her to take over control. MWA to all! :kiss:"
- RobRoy
Reply
#9
Quote:Originally posted by Calaquendi
I really want to see Fahrenheit 9/11, and I'm planning on going to see it sometime over the next week. How well is it doing at the box office, does anyone know?


94 million and counting so far...

I saw it, loved it, scary and funny all at the same time. Republicans say its partisan, and that may be true, however, they aren't denying any of the facts...because they can't.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke: Clarke's Third Law from Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible
Reply
#10
Quote:Originally posted by Ivo
Republicans say its partisan, and that may be true, however, they aren't denying any of the facts...because they can't.


Yes they are and yes they can. Especially since the lies and misrepresentations are so easily picked apart.

As an example...

Quote:The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.

According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading” after viewing the interview in question.


http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix...it-911.htm
:alien: Sci-Fi needs reality TV as much as it needs a Hammer! :mad:
Reply
#11
The point of the movie was to make people aware that the media and the government have been VERY misleading. It is supposed to make it's viewers rightfully curious about the situation and asking more questions instead of blindly following. The only error that I think that the movie had was that it made Saudi Arabia look like the "bad guy" behind 9/11. Other than that, I think that Michael Moore did a brilliant job in covering a lot of aspects of our current situation wiht the world and the breif background behind it. And when people don't want to believe something, they try to look at every little thing wrong with it instead of looking at the big picture. Every movie has it's faults. What's important though is the message behind it. And this is a cry to call people's attention to what the heck our government/governments are doing!

Quote:Originally posted by Ivo~ I saw it, loved it, scary and funny all at the same time. Republicans say its partisan, and that may be true, however, they aren't denying any of the facts...because they can't.


I am neither Democratic or Republican... I am somewhere in the middle actually... but well said!
*Back to the Future~ George McFly: Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told me that if I didn't take Lorraine out that he'd melt my brain!
Reply
#12
The point of the movie was to engage in political character assassination, something which happens to every President of the United States. The movie contains some facts and some half-truths and some "errors of fact". It is not an accurate historical record of anything other than one man's opinion.

The movie undoubtedly garnered so much attention because of the politics in the American film industry. Some people opposed it, and some people wanted it to succeed.

Ultimately, this movie is an accurate statement about the freedom we seem to cherish the most: the freedom to speak out and say something. I think both sides would agree that that freedom is very important, and Moore's movie proves that we haven't abridged that freedom enough to silence critical opposition to our government.
Reply
#13
Agreed. Its a shame this film exists by itself because no dialogue really exists to counter its claims and without dialogue there is no challenge for the film maker to be accurate.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!
Reply
#14
Quote:Originally posted by Lady Eowyn
The point of the movie was to make people aware that the media and the government have been VERY misleading.


And to do this he has to mislead the viewers with more lies and distortions? Rolleyes

Just because you don't question his opinions it doesn't make them fact & proven unless "real" evidence exists.
:alien: Sci-Fi needs reality TV as much as it needs a Hammer! :mad:
Reply
#15
Something I found interesting when reading Noam Chompsky was that he said the media will allow the odd Left wing veiw as a means of galvinising and mobilising the right. It also means that the right will begin condeming the media for being too Left wing (not in those words) which helps to head off criticism of the media bias because it can be claimed that if both sides are doing it, then the media must be alright (even though the right iften critisising exceptions while the left is generally critising consistancies). I guess it could be applied to Micheal Moore.
Reply
#16
Another thing that should be kept in mind when people talk about the how ever many things that weren't tecnically right about Moore's films is that such inacuracies are really quite standard across the media. I remember watching a "doccumentry" about ecconomics called comanding heights which took a strong Libertarian line about "free trade" and no government or unioun, or even popular intervention in the markets. It reached the point of being almost Ludicris when it prased deregulation of the air lines as being benificial, after a major crisis in the air line industry.
Reply
#17
Quote:Originally posted by BlueDelvia
Yes they are and yes they can. Especially since the lies and misrepresentations are so easily picked apart.

As an example...




http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix...it-911.htm


Ummm...again, I agree that he is partisan and serves his own goals at times but I don't see how excluding his further comments is such a travesty of the truth.

Here's the question with more context:

The Repbublicans have called this a war for our freedom and, gasp, our very lives. In order to garner as much support as possible they have made the Iraq war seem like its outcome could determine the very survival of our country.

So, since we are facing such a massive threat, his question is whether he would offer his son or daughter to fight in the cause. Its a fair, although dirty question and his later comments do nothing to show he wasn't evading the question. In fact, if he had kept the comment in about his son 'considering' a career in the Navy it might have made him look even more evasive. Either way, it really doens't matter in the end because again, Moore is partisan and he does fashion the story around his purposes. My overall point is that a lot of what is in this movie is true to a certain extent. If it wasn't there would be lawsuits flying everywhere.

