Fahrenheit 9/11

  1. Has anyone seen this movie yet? I have just seen it today and it was utterly shocking. Go and see it and make up your own mind...
    •  
  2. 39 Comments

  3. by   nurseunderwater
    I agree............still processing it all.

    even if one doesn't agree w/ all the points presented, it's hard to argue about the elitist rule and lack of care for the disenfranchised of our own nation. man...........what a documentary.
  4. by   2ndCareerRN
    Quote from nurseunderwater
    what a documentary.
    If only it were truly a documentary.

    bob
  5. by   lizmatt
    I saw it last night and found it to be an amazing experience. Just being in the packed theater with so many people who agreed with the same things that I do made it great. A lot of times I think I am all alone and there is nothing I can do about the horrible things that are happening in this world at the hand of our country and there are many nights that this keeps me awake. But the # of people there gave me a little hope that maybe something might be able to be done. I think that some of the cutting of film and inferences were a little over the top, but the movie itself definitely touched me. I wish my politically apathetic friends would watch it, but they have more important things to do like shopping and bar hopping. Anyway though people can argue that Mr Moore has some facts wrong or some important footage missing the fact remains that people are dying and there is no clear reason why. I was especially saddened by the footage of the the Iraqi civilians who were killed - especially the child who must have been the same age as my children.
  6. by   nurseunderwater
    Quote from 2ndCareerRN
    If only it were truly a documentary.

    bob
    hey bob...
    how about elaborating?
  7. by   Spidey's mom
    I don't want to speak for bob so will just speak for myself.

    A documentary is supposed to be truth. MM's movie is full of lies, half-truths and outright deceits. In my opinion.

    There are lots of commentaries from all sides of the spectrum that essentially say the same thing. Moore, by leaving out essential parts of the story, is attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes. The commentaries I've read range from liberal Christopher Hitchens to Christianity Today.

    I've already posted Mr. Hitchen's article - much to my chagrin that thread was closed. So for those interested, I'll post an article from the opposite side from liberal.



    Fahrenheit 9/11
    review by Peter T. Chattaway | posted 06/25/04
    Christianity Today







    Controversy gave box-office success and cultural clout to Mel Gibson and The Passion of The Christ. Now Michael Moore is hoping it will do the same for Fahrenheit 9/11, his heavily sarcastic, rather entertaining, and somewhat incoherent screed against the presidency of George W. Bush. In this film, Moore, who has made a career out of stalking corporate executives and ambushing conservative celebrities like Charlton Heston, focuses his political indignation and his weakness for the cheap laugh on the White House, and he certainly finds ample material. There is very little here that anyone who has followed the politics of the past four years would consider new or revealing; for the most part, Moore's film is a merry, occasionally sentimental summary of every anti-Bush opinion column ever written.


    It all begins with a flashback to the election of 2000, when, as Moore would have it, the big three networks and the Democratic Party all folded under the withering glare of Fox News and allowed Bush to snatch the presidency away from Al Gore. Moore glides past the possibility that there may have been genuine confusion on election night, and he omits any reference to the legal fight that Gore did put up. What's more, he never even attempts to explore why not one senator joined certain congresspeople in protesting the alleged disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida. If curiosity is an essential characteristic of a good documentary--or any other film, for that matter--then it is notably lacking here. Moore is much less interested in plumbing the ambiguities and ironies of American political life than in doing whatever it takes to manipulate his audience's sympathies.

    Indeed, despite the occasional intriguing revelation--such as the fact that one of Bush's buddies in the National Guard, one James R. Bath, went on to be a financial advisor for the bin Laden family--the most striking thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is not what Moore puts into the film, but what he leaves out. For example, in a montage mocking the various useless countries that joined the "coalition of the willing," such as Iceland and Morocco, Moore never mentions England or Australia. Moore also gives his viewers the impression that Iraq was a happy paradise in which children flew kites and dictators danced with their people, until that awful day when the Americans attacked; he never acknowledges the hundreds of thousands of civilians that human rights groups say were killed under Saddam Hussein's regime, nor does he address Hussein's sponsorship of terrorism in Israel or his sheltering of a key figure in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. In fact, Moore seems to want his audience to think that Hussein posed no threat whatsoever, and in one of his more astoundingly bizarre insinuations, Moore suggests Bush attacked Iraq as a favor to his Saudi friends--but if this is so, then why did Saudi Arabia oppose the war?


