[Archslater]

I am seeing it later this week. I'm amazed at how popular it was this weekend:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=16&u=/nm/20040628/ts_nm/leisure_boxoffice_dc

 

[BurlyShirley]

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.


In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Recruiters in Michigan

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

 

[BurlyShirley]

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

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. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

It's much heavier than I expected.

A good portion of the movie is of a mother from Flint who lost her only son in Iraq, and her trying to come to terms with it. There is little commentary in these moments, just alot of pain.

There are only a few surprises, most everything in the film is simply a reflection of public record. As a film though, it's put together really well. There were many moments that the whole audience were applauding and cheering.

And many moments where audience members are just pissed off and yelling.

As far as the accusations floating around that the facts presented in the film are flawed, that's BS. The opinions are strong, yes, but the facts are straight.

I say go see it, even if you're right or left, it's worth it.

 

[Archslater]

Sorry Burly, just skimmed your posts. I guess I missed the part where you addressed my question. I was just asking about reactions to the film.

 

[LordOpie]

i'll watch it tonight... dl'ing it now :evil:

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Hitchens - not the coolest guy on the planet, IMHO - the guy even blasts Mother Teresa.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Sorry Burly, just skimmed your posts. I guess I missed the part where you addressed my question. I was just asking about reactions to the film.

Burly, did you SEE the movie??

 

[syadasti]

Here is a good quote about 9/11 - I think most people will conclude its a fair point:

I would be willing to bet that good number of those "upset" by this film either listen to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, et al, or watch Joe Scarborough, or read and listen to Ann Coulter, etc. You know what? These people use the same EXACT tricks and spinning that Moore does in this film EVERY DAY. It's their full-time job. I can, any day of the week, turn on Fox News or AM talk radio and hear someone call liberals or Democrats traitors, America haters etc. I can turn on either of these sources and hear blanket rants about liberals, as if they were all the same, as if Hillary Clinton had views even CLOSE to Ralph Nader. I hear them say, every day, that I and my friends want the terrorists to win, and that I revel in the deaths of American soldiers. It's disgusting. It's worse than anything Michael Moore has EVER done, and they do it every day. EVERY DAY. If any of these guys said some of the things they do to my face, I would probably be in jail and they (hopefully, heh) would be in the hospital.

But do you hear outrage about this from anywhere? No. There isn't a single show on CNN, NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, etc., etc., etc., where you can hear the equivalent of the vitriol spewing out of right-wing media. Name me one show, just ONE show where they rant about "conservatives" as a whole, imply that they hate America, imply that they want to rule the world or whatever. Name one, and give me a quote. Just one with rhetoric equal to that used by, say, Sean Hannity.

But then Michael Moore comes out with a movie, and everyone is falling all over themselves to scream and yell about his methods and approach, completely ignoring the same tactics being used on the right every single day. Theater owners are getting death threats, Moore is getting death threats. The GOP and other right-wing groups are harrassing the theaters trying to get them not to show the film. It's ridiculous.

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh is the only political show that our soldiers overseas are allowed to listen to. And he uses the same exact disingenuous tactics used by Moore.

So here's the bottom line: If you're expecting this film to be a fair, unbiased documentary, you're a fool, don't go see it. If you accept that this is essentially a propaganda piece akin to, say, "treason" by Ann Coulter or "Deliver us from Evil" or whatever it's called by Sean Hannity, then you'll probably enjoy it for what it is. In fact, Moore himself has said right out that this is not a fair film, it's his editorial opinion, but that the facts presented are completely backed up. It's the conclusions and interpretations that aren't. There is a fine line between editorial opinion and propaganda, I would say that there is no line at all, in fact.

Fair enough. Not ideal, but fair enough.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Burly, did you SEE the movie??

what's the point when I can just read a biased review that coencides with my opinion? Isnt that what Moore's system is anyway?

 

[LordOpie]

what's the point when I can just read a biased review that coencides with my opinion? Isnt that what Moore's system is anyway?

so you're saying that you don't need to eat a pile of crap to know it'll taste like sh:t?

I'm gonna see it anyway.

 

[Lexx D]

what's the point when I can just read a biased review that coencides with my opinion? Isnt that what Moore's system is anyway?

No but it's good to know where you get "facts" from.