Also, one of the many things that Moore has tried to do in his films is to purposely air facts that could be considered conspiratorial in nature so that he does get challenged on them. There are so many aspects about the Bush presidency that are kept secret and so many rumors out there that it becomes impossible to find out what is true. Everytime anything is requested of the White House that could give definitive answers to a certain question, it all of sudden becomes classified for 25 years.

This is why so many underground reporters started reporting on Bush's AWOL from the Army. They couldn't find any proof that he didn't bail out and once they started printing their stories the major news networks felt compelled to pick up the story to find out the truth. Its a common tactic that many reporters use to get a response from the subject being investigated. If some Liberal reporter hadn't started an article accusing Bush of being AWOL we may never have found out about the story and Bush never would have had to explain himself, which he still hasn't done satisfactorily.

Regardless of what one thinks about Moore, he never shy's away from encouraging people to find out the truth on their own. He's not a historian, he is an entertainer just like Rush, Bill, Hannity and the other Conservative blowhards on the air that spew just as much if not more half truths on a daily basis.

I love it, we have 10 or 11 Conservative gab heads on the air telling their version of the facts and one Liberal in the form of Moore, yet no one on the right ever feels compelled to expose the lies that the others perpetuate constantly. For everything you or anyone can come up with regarding the validity of Moores statements, I can give you a hundred examples of the lies and hypocritical statements Rush, etc. give everyday to their viewers.

I won't sit here and defend Moore as the bastion of all truth but I guarantee you I can provide enough facts about Bush and his entire family going back to his Nazi sympathizing grandfather that would make the average Fox viewer recoil in denial instantly.

Politicians and politics suck all around. Neither Democrats or Republicans are ultimately worth a hill of beans. That much is true. But few Republicans or Democrats have ever been as dangerous to their coutnry as Bush has and could continue to be.

So, I'm game if you are. Give me any examples you want that refute the notion that Bush isn't an unneducated ideologue who accomplished nothing in his life until he was elected Govenor of Texas. If I had led the life he has and tried to run for the Presidency without the protection and support of a powerful political family I would have been laughed out of the election.

Stop ragging on Moore and find out the truth on your own. If Bush's story and views don't scare you then I suppose you must just be a complete supporter of him and it doesn't bother you. That's fine, I don't have a problem with people supporting Bush, I just have a problem with their hypocrisy. Moore spent 6 million dollars of his studios money to make this movie. He didn't waste 50 million dollars of the tax payers money to find out about an Arkansas land deal that never happened just to bring down Clinton as the Republican party did in 1993. In fact, I wonder what we would find out about Bush if we had a special prosecuter follow him around for 6 of his possible 8 years in office.

Your point means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke: Clarke's Third Law from Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible
Reply
#18
You said...

Quote:Republicans say its partisan, and that may be true, however, they aren't denying any of the facts...because they can't.

I provided evidence from at least one Republican that was calling him on his misquoting him.

And there are others that have done likewise.

That your statement was incorrect isn't my problem.

Quote:Originally posted by Ivo
Ummm...again, I agree that he is partisan and serves his own goals at times but I don't see how excluding his further comments is such a travesty of the truth.


That was simply one of the many instances in this film... but it is a travesty of the truth because it changes the truth of what was said when he was interviewed because it didn't fit the propoganda of the film. Many times exclusion of the facts is as much a lie as uttering a falsehood.

Quote:My overall point is that a lot of what is in this movie is true to a certain extent. If it wasn't there would be lawsuits flying everywhere.

That's not what you said...


And it's not that all points are false, but that he has misrepresented the truth in a misleading way to advance his political agenda. That's fine... this is his film. It doesn't mean that I have to accept his distortions as any measure of truthfulness as you proclaimed simply because there's so much that isn't.

Showing footage and presenting it as pertaining to one occassion (eventhough it is never said as such) when in fact it was taken at another is misrepresenting the facts.

Editing someones quotes so that they say something else is misrepresenting that facts.

But since this is an opinion based film and not a news byte then he is guaranteed the right to mislead. It doesn't mean that I will be fooled by Michael Moore. I'm not one of the Americans he referred to as "possibly the dumbest people on the planet."

Quote:Also, one of the many things that Moore has tried to do in his films is to purposely air facts that could be considered conspiratorial in nature so that he does get challenged on them. There are so many aspects about the Bush presidency that are kept secret and so many rumors out there that it becomes impossible to find out what is true. Everytime anything is requested of the White House that could give definitive answers to a certain question, it all of sudden becomes classified for 25 years.

This administration is no different than any other. This has nothing to do with the fact that this movie contains outright factual distortions.