    With some justification, Moore criticizes the Bush administration for sending "mixed messages" to the American people--orange terror alerts one day, assurances that it's okay to keep on shopping the next--but Moore sends out some of his own, too. After telling us, in effect, that the Democrats bear some of the blame for letting Bush rise to power, Moore then interviews wounded troops who, in a scene that has had some audience members cheering, tell him they will be switching their votes to the Democratic Party. (Come to think of it, Moore neglects to mention that he, too, may have been complicit in Gore's defeat--and Bush's victory--since he threw his considerable weight behind Ralph Nader.) In another scene, Moore dwells on the unsettling fact that some soldiers feel a "rush" when they listen to heavy metal and go into bloodthirsty combat, but then he ends the film on an "up with soldiers" note.

    Moore has often played the race card and pandered to other demographics whenever it suits his agenda--what Canadian can forget how lovely Toronto's "slums" looked in Bowling for Columbine? Now he plucks religious strings, too. One scene focuses on an Iraqi woman who asks where God is after her house is bombed, while other scenes focus on an American woman who wears a cross, prays to Jesus, and sends a Bible to her son, who dies fighting in Iraq. Given the way he slaps together nearly every anti-Bush argument on the books, no matter how mutually contradictory they might be, it is interesting that Moore avoids the theory, popular in some circles, that born-again theology has taken over the White House. Moore is certainly not above indulging in gratuitous caricatures (as evidenced by his performance as a perverted Christian in Nora Ephron's Lucky Numbers) but within this film's rhetoric, he seems to think faith is on his side. That's progress of a sort, I guess.


    In some ways, Fahrenheit 9/11 is the least egocentric of Moore's films to date--there are fewer of those famous publicity stunts in which Moore himself is the star of his own show--yet he still cannot help interrupting his interviewees and stealing their punchlines. Some have complained that his films cannot be "documentaries" because they are not "objective," but pure objectivity is impossible and perhaps even undesirable; every film reflects some sort of perspective, and there is something to be said for films that take a clear side on any given issue.

    The problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is not that it is one-sided, per se; it is that Moore barely acknowledges there even is another side. The problem is not that he fails to give the other side equal time or equal validity; it is that he shows virtually no interest in what that other side might be, and in how he might best deal with it. Inevitably, this weakens Moore's own arguments--or it would, if he was all that concerned about making any. Moore's appeal is more emotional and visceral than intellectual; in his own way, Moore is a fearmonger, and preying on the ignorance of his audience just as he accuses Bush of doing.

    **********

    kinda funny how this review of the movie is less negative than Mr. Hitchen's article and Mr. Hitchens is a liberal and Christianity Today is . . .well, from a Christian perspective.

    All in all . . . . careful thought needs to go into anything that Michael Moore says.

    steph
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Jun 26, '04
  8. by   2ndCareerRN
    Steph said about all that needs to be said. When I was growing up, watching a documentary meant watch something that was truthful. While MM may try to pass of his movies as documentaries, IMO, he falls a little short. He slants the perspective so much he has crossed the boundries of documentary into drama. A good example is the staged scene in BFC in which he said he walked into a bank, opened an account, and walked out with a gun. It just didn't happen that way. Even he will admit it was staged (edited) to portray something that did not happen as depicted.

    bob
  9. by   AnnaN5
    It amazes me that so many people get to ticked off at Michael Moore's movies when in all of his interviews he comes right out and says it is his personal opinion. I think its perfectly fine to disagree with him or agree with him because that is our personal right but for so many people to fly off the handle (so to speak) about his movies is a bit extreme. He is just making these moves to stir the pot and get people thinking & more aware of what is or isn't going on in this country.
  10. by   2ndCareerRN
    He is just making these moves to stir the pot and get people thinking & more aware of what is or isn't going on in this country.
    That is your opinion.

