Shogmaster
Member
mjq jazz bar said:
This ain't OA.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
This Friday - Fahrenheit 9/11
- Thread starter Matlock
- Start date
- Status
This ain't OA.
Spainkiller
the man who sold the world
Haha! Moron.
http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
Fahrenheit 9/11 ban?
Ads for Moores movie could be stopped on July 30
By Alexander Bolton
Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.
At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moores film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.
In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FECs agenda for todays meeting, the agencys general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.
The proscription is broadly defined. Section 100.29 of the federal election regulations defines restricted corporate-funded ads as those that identify a candidate by his name, nickname, photograph or drawing or make it otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference.
Should the six members of the FEC vote to approve the counsels opinion, it could put a serious crimp on Moores promotion efforts. The flavor of the movie was encapsulated by a recent review in The Boston Globe as the case against George W. Bush, a fat compendium of previously reported crimes, errors, sins, and grievances delivered in the directors patented tone of vaudevillian social outrage.
The FEC ruling may also affect promotion of a slew of other upcoming political documentaries and films, such as Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, which opens in August, The Corporation, about democratic institutions being subsumed by the corporate agenda, or Silver City, a recently finished film by John Sayles that criticizes the Bush administration.
Another film, The Hunting of the President, which investigates whether Bill Clinton was the victim of a vast conspiracy, could be subject to regulations if it mentions Bush or members of Congress in its ads.
Since the FEC considers the Republican presidential convention scheduled to begin Aug. 30 a national political primary in which Bush is a candidate, Moore and other politically oriented filmmakers could not air any ad mentioning Bush after July 30.
That could make advertising for the film after July difficult since it is all about the Bush administration and what Moore regards as its mishandling of the war on terrorism and the decision to invade Iraq.
After the convention, ads for political films that mention Bush or any other federal candidate would be subject to the restrictions on all corporate communications within 60 days of the Nov. 2 general election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 opens nationally tomorrow.
The films distributor, Lions Gate Films, an incorporated organization, would almost certainly pay for its broadcast promotions.
David Bossie, the president of Citizens United, plans to allege that Fahrenheit 9/11 violates federal election law, arguing that Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election season.
Bossie had planned to file a complaint with the FEC yesterday but postponed action because his lawyers want to review it at the last minute, said Summer Stitz, a spokeswoman for Bossies group.
I dont think much of Michael Moore or his two-hour political advertisement thats all it is, Bossie said. He uses all of these words to make it look like he makes documentaries, but its the furthest thing from the truth. Documentaries tend to be fact-based.
Sarah Greenberg, a spokeswoman for Lions Gate Films who is serving as Moores spokeswoman, did not return a call for comment.
The FEC counsels draft advisory opinion responded to a request for guidance from David Hardy, a documentary film producer with the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation. Hardy asked whether he could air broadcast ads that refer to congressional officeholders who appear in his documentary.
At issue in the FECs opinion is whether documentary films qualify for a media exemption, which allows members of the press to discuss political candidates freely in the days before an election.
In its opinion, the general counsel wrote, In McConnell vs. FEC (2003) the [Supreme] Court described the media exemption as narrow and drew a distinction between corporations that are part of the media industry as opposed to other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public.
The radio and television commercials that you describe in your request would be electioneering communications, the counsel concluded. The proposed commercials would refer to at least one presidential candidate. They would also be publicly distributed because you intend to pay a radio station and perhaps a television station to air or broadcast your commercials. Finally, they would reach 50,000 people within 30 days of a national nominating convention and or the general election.
However, one commissioner, Michael Toner, has a different view of what restrictions may be placed on political films.
I think theres evidence that when Congress created the press exemption they intended for it to cover media in all its forms, said Toner. If a documentary produced by an independent company would be subject to restriction or, equally important, if efforts to promote the documentary would be subject to restriction, I think that is very problematic.
Fahrenheit 9/11 ban?
Ads for Moores movie could be stopped on July 30
By Alexander Bolton
Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.
At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moores film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.
In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FECs agenda for todays meeting, the agencys general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.
The proscription is broadly defined. Section 100.29 of the federal election regulations defines restricted corporate-funded ads as those that identify a candidate by his name, nickname, photograph or drawing or make it otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference.