 

[fasterTHANyou]

i saw it the night it opened...

lame. very very dissapointing. i consider myself conservative, but not at all happy with bush. i was excited to see the film, i was hoping for a well done, well put together in depth look at the administration and its blunders.

nope. none of that. the editing was crude, camera work was crap- and the film wasnt filled with facts, just cheap left wing/socialist propoganda.

i was extremely dissapointed. there is plenty to make fun of bush about- this movie didnt do it- i think it exposed absolute stupidity of michael moore.

 

[Lexx D]

and the film wasnt filled with facts, just cheap left wing/socialist propoganda.

Yeah not nearly as entertaining as the expensive right wing propaganda.

 

[BurlyShirley]

No but it's good to know where you get "facts" from.

which "facts" are you talking about?

 

[bomberz1qr20]

what's the point when I can just read a biased review that coencides with my opinion? Isnt that what Moore's system is anyway?

I don't really dig the way Moore puts it across sometimes. He is a bit of an idealist - his books have some really wacked out ideas. This was much more like "Roger and Me" though in it's delivery, if you ask me. Much of the time it's simply footage of Bush or members of his administration, and they put their feet in their own mouths. There are many part with little commentary, and these are the most effective.

It's worth a look though, really.

 

[Lexx D]

which "facts" are you talking about?

none that's the point

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Some links on M. Moore's site, what a traitor...

http://booksforsoldiers.com/

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

http://www.mfso.org/

http://www.fisherhouse.org/

http://www.caringbridge.org/wounded/heroes/

http://www.operationuplink.org/

http://www.afrtrust.org/

 

[RhinofromWA]

I'm amazed at how popular it was this weekend:

It JUST edged out White Chicks at the box office....closely followed by Dodge ball
Something like 22M/21M/20M for the three films.....yeah it did well.

It wasn't up against LOTR or anything....hahahaha

It supposedly was the first "documentary" to have top billing at the box office though....good for him. Atleast he made his money.

I haven't seen it....though I am in no hurry to go out and hear a bunch of jives and hissing at a movie.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

It JUST edged out White Chicks at the box office....closely followed by Dodge ball
Something like 22M/21M/20M for the three films.....yeah it did well.


It wasn't up against LOTR or anything....hahahaha

June 27th, 2004 11:06 pm
NYT: Fahrenheit 9/11 is Highest Grossing Documentary of All Time!


By SHARON WAXMAN / THE NEW YORK TIMES
June 28, 2004

LOS ANGELES -- Michael Moore's anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the highest-grossing documentary of all time on its first weekend in release, taking in $21.8 million as it packed theaters across the country this weekend.

The movie, mocking President Bush and criticizing his decision to go to war in Iraq, was No. 1 at the box office, beating out the popular comedies "White Chicks" and "DodgeBall," which were playing on almost triple the number of screens....

...Market research leading up to the weekend had shown that the documentary would rank second or third at the box office after the two mainstream comedies. But "White Chicks" took in $19.6 million for the weekend on 2,726 screens, while "DodgeBall" took in $18.5 million on 3,020. "Fahrenheit 9/11," rated R, was released on 868 screens.....

I haven't seen it....though I am in no hurry to go out and hear a bunch of jives and hissing at a movie.

Depends on where you see it. It got a standing ovation in Oakland. Also, one theatre here refused to enforce the R rating...

 

[BurlyShirley]

I dont see how you guys are so anti-Rush Limbaugh, but pro-Michael Moore. Its the same thing. If rush limbaugh put together a "documentary" I doubt you all would go and see it.

 

[RhinofromWA]

June 27th, 2004 11:06 pm
NYT: Fahrenheit 9/11 is Highest Grossing Documentary of All Time!
By SHARON WAXMAN / THE NEW YORK TIMES
June 28, 2004

LOS ANGELES -- Michael Moore's anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the highest-grossing documentary of all time on its first weekend in release, taking in $21.8 million as it packed theaters across the country this weekend.

The movie, mocking President Bush and criticizing his decision to go to war in Iraq, was No. 1 at the box office, beating out the popular comedies "White Chicks" and "DodgeBall," which were playing on almost triple the number of screens....