    My opinion is that he is making these movies to make himself rich. I don't believe he gives a rat's behind what is going on in this country or any country. If he can fatten his wallet by being controversial and peddling his half-truths and innuendos as documentaries, he will.

    bob
  11. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from AnnaN5
    It amazes me that so many people get to ticked off at Michael Moore's movies when in all of his interviews he comes right out and says it is his personal opinion. I think its perfectly fine to disagree with him or agree with him because that is our personal right but for so many people to fly off the handle (so to speak) about his movies is a bit extreme. He is just making these moves to stir the pot and get people thinking & more aware of what is or isn't going on in this country.
    I think what ticks me off is his portraying his movies as documentaries and winning awards for BFC as a documentary. I disagree with the CT article where it says <"Some have complained that his films cannot be "documentaries" because they are not "objective," but pure objectivity is impossible and perhaps even undesirable; every film reflects some sort of perspective, and there is something to be said for films that take a clear side on any given issue."> I don't say that his films are not documentaries because they are not "objective" but because he lies. Of course a film comes from a certain perspective but even in the CT article there are lies pointed out.

    It bugs me when people take his movies for absolute truth.

    steph
  12. by   nurseunderwater
    I can feel a couple of you circling around this thread poised to "attack" :uhoh21:

    I found the "movie" (better not to offend) thought provoking and sometimes entertaining. I left with a feeling of sadness for all who are dying and are yet to die. I also left with a stonger conviction that JWB is nothing but a pawn who will never be able (but desperately tries) to measure up to his father (who I didn't like either, BTW).

    Granted, as always there was plently of emotional manipulation and fast food jargon.
    That said....I still believe that Michael Moore brings to light some important things to ponder. As much if not more so than our biased media reports in so many homes across America - everyday.
  13. by   Spidey's mom
    You can tell this really bugs me huh? :chuckle

    I think it is the hypocrisy. Folks complain that President Bush lied and therefore is not to be trusted (WMD, his military background, etc). But it is ok that MM lied, lied and lied again - we can trust him because he is just trying to make a point.

    Came across a book that is a variation on MM's "Stupid White Men".







    Book: 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'
    NewsMax.com
    Thursday, June 24, 2004
    A just released book takes on Michael Moore as never before. Its title screams: "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man."
    And surprisingly, this book has been published by the same publisher who gave us Michael Moore's own runaway bestseller "Stupid White Men."


    Apparently, more than a few people want to take revenge on Michael Moore and the timing couldn't be better - with the release this week of his "documentary" attack piece on George Bush - Fahrenheit 9/11.

    Moore is so terrified by his detractors he claims that he has already hired a cabal of lawyers. He says he will sue Bush supporters who he thinks may be preparing to slander him.

    Moore's hypocrisy is obvious. Slate editor Jack Shafer says "Moore's hysterical, empty threats" to sue critics of his latest schlockumentary shows that he "appears to believe in free speech only for himself."

    One possible target for Moore's lawyers may be the publisher of his own book.

    Moore's one time publisher, ReganBooks, is out with a disturbing yet comical book that dismantles every cog of that propaganda machine marketed as Michael Moore.

    David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke's "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" begins by unearthing his phony roots and goes right up to his latest "documentary."


    Meet the Flint-drone: Everybody knows Moore is a blue-collar guy from Flint, Mich., right? That's how he always sells himself.

    In reality, he was born and raised in the wealthy, lily-white town of Davison, Mich, the authors reveal. No wonder the clown prince of self-loathing developed such a complex about hating rich, stupid white males.


    In a letter to Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times last year, Moore still listed his town as Flint. In fact, despite his proclamations that "capitalism is a sin" and "an evil system," he lives in a $1.9 million apartment in Manhattan and enjoys a $1.2 million summer home on Torch Lake in Michigan.


    Does not play well with others: Moore can't get along even with his fellow travelers.

    Hardy and Clarke disclose how the radical magazine Mother Jones fired the "arbitrary" and "suspicious" Moore; how he started his feud with his replacement, David Talbot, who later founded Salon; how Ralph Nader's organization fired Moore; how he attacked Pauline Kael, Harlan Jacobson and other prominent critics who exposed the deceits of his schlockumentaries; how he lost a lawsuit for betraying fellow lefty activist Larry Stecco in "Roger & Me," etc.


    Nor can the elitist Moore tolerate those lowly working classes and students he claims to represent.

    "Big Fat Stupid White Man" gives details of how he abused the staff during a speaking engagement at London's Roundhouse Theater; how he castigated a student who dared question his hefty speaking fee; how he attacked a young documentary maker who had the nerve to give him a taste of the "Roger & Me" treatment, and so forth.

