Are You Going To See Farenheit 9/11?

[David Meek]

Are you? I've been reading quite a bit about it, and still think I'll give it a shot - despite some of the very sensitive/disturbing scenes in it.

[aud19]

I'll likely wait for the DVD (just like nearly everything else :lol: ) but I do want to see it and plan to when it becomes available.

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts if they do go see it...

Jason

[Danbry39]

Without doubt, I'll be taking a trip to the theaters for this one. It's probably the most talked about film since Mel Gibson's. I'll see it next week, in all likelihood.

[glangston@socal]

Steal this Film

Moore has actually encouraged people to download the outlaw version. With that in mind I certainly wouldn't pay to see it when you can catch it after Shrek 2 or Dodgeball. His personna is just a little different than 60's protesters, more well fed and more cash. His intent was to un-elect Bush with this film so I doubt he will be concerned with the loss of some revenues.

Occasionally Moore will admit it is no documentary but a POV film, not unlike any propoganda film from WWII, from either side. Leni Riefenstahl could as easily be his idol as Frank Capra.

Roger Ebert defends and praises this film as he originally did with "Bowling for Columbine" He eventually found errors that led him to criticise "Bowling" and drew the ire of Moore. I guess we'll wait and see what tricks (if any) Moore used in this.

[victort]

The emperor has no cloth!

:T Oh yeeeah baby. Sometime I wonder how soon the American people will realize there is an elephant in the room?

With all apologies to all the elephants on the planet as they have nothing to do with the Republican Party.

[Gordon Moore]

Anywho, yup I plan to see it. I think other parts of the world have embraced the film. Will the States write it off as trickery or "anti- this and that" remains yet to be seen. Cannes loved this film. I understand it less of Moore in this one.

[Burke Strickland]

Well, enough people have gone to see it already in the US to make it the biggest grossing non-concert, non-IMAX documentary ever (if Sunday's box office estimates hold true), and it has been showing in fewer than 900 theaters, not the thousands that the "blockbusters" open in. It's average box office haul per theater was over $25,000, a very high figure.

According to the Associated Press:

Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” took in a whopping $21.8 million in its first three days, becoming the first documentary ever to debut as Hollywood’s top weekend film.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5310191/

[Chris D]

Well, I'll probably see this one sooner or later. Admittedly, I'm a conservative, so Moore's views have never lined up with my own. But I have problems with him and distributors at times calling this a "documentary", albeit not all the time. I think a documentary by nature is designed to tell the truth and the whole truth to some degree that's possible. For example, I would point to "Band of Brothers" that I just watched, which showed both the heroic and the demonic sides of troops in WWII. Moore's films tell only the side of the story that he wants you to see, to make his point. And he has blatantly stated that his point is to get President Bush voted out of office. Therefore he will only show events that he thinks will do that, and deliberately not show anything he thinks supports the President, American military, or Republican political party.

So I think Moore can be labeled a "storyteller" and "filmaker", and I support his right and ability to do so. As an American soldier, I want to protect his ability to do that. But to have his work labeled "truth" or a "documentary", I think is inaccurate. I have no doubt that some or even most of the story he tells is true. But with the deliberate exclusion of an entire half of the story, there's just more to it.

[Dr C]

Hi Chris - am watching Band of Brothers halfway thru at this time. gotta agree with you that it's a well balanced series of episodes thus far (just finished part 7 - Breaking Point).

I too have problems with people who tout films as "true stories" and take unbelievable doses of artistic licence. To brand a film a documentary while being 1 sided is a more extreme take on this.

Still ... I'll have to watch this to see for myself what the hoo ha is all about.

[aarsoe]

Was offered a chance to a pre-view of the movie this afternoon (havent been released here yet) in a theater and I was unsure what to expect due to all the press coveridge over this movie.
First of all, I have seen some of MM's other movies and even if I found them very biased I liked them for what they where - black and white desciptions of today's world.

However not so with this one. Why?

Well, I think most people, even sworn republicans, will all agree that George W is not the brigthest president to reside in the white house, and that he certainly does not do anything to hide that fact/or if he is doing it, then he is doing one hell of a bad job.
But slamming him and making him look so stupid as Moore is doing is to much.
The point is not that I feel sorry (in lack of better words) for George W, its just that it is so one sided that I think most people will not chance their minds based on this movie. People that like George W, will say MM is just making propaganda and people that dont like him will say he IS an idiot..

This could have been done so much better if people had been given a chance to make up their own mind.. especially since Moore some times seems to be hitting on something solid.

So what is the movie about? Dont really know - it leaves more open questions then it answers.

It starts of with claiming the election was a fraud.
Then it shows Bush as being a president that did not take the office serious and spent 42% of his time on vacation until 9/11.

Then 9/11 is briefly covered with accusations on the Bush familly making money and helping the BL familly, and the rest of the time MM uses to cover the un-justified war on Iraq and how Bush is appointing his friends in administration (have not all people in power done this since the Roman empire???)

I can help feeling that this movie have failed what Moore tried to achive, it feels like sour grapes and certainly not something that will make you change your mind - or even entertain.