Should the six members of the FEC vote to approve the counsels opinion, it could put a serious crimp on Moores promotion efforts. The flavor of the movie was encapsulated by a recent review in The Boston Globe as the case against George W. Bush, a fat compendium of previously reported crimes, errors, sins, and grievances delivered in the directors patented tone of vaudevillian social outrage.
The FEC ruling may also affect promotion of a slew of other upcoming political documentaries and films, such as Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, which opens in August, The Corporation, about democratic institutions being subsumed by the corporate agenda, or Silver City, a recently finished film by John Sayles that criticizes the Bush administration.
Another film, The Hunting of the President, which investigates whether Bill Clinton was the victim of a vast conspiracy, could be subject to regulations if it mentions Bush or members of Congress in its ads.
Since the FEC considers the Republican presidential convention scheduled to begin Aug. 30 a national political primary in which Bush is a candidate, Moore and other politically oriented filmmakers could not air any ad mentioning Bush after July 30.
That could make advertising for the film after July difficult since it is all about the Bush administration and what Moore regards as its mishandling of the war on terrorism and the decision to invade Iraq.
After the convention, ads for political films that mention Bush or any other federal candidate would be subject to the restrictions on all corporate communications within 60 days of the Nov. 2 general election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 opens nationally tomorrow.
The films distributor, Lions Gate Films, an incorporated organization, would almost certainly pay for its broadcast promotions.
David Bossie, the president of Citizens United, plans to allege that Fahrenheit 9/11 violates federal election law, arguing that Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election season.
Bossie had planned to file a complaint with the FEC yesterday but postponed action because his lawyers want to review it at the last minute, said Summer Stitz, a spokeswoman for Bossies group.
I dont think much of Michael Moore or his two-hour political advertisement thats all it is, Bossie said. He uses all of these words to make it look like he makes documentaries, but its the furthest thing from the truth. Documentaries tend to be fact-based.
Sarah Greenberg, a spokeswoman for Lions Gate Films who is serving as Moores spokeswoman, did not return a call for comment.
The FEC counsels draft advisory opinion responded to a request for guidance from David Hardy, a documentary film producer with the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation. Hardy asked whether he could air broadcast ads that refer to congressional officeholders who appear in his documentary.
At issue in the FECs opinion is whether documentary films qualify for a media exemption, which allows members of the press to discuss political candidates freely in the days before an election.
In its opinion, the general counsel wrote, In McConnell vs. FEC (2003) the [Supreme] Court described the media exemption as narrow and drew a distinction between corporations that are part of the media industry as opposed to other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public.
The radio and television commercials that you describe in your request would be electioneering communications, the counsel concluded. The proposed commercials would refer to at least one presidential candidate. They would also be publicly distributed because you intend to pay a radio station and perhaps a television station to air or broadcast your commercials. Finally, they would reach 50,000 people within 30 days of a national nominating convention and or the general election.
However, one commissioner, Michael Toner, has a different view of what restrictions may be placed on political films.
I think theres evidence that when Congress created the press exemption they intended for it to cover media in all its forms, said Toner. If a documentary produced by an independent company would be subject to restriction or, equally important, if efforts to promote the documentary would be subject to restriction, I think that is very problematic.
Doth Togo said:
Thank God soft money groups are out there defending us from campaign-finance violations.
Roger Ebert explains what a documentary is. The short version for anyone who can't be bothered to click: Moore's films are absolutely documentaries.
Intersting article, DothTogo - thanks for the heads up.
FnordChan
SolidSnakex
Member
They could stop the ads, not that it'd really matter. The word of mouth will already be going pretty strong by then. Although there's another Republican group who's trying to get other Republicans to send emails to theatres who're going to be showing the movie so they'll pull it. Yep that's going to happen.
lol, Fox News just got SERVED.
Almost every documentary I have seen in theaters and on tv (i.e discovery channel, tlc, history channel) has some sort of message or slant they are trying to convince you of. I don't know why people get so shocked at this. I would love to see a Republican documentary to show us their side of things, just for the laughs alone it would make it a must see.
JasoNsider
Member
Wow, that was an excellent article. Thanks for posting it.
I have always liked Ebert (even though I disagree with his tastes often) simply because he is down to earth. He doesn't BS anybody, and this is another example of that.
I'm going to be seeing this movie tomorrow.
I have always liked Ebert (even though I disagree with his tastes often) simply because he is down to earth. He doesn't BS anybody, and this is another example of that.
I'm going to be seeing this movie tomorrow.
SolidSnakex
Member
bionic77 said:
You've already got it, it's called "Michael Moore Hates America"...because he doesn't like George Bush. If they took a poll of people who don't like Bush right now, you're going to have a huge amount of Americans who hate America if that's your definition of it. I'm sure it'll give us a glimpse of what makes Bush right and what makes Moore's hatred of him so wrong.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Matlock said:A lot of my relatives are born in sequential date like that, it's odd.
It's weird for me too.
My dad's June 5, uncle is June 6, I'm June 7.
Grandma's Feb 3, Mom's Feb 4.
Sister's October 6...9 months before mine...Weird, I wonder if Mom and Pop were celebrating my sister's 2nd B day a lil...well, you know.
Edit:On topic, I probably won't go see it (since movies cost too damn much), even though I loved Bowling for Columbine. Just saw it a few weeks ago. It's sad to read the Ebert article where he mentions inaccurate facts. It just continues to paint him as too invested into the themes where the agenda prevails over the facts. The end of 'Columbine' was a lil out of focus and he overtook the movie. In the beginning, it went great just to show people speaking their true feelings. Probably wait to DVD. Although, Moore shouldn't be too upset, I won't vote for Bush in Nov even if he brought back baby Jesus and gave him a lollipop.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/24/news/midcaps/fahrenheit.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Michael Moore's controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" turned on the box office heat in its first day in theaters breaking single-day records at the two New York City theaters where it played.
The movie, which aims a critical eye at President Bush and his prosecution of the war in Iraq, sold $49,000 worth of tickets at the Loew's Village 7 theater, beating the venue's single-day record of $43,435 held by 1997's "Men in Black," according to distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.
At the Lincoln Plaza theater, "Fahrenheit 9/11" took in more than $30,000 to top the $24,013 set by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in 2000.
I know a friend who bet it wouldn't make $20 million in a month.. looks like he's out some money.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Michael Moore's controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" turned on the box office heat in its first day in theaters breaking single-day records at the two New York City theaters where it played.
The movie, which aims a critical eye at President Bush and his prosecution of the war in Iraq, sold $49,000 worth of tickets at the Loew's Village 7 theater, beating the venue's single-day record of $43,435 held by 1997's "Men in Black," according to distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.
At the Lincoln Plaza theater, "Fahrenheit 9/11" took in more than $30,000 to top the $24,013 set by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in 2000.
I know a friend who bet it wouldn't make $20 million in a month.. looks like he's out some money.
human5892 said:
Even if it reached its thoretical maximum (every seat in every of the 800+ theaters for every showing) it probably has a fat chance in hell of approaching White Chicks which is on 2700 screens.
That isn't to say it won't potentially be wildly succseful for a documentary, and for its distribution size.
SolidSnakex said:
Actually pulling ads at the end of the month could potentially be another free media boost. It would happen along side the Iraqi changeover and would definately get press. A banned ad? I am not familiar with that ever happening, and certainly under these kind of circumstances. It could actually be a boon for Moore, as most of the core potential viewers will probabl already have seen the movie or decided that they will see it. I bet Moore secretly wishes it to happen.
CaptainABAB
Member
http://www.buzzmachine.com/
Watching Michael Moore
: As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East Village of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already sold out all night, surely even here they wouldn't fall for all his obvious, visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the cheapest tin-horn demagog.
Take this scene: Moore shows dead American soldiers in Iraq, many of them, the more blood the better. Then hed says we need to replace them and he asks where they'll come from. He takes us to his favorite man-of-the-people populist playground, Flint, MI, and says that we'll find soldiers "in the places that had been destroyed by the economy." He focuses on poor black men as Bush's next victims -- not even acknowledging that virtually every soldier he has just shown -- and ridiculed -- in the film is white. It's all so convenient: anti-war-pro-poor-multi-culti-heartland. The rhetoric is as obvious as the gut on the guy.
But as I leave, I hear an older woman behind me, with a voice as loud at New York traffic, saying to someone who's passing her on the escalator, obviously a stranger: "Don't you sign up, now! Don't you join!" I turn around. She's saying this to a black man, just because he's black: After all, Michael Moore said those people are all conservative cannon fodder, didn't he? The man and the woman with him are polite enough to wait until they're out the door before they laugh and then sadly shake their heads.
Hoo boy.
: One of the many things I've learned from blogging confrere Jay Rosen is that you have to stand back and investigate the assumptions that underly a media enterprise.
Moore's assumption is venality. He assumes that President Bush and his confreres are venal, that their motives are black, that they are out to do no good, only bad, and that the only choices they make in life are between greed and power.
That's inevitably a bad analysis. It's the exact same analysis Bill Clinton's enemies made of him. If they were wrong about Clinton, well then, Michael Moore is wrong about Bush. Life is never that simple, never that obvious, unless you're a propagandist or one who believes propaganda. I especially can't buy that analysis when we are a under attack as a nation, when we need to decide who the "us" and "them" are. The war on us as well as the dialogue among my confreres here online has made me question that assumption of venality in American politics.
Oh, you can argue Bush is incompetent; sometimes I do wonder. You can disagree with his policies; I disagree with many. You can question his intelligence; jury's out still. I didn't vote for Bush the last time and don't plan to this time. But I don't buy Moore's Bush. To say that he's the dark force of the universe only leads to simple-minded over-generalizations and bilious caricatures.
Like Fahrenheit 9/11.
: The real problem with the film, the really offensive thing about it, is that in Fahrenheit 9/11, we -- Americans from the President on down -- are portrayed at the bad guys. If there's something wrong about bin Laden it's that his estranged family has ties with -- cue the uh-oh music -- the Bush family. Saddam? Nothing wrong with him. No mention of torture and terror and tyranny. Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it's a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, "Why did yo have to take him?" Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, "insurgents") in Iraq or killed him -- or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier's father says the young man died and "for what?", Moore doesn't show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.
He doesn't try, not for one second, to have a discussion, to show the other side -- and then cut that other side down to size with facts and figures and the slightest effort at argument. No, he just shows the one side. And that, really, is a tragedy. It would be good if we had a discussion. It would be good to have a movie that made us think and reconsider and talk.
But polemics don't do that. They're only made of two-by-fours.
: The cheap tricks keep on coming, mostly in what is not said. At the start of the movie, Moore fuzzes the video of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, et al to make it look as if it were recovered World War II film from Hitler's Berchtesgaden: the bad guys in happier days. The trick is unintentionally appropriate: He's trying to say that these guys are Nazis but he's also using the Nazi propaganda motif to say it.
He asks the same questions, streteches out the same memes, we've seen on the Web regarding Bush and 9/11: Why did he sit there in that school another almost seven minutes after hearing that the second tower had been hit? The implication was that he could have done something. But how often do we hear anyone ask -- certainly Moore does not -- what he would have done? What if he had popped up in a panic and ran off? How would that have looked on TV to a nation and a world in such a moment of disorder? Is there some order he could have given in those minutes that the vast federal power structure could not -- and, in fact, was not better equipped to handle than Bush? And if you think Bush is such a frigging idiot, isn't it better that he sat there? The question keeps getting asked. The ellipsis carries the message. But that's no answer.
He goes after Bush ties to the Saudis again and again but never enumerates the Saudi sins. They're there. It wouldn't be hard. It would be helpful. Why not? Just laziness? Or is it easier to end with another ellipsis? Conspiracies are spiced with silence.
We know that Moore opposed even the war in Afghanistan but here he doesn't say that. Here he says we didn't bring enough force to Afghanistan and thereby gave bin Laden "a two-month headstart." Moore doesn't say that Bush, with his family ties to bin Laden's family, wanted that to happen. But the ellipsis whispers it.
He ridicules the terror threats and alerts, showing goofy stories about poison pens and model airplanes and goofier guys from the canned-bean crowd showing off their terror shelters. He gets a congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott, to downright say that the alerts are all engineered to keep us on edge. The implication is -- the sllipsis says -- that we're not in danger. I watch this scant blocks from where almost 3,000 Americans were killed that day. Oh, yes, Moore, we are in danger.
But Moore wants to pooh-pooh the danger and make it into a conspiracy: "Was this really about our safety or..." [pregnant ellipsis] "...something else?" He adds (and I can't read one word of my scribbled transcription): "The terrorism threat wasn't waht this was all about. They just wanted us to be fearful enough to get behind their plan."
Of course, it was all about Iraq.... Wasn't it?...
: If you don't believe that, well, says Moore, you're an idiot. You're Britney Spears, shown in all her ditziness saying, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our President." There's your spokesman for the other side: Britney.
Or you're a bloodthirsty American goon, which is how Moore portrays soldiers who rush into battle hopped up on rock 'n' roll. He spares us the obvious napalm, morning, smell thing.
In Moore's view, you're either with him or against him. Hmmm, who else looks at the world that way?
Yup, Moore is just he mirror image of what he despises. He is the O'Reilly... the Bush of the left.
: After leaving the theater and walking by the black man now shaking his head at what Moore had wrought and the people with bring-down-Bush clipboards, I made my way back to New Jersey through the PATH train at the World Trade Center where, most of you know, I was on 9/11. And now I was shaking my head. Michael Moore did not present bin Laden and the terrorists and religious fanatics (from other lands) as the enemy who did this. No, to him, our enemy is within. To him, our enemy is us. And that's worse than stupid and sad and it's most certainly not entertaining. It's disgusting.
: Later, I read Christopher Hitchens' wonderful fisking of the film.
And then I read A.O. Scott's mealy-mouthed review in The Times. He points out that the movie is full of crap in many ways: "...blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery..." Hey, blurb that!
"[Fahrenheit 9/11] is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. "
But then Scott lets Moore off the hook -- and himself off the hook with that audience that applauded the flick in the East Village, which is Times Country, too -- with this: "He is a credit to the republic."
I guess he'd say the same thing of Rush Limbaugh, then.
Scott keeps going. On the one hand:
"After you leave the theater, some questions are likely to linger about Mr. Moore's views on the war in Afghanistan, about whether he thinks the homeland security program has been too intrusive or not intrusive enough, and about how he thinks the government should have responded to the murderous jihadists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11."
Right. But on the other hand:
"At the same time, though, it may be that the confusions trailing Mr. Moore's narrative are what make "Fahrenheit 9/11" an authentic and indispensable document of its time. The film can be seen as an effort to wrest clarity from shock, anger and dismay, and if parts of it seem rash, overstated or muddled, well, so has the national mood."
Crap. It is not creditworthy only to attack and call that discussion and democracy; to insult our intelligence with half, quarter, and untruths; to stifle debate with polemic rather than provoke debate with facts; to mock the people he exploits on film; to gloss over his own outrageous opinions for the sake of convenience; to turn his guns on his own people, letting those who attacked us off as free as birds.
No, this is no more good democracy than it is good filmmaking.
Watching Michael Moore
: As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East Village of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already sold out all night, surely even here they wouldn't fall for all his obvious, visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the cheapest tin-horn demagog.
Take this scene: Moore shows dead American soldiers in Iraq, many of them, the more blood the better. Then hed says we need to replace them and he asks where they'll come from. He takes us to his favorite man-of-the-people populist playground, Flint, MI, and says that we'll find soldiers "in the places that had been destroyed by the economy." He focuses on poor black men as Bush's next victims -- not even acknowledging that virtually every soldier he has just shown -- and ridiculed -- in the film is white. It's all so convenient: anti-war-pro-poor-multi-culti-heartland. The rhetoric is as obvious as the gut on the guy.
But as I leave, I hear an older woman behind me, with a voice as loud at New York traffic, saying to someone who's passing her on the escalator, obviously a stranger: "Don't you sign up, now! Don't you join!" I turn around. She's saying this to a black man, just because he's black: After all, Michael Moore said those people are all conservative cannon fodder, didn't he? The man and the woman with him are polite enough to wait until they're out the door before they laugh and then sadly shake their heads.
Hoo boy.
: One of the many things I've learned from blogging confrere Jay Rosen is that you have to stand back and investigate the assumptions that underly a media enterprise.
Moore's assumption is venality. He assumes that President Bush and his confreres are venal, that their motives are black, that they are out to do no good, only bad, and that the only choices they make in life are between greed and power.
That's inevitably a bad analysis. It's the exact same analysis Bill Clinton's enemies made of him. If they were wrong about Clinton, well then, Michael Moore is wrong about Bush. Life is never that simple, never that obvious, unless you're a propagandist or one who believes propaganda. I especially can't buy that analysis when we are a under attack as a nation, when we need to decide who the "us" and "them" are. The war on us as well as the dialogue among my confreres here online has made me question that assumption of venality in American politics.
Oh, you can argue Bush is incompetent; sometimes I do wonder. You can disagree with his policies; I disagree with many. You can question his intelligence; jury's out still. I didn't vote for Bush the last time and don't plan to this time. But I don't buy Moore's Bush. To say that he's the dark force of the universe only leads to simple-minded over-generalizations and bilious caricatures.
Like Fahrenheit 9/11.
: The real problem with the film, the really offensive thing about it, is that in Fahrenheit 9/11, we -- Americans from the President on down -- are portrayed at the bad guys. If there's something wrong about bin Laden it's that his estranged family has ties with -- cue the uh-oh music -- the Bush family. Saddam? Nothing wrong with him. No mention of torture and terror and tyranny. Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it's a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, "Why did yo have to take him?" Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, "insurgents") in Iraq or killed him -- or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier's father says the young man died and "for what?", Moore doesn't show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.
He doesn't try, not for one second, to have a discussion, to show the other side -- and then cut that other side down to size with facts and figures and the slightest effort at argument. No, he just shows the one side. And that, really, is a tragedy. It would be good if we had a discussion. It would be good to have a movie that made us think and reconsider and talk.
But polemics don't do that. They're only made of two-by-fours.
: The cheap tricks keep on coming, mostly in what is not said. At the start of the movie, Moore fuzzes the video of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, et al to make it look as if it were recovered World War II film from Hitler's Berchtesgaden: the bad guys in happier days. The trick is unintentionally appropriate: He's trying to say that these guys are Nazis but he's also using the Nazi propaganda motif to say it.
He asks the same questions, streteches out the same memes, we've seen on the Web regarding Bush and 9/11: Why did he sit there in that school another almost seven minutes after hearing that the second tower had been hit? The implication was that he could have done something. But how often do we hear anyone ask -- certainly Moore does not -- what he would have done? What if he had popped up in a panic and ran off? How would that have looked on TV to a nation and a world in such a moment of disorder? Is there some order he could have given in those minutes that the vast federal power structure could not -- and, in fact, was not better equipped to handle than Bush? And if you think Bush is such a frigging idiot, isn't it better that he sat there? The question keeps getting asked. The ellipsis carries the message. But that's no answer.
He goes after Bush ties to the Saudis again and again but never enumerates the Saudi sins. They're there. It wouldn't be hard. It would be helpful. Why not? Just laziness? Or is it easier to end with another ellipsis? Conspiracies are spiced with silence.
We know that Moore opposed even the war in Afghanistan but here he doesn't say that. Here he says we didn't bring enough force to Afghanistan and thereby gave bin Laden "a two-month headstart." Moore doesn't say that Bush, with his family ties to bin Laden's family, wanted that to happen. But the ellipsis whispers it.
He ridicules the terror threats and alerts, showing goofy stories about poison pens and model airplanes and goofier guys from the canned-bean crowd showing off their terror shelters. He gets a congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott, to downright say that the alerts are all engineered to keep us on edge. The implication is -- the sllipsis says -- that we're not in danger. I watch this scant blocks from where almost 3,000 Americans were killed that day. Oh, yes, Moore, we are in danger.
But Moore wants to pooh-pooh the danger and make it into a conspiracy: "Was this really about our safety or..." [pregnant ellipsis] "...something else?" He adds (and I can't read one word of my scribbled transcription): "The terrorism threat wasn't waht this was all about. They just wanted us to be fearful enough to get behind their plan."
Of course, it was all about Iraq.... Wasn't it?...
: If you don't believe that, well, says Moore, you're an idiot. You're Britney Spears, shown in all her ditziness saying, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our President." There's your spokesman for the other side: Britney.
Or you're a bloodthirsty American goon, which is how Moore portrays soldiers who rush into battle hopped up on rock 'n' roll. He spares us the obvious napalm, morning, smell thing.
In Moore's view, you're either with him or against him. Hmmm, who else looks at the world that way?
Yup, Moore is just he mirror image of what he despises. He is the O'Reilly... the Bush of the left.
: After leaving the theater and walking by the black man now shaking his head at what Moore had wrought and the people with bring-down-Bush clipboards, I made my way back to New Jersey through the PATH train at the World Trade Center where, most of you know, I was on 9/11. And now I was shaking my head. Michael Moore did not present bin Laden and the terrorists and religious fanatics (from other lands) as the enemy who did this. No, to him, our enemy is within. To him, our enemy is us. And that's worse than stupid and sad and it's most certainly not entertaining. It's disgusting.
: Later, I read Christopher Hitchens' wonderful fisking of the film.
And then I read A.O. Scott's mealy-mouthed review in The Times. He points out that the movie is full of crap in many ways: "...blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery..." Hey, blurb that!
"[Fahrenheit 9/11] is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. "
But then Scott lets Moore off the hook -- and himself off the hook with that audience that applauded the flick in the East Village, which is Times Country, too -- with this: "He is a credit to the republic."
I guess he'd say the same thing of Rush Limbaugh, then.
Scott keeps going. On the one hand:
"After you leave the theater, some questions are likely to linger about Mr. Moore's views on the war in Afghanistan, about whether he thinks the homeland security program has been too intrusive or not intrusive enough, and about how he thinks the government should have responded to the murderous jihadists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11."
Right. But on the other hand:
"At the same time, though, it may be that the confusions trailing Mr. Moore's narrative are what make "Fahrenheit 9/11" an authentic and indispensable document of its time. The film can be seen as an effort to wrest clarity from shock, anger and dismay, and if parts of it seem rash, overstated or muddled, well, so has the national mood."
Crap. It is not creditworthy only to attack and call that discussion and democracy; to insult our intelligence with half, quarter, and untruths; to stifle debate with polemic rather than provoke debate with facts; to mock the people he exploits on film; to gloss over his own outrageous opinions for the sake of convenience; to turn his guns on his own people, letting those who attacked us off as free as birds.
No, this is no more good democracy than it is good filmmaking.
reggieandTFE
Member
Moore's work (excepting Roger and Me) is nothing special when compared to mostacademic work, but the reactions he brings about from the idiot neo-cons (as in this thread) are priceless.
OMG< HE"S FAT< HE HATES AMERICA< SADDAM HAD WMDS"S LIBRULS HIDED THEM< FAGS NOT MARRY< RUSH NEEDS THREEE DIVERCES
OMG< HE"S FAT< HE HATES AMERICA< SADDAM HAD WMDS"S LIBRULS HIDED THEM< FAGS NOT MARRY< RUSH NEEDS THREEE DIVERCES
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/forecast/
Brandon Gray's predictions :O
1 Fahrenheit 9/11 20.8M
2 White Chicks 18.7M
3 Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story 17.1M
4 The Terminal 11.9M
5 The Notebook 11.5M
4 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 10.4M
Brandon Gray's predictions :O
1 Fahrenheit 9/11 20.8M
2 White Chicks 18.7M
3 Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story 17.1M
4 The Terminal 11.9M
5 The Notebook 11.5M
4 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 10.4M
deadhorse32
Bad Art
FnordChan said:
Yeah i don't know why people think documentary should not be biased. It's not a news report people.
I just mean in general. I wasn't even aware of it being used by anyone in this thread, all I saw was the photoshop and " The rhetoric is as obvious as the gut on the guy. from the buzzmedia criticism.Wolfy said:
It just seems to be a common theme. But that is besides the point. I am not saying it should be off limits, for humor or otherwise, but that if one wishes a criticism to be taken seriously then they need to take a breath and consider not using a love handle analogy.
Considering there are only 365 days in a year, strictly numerically speaking you have a 1 in 365 chance of having the same birthday as any random person... which is rather high. Of course there are other factors like people being more likely to be born 9 months from Valentine's Day, but still...
As for the actual topic at hand... I'll go see it, if only to know what the film actually is, instead of making blind conjecture.
As for the actual topic at hand... I'll go see it, if only to know what the film actually is, instead of making blind conjecture.
mjq jazz bar
Banned
It's the fact that it shows real gore.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I saw Bowling for Columbine with the intent to like it.
The movie just annoyed me. Pretty much placing blame for Columbine on Charlton Heston (Who I think comes off well in the film by not shooting Moore) and Lockhead Martin.
The guy is too biased, i'm all for bashing the bush administration, but there were no conflicting views in Bowling for Columbine, i'm sure there aren't in this new one. The guy is as big an idiot as bush is, just on the other side.
Man, I wish this guy hadn't written and directed Canadian Bacon so I could just write him off as a horrid film maker all together.
The movie just annoyed me. Pretty much placing blame for Columbine on Charlton Heston (Who I think comes off well in the film by not shooting Moore) and Lockhead Martin.
The guy is too biased, i'm all for bashing the bush administration, but there were no conflicting views in Bowling for Columbine, i'm sure there aren't in this new one. The guy is as big an idiot as bush is, just on the other side.
Man, I wish this guy hadn't written and directed Canadian Bacon so I could just write him off as a horrid film maker all together.
Mercury Fred
Banned
DrForester said:
Um, no. As has already been stated in this thread, Moore is under no obligation whatsoever to present conflicting views. This is not the press. This is a movie. Please read the Ebert review linked above that adresses this issue and includes a very lucid critique of Columbine.
To those who claim Moore is the O'Reilly/Rush/Hannity of the Left:
I agree. Not only do I agree, but I think it is NECESSARY. Checks n balances, n whatnot. If someone isn't out there fulfillling that role, then we'd have AN UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED system. You Faux News proponents don't want THAT, do you?
I agree. Not only do I agree, but I think it is NECESSARY. Checks n balances, n whatnot. If someone isn't out there fulfillling that role, then we'd have AN UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED system. You Faux News proponents don't want THAT, do you?
videogamer
Banned
Raoul Duke said:
It's kind of hard to beat Rush imho.
True, Hito. I much prefer Franken to Moore, but Franken didn't put the movie out there for me to watch in addition to the book. So Moore is who I have to talk about. And although two wrongs don't make a right, it's funny to watch the conservatives get so worked up about someone who is essentially using the same tactics as their favored sons to accomplish his goals. Would you neocons like some crow with that?
people aren't going to watch more documentaries because they are historically and sometimes critically boring. Generally, unless on is a fan of the genre, one will only view documentaries that cover a source material of a serious interest to them. But that is a whole other topic.GG-Duo said:
You are right, documentaries are an art form, and like any other art form (any art with merit) the artist is making a statement, their art is often a depiction of the world viewed through their particular lense. Thats what art is about, telling stories, making arguments, being persuasive, being unapalogetic.
A documentary can never be a truly unbiased document (unless it is some bizarre documentary of an event that is shorter than the length of the movie). You cannot fit hundreds of hours of footage, documents, interviews, etc into a two hour movie. That is what learning for yourself is for, that is what being scholarly and studying is for.
Moore's style of documentary is not new, in fact, the "cinima verite" style of documentaries did not begin to emerge until the late 60's. While this style stresses "unbiased realism", you will still be hard pressed to discover a truly unbiased document as someone decides what information should be included in the final cut, what gets left out, what music will play if any how close the frame is cropped, film or digital etc.
Classic, classic examples of the genre take stances- For instance the "Titicut Follies" a documentary that is banned (yes banned 1967-1992) in America. It follows the lives of mental "health" asylum patients and their doctors treating them. One scene involves footage of a patient being force-fed through a tube, while being spliced and jumping back and fourth to the embalming of that same patient later after their death. The two events obviously did not coincide. Though they were every bit factual. Whether or not you agree with his point is still entirely up to you.
I caught a midnight show. The movie is actually pretty sympathetic towards Bush early on. He comes off as a guy who got in over his head with the wrong people helping him.
I think this movie could catch on with the average person and word of mouth. It's pretty even handed, it doesn't really come of as a "liberal" rant. And regardless of your political affiliation, it certainly raises questions. It could be very interesting if this is able to get on enough screens so that people can actually see it.
re: Togo's post. How the hell is money protected speech, yet a film is restricted?
I think this movie could catch on with the average person and word of mouth. It's pretty even handed, it doesn't really come of as a "liberal" rant. And regardless of your political affiliation, it certainly raises questions. It could be very interesting if this is able to get on enough screens so that people can actually see it.
re: Togo's post. How the hell is money protected speech, yet a film is restricted?
just got back from a midnight showing
it's good, the film that everyone basically everyone everywhere should see to recap some important events of the last 4 years, and it certainly proves once again that yes, michael moore loves america and also people. the big difference between this film and his earlier films is that this film is passionate, really truly passionate, where his other films were more critical. it also very heavily reflects the current polarisation of american politics whereas his earlier films were more revealing of the human condition.
there's a lot that should be said about this film. i'll see if i can organize some thoughts tomorrow.
it's good, the film that everyone basically everyone everywhere should see to recap some important events of the last 4 years, and it certainly proves once again that yes, michael moore loves america and also people. the big difference between this film and his earlier films is that this film is passionate, really truly passionate, where his other films were more critical. it also very heavily reflects the current polarisation of american politics whereas his earlier films were more revealing of the human condition.
there's a lot that should be said about this film. i'll see if i can organize some thoughts tomorrow.
- Status