...Market research leading up to the weekend had shown that the documentary would rank second or third at the box office after the two mainstream comedies. But "White Chicks" took in $19.6 million for the weekend on 2,726 screens, while "DodgeBall" took in $18.5 million on 3,020. "Fahrenheit 9/11," rated R, was released on 868 screens.....

Uhhh yeah? Only thing you added was that it was on less screens.....or were you helping me by verifying the numbers. Close yes it was.

White Chicks.....weak Wayens(sp?) movie suprised it made it to the screen.

Dodgeball.....though I wuld like to see it It isn't exaclty a movie meant to draw the masses.

Moore is making his money so I am sure he is happy.

Still they were close so I guess market research wasn't that far off....wasn't Dodgeball released last weekend? I can't remember...earlier last week? hrug:

Depends on where you see it. It got a standing ovation in Oakland. Also, one theatre here refused to enforce the R rating...

Well 's up to them.

I am sure Moore is pleased with the movies performance also.

I can't knock the results......a 90 minute Democratic ad that everyone pays to watch....he is a freaking genious, I will give him that. j/k

 

[Lexx D]

I dont see how you guys are so anti-Rush Limbaugh, but pro-Michael Moore. Its the same thing. If rush limbaugh put together a "documentary" I doubt you all would go and see it.

Didn't you read Al Frankens book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot".

 

[bomberz1qr20]

I dont see how you guys are so anti-Rush Limbaugh, but pro-Michael Moore. Its the same thing. If rush limbaugh put together a "documentary" I doubt you all would go and see it.

Sorry dude, NOT the same.

Limbaugh is a drug taking idiot. He NEVER had his facts straight, that was a big part of Franken's book.

If he put together a documentary, I WOULD see it. It would be a comedy of errors.

Moore is a slob, yes. Cutthroat, yes. But I agree with his opinions, if not his methods. And for all the bellyaching by the right, his facts are straight. He would be no better than Bush if he twisted facts for his own political agenda.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Uhhh yeah? Only thing you added was that it was on less screens.....or were you helping me by verifying the numbers. Close yes it was.

White Chicks.....weak Wayens(sp?) movie suprised it made it to the screen.

Dodgeball.....though I wuld like to see it It isn't exaclty a movie meant to draw the masses.

Moore is making his money so I am sure he is happy.

Still they were close so I guess market research wasn't that far off....wasn't Dodgeball released last weekend? I can't remember...earlier last week? hrug:


Well 's up to them.

I am sure Moore is pleased with the movies performance also.

I can't knock the results......a 90 minute Democratic ad that everyone pays to watch....he is a freaking genious, I will give him that. j/k

I was just adding to your comment on the numbers.

And if that's an ad, it's the most depressing, somber ad I've seen in a long time.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Sorry dude, NOT the same.

Limbaugh is a drug taking idiot. He NEVER had his facts straight, that was a big part of Franken's book.

If he put together a documentary, I WOULD see it. It would be a comedy of errors.

Moore is a slob, yes. Cutthroat, yes. But I agree with his opinions, if not his methods. And for all the bellyaching by the right, his facts are straight. He would be no better than Bush if he twisted facts for his own political agenda.

Uh...no. Did you not read that big thing I posted? Doesnt sound straight to me, and NO ONE BUT YOU really ever says that Moore is fully accurate, but some say he has good points. I think the same could be said for Rush. Just because you agree with his opinions doesnt make them correct. I may see this film honestly, but for nothing but entertainment because I know better than to take an idiot like moore seriously.

 

[RhinofromWA]

And if that's an ad, it's the most depressing, somber ad I've seen in a long time.

DING! Tell him what he wins Johny!

Well can you think of a better way to help out the democratic party runner? Moore isn't dumb. He is making a butt load of $$$ and pushing his own political agenda. It isn't rocket science...but is is smart business.

Moores straight facts are much like Fluffs straight facts postin the thread talking about what can can the US get away with.....they are truethfull, but missleading....if not grossly missleading. But that is OK, considering the audience he is playing to....

It is a win/win for Moore.

 

[Lexx D]

Uh...no. Did you not read that big thing I posted? .

No who would read that whole thing.

Shirly have you watched any of moores movies? Not being a dik just wondering.

 

[Lexx D]

they are truethfull, but missleading....if not grossly missleading. But that is OK, considering the audience he is playing to....

