Did you see it: Fahrenheit 9/11 ?

[Phoenix44]

So now that the movie's actually out, did any of you see it? I did. Comments?

 

[Spud]

I didn't know it opened until we got to the Theatre last night. We saw Super Size Me as planned. Will see it F 9/11 weekend though.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I'm always about two weeks behind (or more) on movies I want to see, due to work, laziness, etc. Fahrenheit 9/11 did sell out here last night, though.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well, I had every intention of seeing the movie, but unfortunately only one of the four theatres in this town is willing to play the documentary, so it was of course sold out when we got there.

Ahhh, don't you love right-wing politicians? They're just so embracing of criticism.

 

[StraightRazor]

Documentary or propaganda? I would think that documentary would need some semblance of impartiality. I could be wrong. What would the reaction have been if some right wing director made a film about Iraq and its links to 9-11/terrorism as justification for the war? I wouldnt blindly accept anything on TV or the movie screen as truth. Theres obviously a bias here. That of course dosent mean there is no truth in the film either...........

 

[Spud]

Of course there is bias, documentaries are full of bias - there's a big difference between movie making and reporting let alone good journalism.

 

[sma_book]

Yes, just saw it.

It definately had a bias.

It definately had an agenda.

I was very pleased at its accessible eloquence on both points.

The theater had a pretty good crowd of ~150 or so people for the 11:10am show. There were lots of good discussions coming out of the theater, including the one I had with my daughters.

Regardless of whether my kids end up with a 'conservative' or 'liberal' bias, I want them to grow up with a critical eye, so that they can try to discern what is the truth for themselves; that they can weed out the nuggets of gold from both sides of the argument and discard the packaged rhetoric.

Facts by themselves are impartial. Facts should be woven together to get understanding of the whole. Unfortunately, we have some really bad 'weavers' out there who consistently omit critical threads and are blind to the holes in the fabric(action

Michael Moore definately has some rhetoric, but he asks many very good questions. The wonderful thing about our country is that we have the ability to question our leaders, and expect them to give an account of themselves. From what I hear, we invaded Iraq to give them that right - among many other things.

Regards,
- Sheryl

 

[Phoenix44]

Well, no doubt Michael Moore has an opinion, but this movie is not all about opinion.

For example, if you doubt the photo of Prince Bandar and GW holding hands, and photos of George HW Bush socializing with the Saudis, and the passenger lists of the Saudis, including the Bin Laden family, who were spirited away on 9/13/01, you can also read all about it in Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud."

That book, incidentally, is footnoted, so if you also doubt Unger, you can check the references for yourself.

And if you doubt Unger, you can also read Woodward's "Plan of Attack," which basically corroborates both the movie and the Unger book. And Richard Clarke's book...he was a counter-terrorism expert for Republican AND Democratic administrations, so he may not have the same alleged agenda as Michael Moore.

And you should read those books, just in case the movie wasn't enough to convince you that sheer greed was the motivating factor behind the Iraq invasion, and that the invasion was in the works even before Bush was inaugurated.

Remember, the polls show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators.

I thought it was a very powerful movie. I was in tears.

 

[sma_book]

Thank-you Phoenix, I never meant to imply that the movie was all opinion; I like to think (and am sorry to think) that I am more aware than most of what the facts are in this particular situation. However, by acknowledging that there is some opinion in there, I would hope to get passed that first level of debate that is bound to ensue.

Can't you just predict the thread postings now?

"Michael Moore has an agenda!!!"

"Yes he does."

And what really is the substantive point here? It would be better to have dialogs on the more meaty points other than this one.

I am just concerned that when it comes to politics and government, people find one reason to dismiss whole trains of thought; that people will disregard everything Michael Moore has to say *because* he has an opinion. I personally can't quite get my brain around the argument "I don't like the person so everything they think or argue is wrong" Sort of reminds me of a bunch of second graders at recess. That seems to be the political process lately however.

Kind of spooky, I think.