    And don't forget his amusingly shrill denunciation of those awful blue-collar crewmen who, unlike his fellow multimillionaires in Hollywood's left, booed him during his tirade at the Oscars.

    The book presents one example after another, alternating between frightening and hilarious, to make a brilliant case for Moore having Narcissistic Personality Disorder.


    Then there's his feud with his former publisher, HarperCollins subsidiary ReganBooks, which gave us his best seller "Stupid White Men" and now brings us "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man."

    ReganBooks, he claims, tried "to censor me and the things I wanted to say. They insisted I rewrite up to 50 percent of the book and that I remove sections that they found offensive to our leader, Mr. Bush." The company plotted "to 'pulp' and recycle all 50,000 copies of my book that were gathering dust in a warehouse," he insists.

    However, ReganBooks issued a statement to NewsMax.com contradicting these allegations:

    "Originally scheduled for release on September 11, 2001, the book was delayed by mutual agreement between author and publisher after the events of that day. Despite erroneous reports that have appeared in the press, the publisher never attempted to censor the book on partisan grounds, though the publisher and author did discuss replacing the original version of the book with an updated version to address the post-9/11 world. Ultimately, the decision was made to release the book in its original form, and it went on to become a huge success for both the publisher and the author. ReganBooks has since declined to exercise its option to publish another book by Mr. Moore."


    After all, Moore and other members of the left-wing thought police can't bear a commitment to diversity of ideas.

    Judith Regan, president and publisher of ReganBooks, noted that her company had produced books by Howard Stern and Moore as well as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

    "As publishers, we have an obligation to publish a wide range of ideas, opinions, and perspectives," she said in a statement issued to NewsMax. "Our job is to publish voices on the left, on the right, and everywhere in between - to provide a broad range of opinion."

    "We agree with Michael Moore that free expression is one of our most important human rights," Regan said, "and publishing widely and freely is the only way to honor that tradition."


    Unfortunately, Moore fights his critics' right to free expression, as Slate's Shafer noted and as Hardy and Clarke document at length.


    Howlers in 'Columbine': Some of the distortions and falsehoods that plague the movie "Bowling for Columbine" are already well known, but Hardy and Clarke add details and reveal new whoppers.


    Moore claims that National Rifle Association taunted the Denver area and the nation by holding "a large pro-gun rally" only days after the killings at Columbine High School.
    In reality, the annual meeting had been planned well in advance, was required by law, could not have been changed in time to another city, and was stripped of all rallies and ceremony in deference to the community.


    The movie depicts Charlton Heston as making his famous "cold, dead hands speech" in Denver.
    In reality, the remarks came a year later in Charlotte, N.C., and Moore spliced bits of footage from that and another speech for maximum distortion. "It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things," Hardy and Clarke write.


    The fantasy film claims that Heston exploited a school shooting in Mount Morris, Mich., by staging another "big pro-gun rally" in October 2002.
    In reality, Heston's appearance came eight months after the shooting, at a get-out-the-vote event in nearby Flint. Others campaigning in the area around that time included Al Gore, George W. Bush ... and Moore himself, touting Ralph Nader.

    The authors conclude: "Bowling for Columbine has less documentary value than the average Bugs Bunny cartoon. You see Heston giving a speech - but it's doctored. You see history - but unconnected facts are given a particular Moorewellian spin. You hear that a factory is making weapons of mass destruction - actually, it's building satellite launch platforms. You're led to believe that a rally was a response to a shooting, but it turns out it was eight months later, in anticipation of an election. You watch a Bush-Quayle campaign ad, but in reality it was an ad Moore himself assembled."


    'Stupid' is as stupid does: Hardy and Clarke dissect "Stupid White Men" and "Dude, Where's My Country?" along with the latter's celluloid ugly stepchild, Fahrenheit 9/11, to delve into the heart of Moore's pathology. A few highlights:


    Moore harps on his portrayal of America as a "nation of idiots" (i.e., people who disagree with him) and illiterates.
    In reality, the "statistics" he offers indicating widespread illiteracy include two sizeable groups: immigrants who are often fluent in other languages but not English, and the blind and visually impaired.