How are they so misleading? I haven't seen the movie yet but from my understanding it has a bunch of media clips from the bush wagon. Things they "actually" said. How can that be so "grossly misleading"?

 

[BurlyShirley]

No who would read that whole thing.

Shirly have you watched any of moores movies? Not being a dik just wondering.

I saw enough of BFC...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Things they "actually" said. How can that be so "grossly misleading"?

Read the article I posted.

 

[Lexx D]

I saw enough of BFC...

Ok, go rent roger and me. I just want you to see that moore isn't this anti-american bastard you make him out to be. It was before hype and $$. All I'm saying is go into things with an open mind(like fahrenheit) not a judgement based on stuff you read by people online.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I dont really call people anti-american in cases like these...especially guys like Moore who utilize capitalism to the fullest. I mean, NO ideas are bad ideas as long as people are thinking, and Im always open for listening. But dont even act like what he's doing isnt sensationalist rhetoric out to cause controversy. And we all know controversy sells. Moore is making more money than sense IMO.

 

[RhinofromWA]

How are they so misleading? I haven't understanding a bunch of Things they "actually" said. How can that be so "grossly misleading"?

uh I don't know

What I did is directly missquote you by removing bits.......if you expand on that idea to video clips and pick and choose what you want it isn't any different. Out of context or partial clips to get the sound bite you want is par for course these days. Remember you actually said the quote above....in that order even with nothing but words removed.

Fluff atleast said that the US is the only country to use nuclear bombs in anger at another country. (true but missleading) He also neglected to state that it was new bomb technology to the world and we used it in one attack and have not since. We then understood the massive power it was and refrained fromusing it in the future....but kept it as a possiblility/deterant for other countries that had them. Following it up saying the US is refused to sign a "no first strike" accord ....or something, right after is all done missleads the reader to make the US look like we Nuke the world on every third Tuesday of the month and everyone esle refuses to....taking teh moral highground.

Is there trueth in the "facts" listed by fluff? Yes. Presented in the way to misslead the reader? Oh, most definately. But I guess the trueth is the trueth....can't be anything more than facts.

I say to you, using "facts" can be manipulated to influence the reader to a false trueth. I am not saying all of Moores movie is like that...I haven't seen it. Take a liberal version of Rush (Moore) and give him a medium (movie) to force feed what he sees as "trueth, and nothing but the trueth" via his squed eyes is no different than a 90minute campaign ad for his desired side (guess who...not Bush/Rep)

I would like to ask the same "open mindedness" be required of the "Hang Bush High Fan club" as they see the movie. Bring back holes in Moores "documentary" and show me how "open and free thinking" the liberal left is.....and not regurgitating worms fed to them by Moore and the gang. Or, you can just view it and be assured your views are the same as the film maker and they are justified by this "documentary"

Wouldn't a documentary look at something thuroughly as they can and not list video bits and interviews orgnized in a nice neat package? I assume "some things" were left out so it could fit in a nice 90minute movie format. Think about this as you pay your $9 for a chance to watch a political ad.

I am heading home everyone....see you on the flip side.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Rhino, I totally agree, but theres no "e" in truth.

 

[Archslater]

Just because you agree with his opinions doesnt make them correct.

Oh, is that why they are OPINIONS? One thing that separates Moore from Rush, is that Moore admits straight up that his movies are slanted and "unfair" (quote from the Daily show). Just his opinion. There is nothing wrong with having an agenda. Both our front running candidates for the presidency do.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Oh, is that why they are OPINIONS? One thing that separates Moore from Rush, is that Moore admits straight up that his movies are slanted and "unfair" (quote from the Daily show). Just his opinion. There is nothing wrong with having an agenda. Both our front running candidates for the presidency do.

Then don't try to pretend that MMoore's films are really 'documentries' then...

BTW, save your bucks and go see Harry Potter...

 

[syadasti]

Then don't try to pretend that MMoore's films are really 'documentries' then...

BTW, save your bucks and go see Harry Potter...

There is less Moore and more footage that just speaks for itself in this movie compared to his prior films. It still does have editorial content of course and there are a couple moments of creative soundbite editing

Moore has authorized free downloading of his movie as long as its not used for profit - you don't have to spend any money on it