As I absolutely know that the news media, politicos, and columnists all have bias, I want to be aware of as many views as possible; to know the opponent so to speak. Reading the news and dailies from other countries is also pretty enlightening.

Cheers,
- Sheryl

 

[Phoenix44]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound irritated. I'm not irritated. I'M MAD AS HELL!!! (But not at you, Sheryl.)

 

[PeachMonkey]

As I absolutely know that the news media, politicos, and columnists all have bias, I want to be aware of as many views as possible; to know the opponent so to speak. Reading the news and dailies from other countries is also pretty enlightening.l

At the risk of being tangential, I kind of link how news media/columnists in other countries do it... they announce their biases up front, and still try to perform journalism. For instance, in the UK, the Guardian has a bit of an avowed "liberal" stance, the Economist a "conservative" one, and so on. In both cases, though, I often count on their journalism and op-eds to be clearer than most.

Getting back to Moore, it does make me sad when people dismiss him immediately simply because they know he is an avowed opponent of the current administration. I try to listen to as many sources as possible before making decisions.

Chris Rock had something funny to say in his most recent HBO special about people who make decisions without hearing all the points of view.

 

[Eldritch Knight]

That was a powerful documentary if I've ever seen one. We had a packed auditorium that filled up 30 min before showtime. There were no less than 5 times when the entire audience cheered during the film. There was this family sitting behind me that got so emotional about it that they left the theater in tears when Michael Moore was interviewing the dead soldier's mother. For the record, I live right in Northern VA, about 20 min away from DC.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Link: Moore Lies

Link: Moore Exposed

 

[RandomPhantom700]

To be honest, I can't say that I'm 100% sorry for that woman. I mean, I know how much it must hurt to lose someone like that (I have been fortunate enough not to have to experience that kind of a loss yet), but c'mon, she'd been gung-ho about her kids joining the military so much, and even pushed her son into moving on with it when she described how he'd had second thoughts about what he was doing. Then when, lo and behold, her son dies while in combat, she begins to decry the administration and the military and feels cheated.

I'm not saying that the war was justified or that the administration wasn't responsible, but seriously, when she'd been pushing her children into joining the military so much, I can't help but think she is being a bit hypocritical in suddenly "seeing the light" once it was her son that died.

I know, I'm a cold, heartless bastard. How dare I criticize someone's emotions. Sorry.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The, "Moore Lies," link offers no evidence whatsoever that Michael Moore made up anything--only claims of disagreement, including the remark that the website offers a, "distinctly right-wing slant." Moreover, the site includes an adoring article about a 17-year old who claims that Hezbollah supported Moore's film....and notes that for some reason, Moore walked away from this kid's assertions.

Which is, last I checked, what martial artists are in fact enjoined to do: walk away from stupidity, walk away from a fight.

The real objections against Moore are these: a) he's successful; b) he's pretty good at exposing how silly and dangerous Bush looks; c) some folks see the world differently, and believe that he should have no right whatsoever to speak.

I note that "Sharp Phil, " et al seem to have no problems with absurd and ridiculous behavior on the part of, say, G. Gordon Liddy (remember the infamous, "Shoot the ATF in the head," radio broadcasts?), or Dick Cheney's "Go **** yourself," to Sen. Pat Leahy.

And oh yes...the next right-wing bonehead who cites Mark Twain, as the "Moore Lies," site does, would do well to actually read a little of Mark Twain so they have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

I recommend beginning with, "The Gilded Age," (satire about capitalists and thee corruption of governments), "Extract From Captain Stormfield's Visit To Heaven," (satire about Americans' narcissistic and presumptuous views on their importance generally and their religious fantasies in particular), "To The People Sitting in Darkness,' (satire about 'native,' confusion over the USA's colonialism).

But hey, don't let reality intrude.

Ooooh, real pity that somebody like Moore simply disagrees with you. Why not just complain about that, and explain why you think what you think, rather than relying on gimcrack websites?

I know, I know. Much easier to try personal insults, accusations of "un-Americanness," and goofball claims that a documentary film openly asserting a particular viewpoint is a documentary film openly asserting a particular viewpoint.

 

[Joe Eccleston]

I felt it was an honest film. Although, I was disappointed Moore didn't go into more detail about how the military-industrial complex is screwing our troops and how our own Congressmen on Capitol Hill are helping them screw our boots on the ground. It's a sad story and deserving much more coverage than it gets.

Alot of these guys are just basically kids fresh out of high school. Of course, there's going to be alot of gung-ho types and then the reflection and disillusionment that real combat experience can bring out. It's not so fun to kill people as it is in the movies.

Personally, I think Moore let Bush off pretty easy on this one and I'm no big fan of Moore, myself. The film is, of course, as partisan as can be, which he never denied to begin with. The Bush family-Saudi Royals connections were stretched about as far as he could take it, but poses some rather interesting questions that should be asked. All in all, he did get his point across and that's what's important.

No matter where you're at on the political spectrum you're going to come out of this with a new perspective or an old perspective reinforced. It's damning and it's the truth. Truth, my friends, hurts.


A lot of the topics that he covered deserved a lot more coverage, but i guess that's what he had to sacrifice to get everything in.

Here's a book recommendation: Tom Clancy's new book "BATTLE READY" with and about General Anthony Zinni (USMC), if you remember he was the most outspoken general against the war into Iraq.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can keep reading that ******** "Moore Lies" page. It's twisting Moore's points like nobody's business. A brief example: Moore's point in showing the president vacationing wasn't to say that liberal presidents never went on vacation, but to point out that Bush was vacationing for I believe it was 42% of his time in office. Just a thought.

 

[Nightingale]

I and about ten friends, liberal and conservative, are all going to see it today.

What I do find very...interesting... is that most people criticizing the movie haven't actually seen it.

If you want to criticize something, you ought to know what you're talking about. Otherwise, you're just parroting others' opinions. Spend the five bucks and go see a matinee. Hell, if you hate the movie, a lot of theatre managers will give you your money back if you complain loudly enough, so heck, it might not even cost you anything.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is a rather mainstream anti-moore site for discussion purposes

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I saw the movie last night. I thought it was powerful and influential. The critical part of me is attempting to do some fact-checking though...

 

[Don Roley]

If you want to criticize something, you ought to know what you're talking about. Otherwise, you're just parroting others' opinions. Spend the five bucks and go see a matinee. Hell, if you hate the movie, a lot of theatre managers will give you your money back if you complain loudly enough, so heck, it might not even cost you anything.

The thing is, if you know that a guy is willing to supress the truth in order to attack others, then it is kind of silly to spend money to see what you know will be a warped, twisted, version of events.

Here is an example from this thread,

For example, if you doubt the photo of Prince Bandar and GW holding hands, and photos of George HW Bush socializing with the Saudis, and the passenger lists of the Saudis, including the Bin Laden family, who were spirited away on 9/13/01,

Ok, so the head of one state (and his family) socializes with the head of another state. It is called diplomacy. You can see lots of pictures of Bush and Chirac together, and they hate each others guts. You can't find any pictures of them snarling at each other. So the pictures really tell nothing in context. Heck you can find a picture of the Dali Lama and the head of the cult that gassed the Tokyo subways holding hands just like Bush and Prince Bandar.

And Wesley Clarke (hardly a Bush fan) testified months ago in front of the 9-11 commision that Bush had nothing to do with the Saudis and Bin Laden family being allowed to leave the country. Moore does not acknoledge this in his film, and he has made no mention of it AFAIK because it would be less damning of the guy he wants to throw out of office.

So, when you know that someone is so driven by an agenda that he would take only that which makes his targets look bad and not even acknowledge something as signifigent as Clark's testimony, you have to ask if it is worth spending hard earned cash to see more twisted facts. Unless you know the entire picture (and if you do- why see the movie), you set yourself up to be led around by the nose by someone with a track record of deceit like Moore.