    Moore, who after all graduated from high school, delights in ridiculing his countrymen's poor grasp of geography. "The dumbest Brit here is smarter than the smartest American," he snickers to an audience in London.
    But Moore chooses not to add an important fact: young adults worldwide performed badly on the National Geographic survey he so selectively cites.


    He claims that Florida wrongly disenfranchised thousands of pro-Democrat criminals in the 2000 election. "Thirty-one percent of all black men in Florida" are felons, in his paranoid fantasy world. (No wonder this limousine liberal travels in such exclusive circles.)
    In reality, the Miami Herald showed that Democrat-run counties violated state law and let the overwhelmingly Democrat felons vote illegally - more than 2,000 votes, most of which went to Gore.


    Most importantly, "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" refutes Moore's wild attempts to implicate the president in 9/11. Every American should read these chapters. They are too detailed to summarize here, but one example will demonstrate this book's importance.

    Moore claims President Bush invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban so he could get an oil pipeline built. You've probably heard others parrot this allegation. A master of propaganda knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it.


    In reality, Bush had supported Enron's plan to run pipes under the Caspian Sea and avoid Afghanistan. "Clinton was the one backing the rival Unocal plan to put them through Afghanistan," Hardy and Clarke observe.

    Inspiration to terrorists: Moore's favorite claim: "THERE ... IS ... NO ... TERRORIST ... THREAT!" If so, why do terrorists take succor from him?

    The most damning indictment of Moore in "Big Fat Stupid White Man": the salute offered by Imam Samudra, leader of the Muslim terrorist bombers who murdered 202 people, mostly Australians and other tourists, two years ago at Paddy's nightclub in Bali.

    "I saw lots of whiteys dancing and lots of whiteys drinking there," Samudra told Indonesian police. The authors note, "It was 'Kill Whitey' (to quote a chapter heading in Stupid White Men) with a vengeance."


    Samudra's attorney Qaidar Faisal concluded his defense by praising the Taliban and quoting from "anti-western texts" including Moore's "Stupid White Men."


    Despite all the appalling revelations in "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man," it's hard to finish the book without feeling pity for this man.

    Had he used his talents to make actual documentaries and write books devoid of distortion and mendacity, he could have offered a useful critique of the Bush administration's flaws.

    Instead, fueled by a narcissism that springs from hatred of self and others, he mangles reality to dupe the uninformed, delight the blame-America-first crowd and even inspire terrorists.

    He concentrates his venom on one politician and one party but damages a nation.

    "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" marks a confident step in undoing his damage.







    It's clear that Michael Moore has gone off the deep end when even Democrats compare him to the Nazis' master of propaganda:




    "Hollywood agent and Kerry supporter Tom Baer told me, 'Kerry should flee Moore's movie. It's Goebbels all over again." This quotation comes not from Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh but from a column in the Washington Post by Tina Brown, a queen of the liberal media establishment.

    Christopher Hitchens, a contributor to such partisan publications as New Left Review and The Nation, writes for Slate: "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."

    Andrew Sullivan, a former editor at the liberal New Republic: "Moore is beneath contempt."
    *******************

    If even liberal folks find him offensive, shouldn't we at least ask some questions?

    steph
    Last edit by Spidey's mom on Jun 26, '04
  14. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from nurseunderwater
    I can feel a couple of you circling around this thread poised to "attack" :uhoh21:

    I found the "movie" (better not to offend) thought provoking and sometimes entertaining. I left with a feeling of sadness for all who are dying and are yet to die. I also left with a stonger conviction that JWB is nothing but a pawn who will never be able (but desperately tries) to measure up to his father (who I didn't like either, BTW).

    Granted, as always there was plently of emotional manipulation and fast food jargon.
    That said....I still believe that Michael Moore brings to light some important things to ponder. As much if not more so than our biased media reports in so many homes across America - everyday.
    I'm not "circling around this thread to attack". I'm merely expressing my viewpoint.

    Take a look at how those who think President Bush is not doing a good job respond to a thread entitled "President Bush is the Greatest!!".

    We are all allowed to express our viewpoints respectfully. Which on this thread I've tried to do.

    If it is ok to point out that someone feels Bush lied about WMD, why in the world is it not ok to point out that MM may have told a few whoppers?

    I hardly think that could be called attacking. I would call it discussing.

    steph

close