Quote:Regardless of what one thinks about Moore, he never shy's away from encouraging people to find out the truth on their own. He's not a historian, he is an entertainer just like Rush, Bill, Hannity and the other Conservative blowhards on the air that spew just as much if not more half truths on a daily basis.

That's absolutely correct.
And yet people like you defend his factual distortions.

Who's not seeking the truth?

As for Rush I feel the same about him as I do about Michael Moore... which is why I don't or ever have listened to him. Unlike you with Michael Moore which you aparently idolize.

Quote:I love it, we have 10 or 11 Conservative gab heads on the air telling their version of the facts and one Liberal in the form of Moore, yet no one on the right ever feels compelled to expose the lies that the others perpetuate constantly. For everything you or anyone can come up with regarding the validity of Moores statements, I can give you a hundred examples of the lies and hypocritical statements Rush, etc. give everyday to their viewers.

Go ahead and do so. As an Independent I like to see both sides called on their lies.

But please... don't presume to give me any spin which makes it seem that conservative gab heads outnumber liberal ones. Not that this has anything to do with this film.

Quote:I won't sit here and defend Moore as the bastion of all truth but I guarantee you I can provide enough facts about Bush and his entire family going back to his Nazi sympathizing grandfather that would make the average Fox viewer recoil in denial instantly.

Go ahead... the argument was about Moore's film which you have been defending as a bastion of truth ("however, they aren't denying any of the facts...because they can't"), but if that's what you want to do go ahead.

If you truly believe that Moore hasn't misrepresented the facts then go to that site I provided and expose them as liars.

If you must change the subject to veer from the fact that Moore's film isn't as truthful as you first proclaimed go ahead.

If you must bring in the sins of the grandfather it's your call. I doubt your bloodline is squeaky clean neither.

Quote:Politicians and politics suck all around. Neither Democrats or Republicans are ultimately worth a hill of beans. That much is true. But few Republicans or Democrats have ever been as dangerous to their coutnry as Bush has and could continue to be.

That's your opinion. That's fine. I don't really care.

Not the thread topic.

Quote:So, I'm game if you are. Give me any examples you want that refute the notion that Bush isn't an unneducated ideologue who accomplished nothing in his life until he was elected Govenor of Texas. If I had led the life he has and tried to run for the Presidency without the protection and support of a powerful political family I would have been laughed out of the election.

As I said if you want to change the subject go right ahead, but this was about Michael Moore's latest film.

Quote: Stop ragging on Moore and find out the truth on your own.

I don't have to stop ragging on Moore anymore than you're kissing his great big rhetoric.

As for finding out the truth I'd advice that for you instead of getting your "truths" from films, persons and literature as distorted as this film.

Quote:If Bush's story and views don't scare you then I suppose you must just be a complete supporter of him and it doesn't bother you. That's fine, I don't have a problem with people supporting Bush, I just have a problem with their hypocrisy. Moore spent 6 million dollars of his studios money to make this movie. He didn't waste 50 million dollars of the tax payers money to find out about an Arkansas land deal that never happened just to bring down Clinton as the Republican party did in 1993. In fact, I wonder what we would find out about Bush if we had a special prosecuter follow him around for 6 of his possible 8 years in office.

I have a problem when ANY politician who wastes our money for their own purposes. I totally didn't care that Clinton received any oral (not real sex) gratification from Monica till the day he pre-empted the airwaves to tell us he had not had improper relations with that woman. In any case, I didn't think it was any of our busines if the man had no contol over his pecker.

But just because Michael Moore spent 6 million of his studios money isn't going to make me believe his distortions anymore than if had spent 6 dollars. Or the distortions of extreme partisans on any forum.

Quote:Your point means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I suppose not.

I feel the same about your points... well, unless your last name is Kerry.

It isn't is it? lol
:alien: Sci-Fi needs reality TV as much as it needs a Hammer! :mad:
Reply
#19
Ladies and Gentlemen (and I'm not pointing fingers), this thread is about Michael Moore's movie Farenheit 9/11. I would appreciate if we kept on topic in that regard. That this film and the man who directed it are something of a controversy, and a political controversy at that, I don't deny. But these forums have a certain restriction on political debate, and it looks like we're about to cross that line.

Also, we're all friends here, or at least associates interested in the discussion of similar topics. Let's ease off the steam, take a few deep breaths, and then come back and talk some more.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice, please feel free to contact me off the forums. Any response to this notice will be deleted on sight to maintain the flow of discussion which I have already interupted.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#20
I didnt watch Farenheit 911, I got no interest in that political stuff. But my wife bought me a cap like the one Michael Moore wears, the brown round cap with an American Flag, I like it very much. She has one like that herself too.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Forum Jump: