Fahrenheit 911

[PrincessFiona]

We saw it yesterday. It was pretty good...definitely worth watching. I'm not sure what political impact it will have, but it sure was a 'hot' item. The theater here was sold-out and they had extra personnel there because of how controversial it was....

kris

[mommax3]

Of course it isn't coming to my backwoods town. I probably would have just rented it anyway.

I have always enjoyed Michael Moore (ever since Roger and Me) because I appreciate his sense of humor.....probably because we are from the same region of the country.

However, I have been disenchanted of late by the inconsistencies that have been revealed at some of the anti-Michael Moore websites. They have their own agendas, I know, but when a movie is advertised as a documentary, I expect sort of a bias-neutral attitude on the part of the movie-maker. Maybe that is naive. But it seems that many of the scenes in "Bowling for Columbine" (for example) were manipulated for maximum shock value, always to the detriment of the conservative point of view, and I was very disappointed by that when I realized it. Also, in "Bowling for Columbine", he hounds Charleton Heston about his NRA presidency and his support of the gun lobby. The poor guy comes off as vague and pretty much an idiot.....it was later announced that he had Alzheimer's disease, and I thought it was really poor form that Moore left that footage in the film, without even a voice-over explanation that could have been added when Heston's conditon became known.

This latest film (like all of his others) is a political ad.....the man has a definite axe to grind against President Bush, and he has the freedom to say what he wants, but I wish he had the honesty to admit it is propaganda and not (as he says) the "real" truth that is somehow being kept from the American people.

I realize that I am veering into the political arena here, so I will stop (and in the Movie forum, too.....who'd a thunk it? ) but I really have been disappointed in the past few months as I have found out about the inconsistencies (and in some cases, lies) that he included in "Bowling for Columbine". I really felt duped and now I am bitter!

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

Both sides have their agendas...too bad the whole truth is never really told by either side. At the end of the day though I think it is worth seeing. I have a tough time with Michael Moore and always have...his books are interesting but he goes overboard with everything to the point that it turns me off. Everyone who sees the film has to be aware of his extreme liberal slant...

[Sheherezade]

Can't wait to see it but I too will probably wait for video as we are moving and will have no babysitters for some time. I like him as a social commentary comedian--but he is WAY over the top on so much. I do have to say -in his defense- that in our local paper interview they quote him as saying the film is not a documentary. He call it Op-Ed theatre. In this interview it is clear he has an agenda other than "truth". I have to give him credit for admitting that. Interestingly, the BBC news had a completely different take on his movie being "blocked" by Disney. The BBC report made it out to be a clear marketing scam arranged long ago before the content of the film was done. Another dose of cynicism for me .

Angie

[Rapunzel]

Michael Moore is a propagandist - and very good at it, too (just witness the number of people he has believing his propaganda). I think that one day his work will be studied by historians to determine how masses of people can be fed manipulated information and allow it to become "fact" - for that reason I might watch it someday with my children (to point out how propagandists deliberately manipulate reality to forward a political agenda). Regarding the rather prolific Moore, I don't think we've seen propaganda on such a grand scale since Germany during World War II so it's definitely worth sitting up and taking note.

I won't see this particular piece right now because I've seen enough of Michael Moore's work to know that it is not to be taken as serious "documentary" but, rather, manipulation of images and words in order to further a political agenda. And, why would I want to subject myself to lies regarding very serious current issues? So, I'll leave watching it in full for another time when his twisting of the truth does not have a direct impact upon me and the society in which I live.

Will it affect the election? Of course! That's the point of propaganda. (
BTW I read that a certain nation with a known homicidal hatred of the United States is REALLY eating Moore's stuff up. It's a good lesson in the impact of propaganda).

Jennifer

[migirl]

Well I don't know that I'm going to be as vitriolic as others, but we saw this last night and thought it gave some interesting food for thought. It's vintage Michael Moore, in that he obviously has an agenda and his opinions definitely influence the structure and message of the movie. I just think you have to keep this in mind while watching it. Even knowing this going in, I was somewhat disappointed afterward because I felt that he could have made a much more powerful film if he would have kept his personal agenda out of it. Sometimes he just goes way overboard. I do think he brought up some interesting points and thought-provoking ideas (e.g., the idea that our military is increasingly being made up of our country's poor and underprivileged who may not have the means that more affluent individuals have to pay for college, get job training, etc.). Again, I think you have to keep in mind that this is Michael Moore's opinion (which he has stated in numerous interviews) of the events of the last four years. Of course, I do consider myself to be a pretty staunch Democrat which may have influenced my opinion of it.

[PrincessFiona]

I'm glad that I saw it....I think that there were also many valid points made and that even though his opinion was sometimes blatantly obvious...it is possible to pick the facts from the feelings. He made many very valid points that warrant though. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

btw...we can't turn on the tv anymore without hearing propaganda from the left and the right. I don't even watch the news anymore (cnn or fox)...It will be interesting to see how history judges this time.

All in all, I thought it was a good movie and I generally speaking think that Moore goes over the top. I'm a liberal democrat and I can't get through his books. He is like the Ann Coulter of the left.

kris

It's not coming to my backwoods town either, so I'll have to wait for DVD if I want to see it.

I liked Michael Moore a lot better in his 'Roger and Me' days when his ego was a little smaller and his motives a little purer, maybe... I got about halfway through one of his last books and threw it across the room (which is unlike me--I throw lots of things, but rarely books) He's gotten as pompous and overbearing as all the screaming heads on the far right, which is too bad as he's still got some thought-provoking things to say.

I'm extremely ticked at him for appropriating the title from Ray Bradbury without his permission. I know that names cannot be copywrited, but it's the spirit of the thing. Mr. Bradbury is an amazing and well-loved author, and he deserves more respect--especially since Mr. Moore borrowed the substantial concept of his book ('the temperature at which freedom burns') as well as the title. Mr. Moore is a little full of himself these days.

[Auspicious]

We saw it on Saturday and spent the rest of the weekend dissecting it, so I'd say it definitley provided food for thought. I found it to be well worth seeing and I'd definitely recommend it, even though I had a list of problems with it.

I thought Roger Ebert's essay on the topic was spot-on:

'9/11': Just the facts?

June 18, 2004

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC

A reader writes:

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.

Who knew? This DID come to the little theatre in my little hick town of Arkansas, so I felt it was my duty to see it, as it means that dissent is still allowed here in the old US of A. (Although I do half expect the FBI to turn up on my doorstep in the near future because I went to see it--an effective use of their time, to be sure.) I found it sober and thought-provoking, and it reminded me of some things that have been bothering me, such as the fact that we send the children of the poor to fight rich men's wars. Moore's style this time around was mostly to let clips and interviews speak for themselves, with little of his trademark obnoxious stunts, which I appreciated indeed. What is going on in the world is deadly serious.

And, call me crazy, but I wish just once that certain people would actually SEE the film in question before calling it "full of lies" and the greatest propaganda film since Leni Riefenstahl. What's wrong with saying "This doesn't fit my beliefs, and therefore I won't be seeing it" which is what I said about "The Passion of the Christ". Why must some people attack everything that doesn't fall into the scope of their narrow little world?

[Meenah]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but plan to. For me it will be preaching to the choir, because I don't think anything can make me hate the current administration more than I already do
Luanne

I like your career choice, Alison!

Regarding a draft, my brother (our man in DC) sent me a draft of House Bill 163, the Universal National Service Act"

"A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

I think this has been around since 2003, but you know how progress and congress are contradictions in terms... It's a great idea...IF it actually works like they're proposing. I'd love for the rich kids to have to do something to help out humanity, and I'd be happy for my kids to be a part of it--should I ever have any.

I've steered away from this movie intentionally.

I don't know if i'll ever see it.

I don't agree with calling his movies documentaries, and I don't want to give him any of my $$.

I don't agree with calling his movies documentaries, and I don't want to give him any of my $$.

That is certainly your right. And I would like to thank you for disagreeing civilly and decently, without throwing slurs at those of us who liked it. It's a pleasure to have you here, and I wish some others would follow your example.

[fluffhead]

Just rented it last night. While entertaining, and certainly well done (loved the soundtrack - esp. "cocaine" playing in the background during the piece about him skipping his pilot's medical exam), I didn't find out much I didn't know already, and it certainly didn't make me dislike the man anymore than I already do, or think he's any less qualified to serve a second term.

I hope this isn't just a case of preaching to the choir - I mean how many W sympathizers are going to shell out the price of a movie to see this?