However, there is one point where Moore is hitting the spot and that is the describtion of the grief the relatives have over loosing a son or a doughter in Iraq - this goes both for Americans and Iraqies.. That was heartbreaking..

So overall rating from my point of view? :loser:

[Lex]

A comment like this is precisely why I wouldnt' have posted about this documentary/propagandist's movie: (depending on your take)

With all apologies to all the elephants on the planet as they have nothing to do with the Republican Party.

One more comment like that, I will delete this thread without so much as a trace as this is not supposed to be a place for political topics, it's in the rules.

That means Democrats aren't supposed to talk about Republican candidates, and it also means the opposite. Republicans and Dem candicates.

Is this film fact or fiction? It doesn't matter to me, it's not really a movie, and it's not home theater.

Lex

[George Bellefontaine]

... definitely not home theater and will never be shown in mine.

[Burke Strickland]

Since "Fahrenheit 9/11" is slated to be released on DVD in October 2004, although we now know of at least two home theaters where it likely will never be shown, it will be a "home theater" event a lot of other places this year.

For something that is "not really a movie", it has done very well at the box office in all regions of the US (over $100,000,000 so far). Roger Ebert gave this film three and a half stars, saying " 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is a compelling, persuasive film..." (I'm leaving out any comments from his review that might be construed as "political", even though the subject matter of the film is undeniably political.) So in the eyes of a respected critic, it is not perfect, but still has merit as movie-making. Perhaps we should all view it and decide for ourselves.


Burke

PS -- so far, the discussion about this film seems to have been a lot less "political" than a certain joke about a fictional postage stamp posted a few weeks ago. :>)

[David Meek]

:B :B

[George Bellefontaine]

My reason for not wanting to waste my time watching Farenheit 9/11 has nothing to do with the political content. I just don't like the way Moore twists things to his point of view. A little editing can make anyone look bad, or good for that matter. But why do that ? In all my years in the publishing industry, the way to present things editorially was always in the SUBJECTIVE manner. Present the facts and let the reader, or in the case of Moore, viewer make up their own mind. End of rant.

[aud19]

Sorry George, not to say you personally did this as you seem to be a forthright person (from the little I know ya anyways :lol: ) but most modern publishing/media is far from subjective and is usually self-serving, one sided, sensationalistic crap meant to sell papers/get you to watch. Anything but portay an objective view of said situation but I digress...

I'll likely watch the "movie" at some point just out of interest but I'm smart enought to take it for what it is

Jason

[David Meek]

Okay, this is what I like to see. Pleasant conversation on a sensitive topic. I KNEW we could do it! :T

[aud19]

It is possible :B We just need a great forum (thanks Doug ) and mature members (the rest of you :T )

Jason

[George Bellefontaine]

Jason, this is not in anger. But honestly, I spent 49 years in the publishing industry and the papers I was involved with, and many I wasn't involved with were always subjective. Moore's films are like the tabloids, and I would never have anything to do with the tabloids.

Good discussion here, guys. :T

[aud19]

I'm sure they were. In the past I would agree that journalism was, most of the time, an honourable, objective profession. It seems however (IMO) that, in the past 10 or so years especially, that even previously professional, objective publications and TV news shows have become more and more sensationalistic and tabloid-like to compete. Similar to Moore's style unfortunately. I mean I have no doubt that there are facts represented in any and all of Moore's "movies" how they're represented and sensationalized is what I'm not fond of.

I think it's a trend in a lot of our society these days. Flash and style over substance. There was a day when the majority of media took their job of reporting objective facts to the public quite seriously and hopefully could make some money doing so. Nowadays, again IMO, the majority of media takes their job of making money very seriously and if they can be objective while doing it, great! If not... oh well we've got to keep the money machine rolling...

You can see the trend everywhere sadly. Music, Movies etc. You see the same trend when we have "musicians" ie: pop stars who make music to make money. If a song manages to be good, well they got lucky. True musicians make music because they believe in their art and want to share their unique view and expression with other people. If they can squeek out a living at the same time, great! They've got it made.

Woah George you got me rambling on! :lol: Anyways... thankfully there are still a few quality resources out there for all of those things, (media, music, movies etc). Hopefully we won't lose many anymore.

Jason

[Burke Strickland]

At least Moore tells us up front what his bias is, and even provides "footnotes" (references for his sources, some of which, like the Washington Times, do not even come close to sharing his "world view") so we can do further research if we want pursue the issues to form our own opinions from the evidence rather than accept his slanted view of it. Moore's "footnotes".

To me, saying up front "here's my bias and here's the way I see these events because of it" is a lot more honest than claiming to be "objective" or "fair and balanced" and then presenting a heavily skewed perspective of "the news", which as Jason points out, happens all too frequently these days (whatever the medium or the motive). As for Moore's use of editing and other techniques (such as the "guerilla interview"), that's part of his cinematic "artistry".

"Documentary" does NOT necessarily mean "objective". At a much further extreme than Moore's work, Leni Riefenstahl produced a documentary, "Triumph of the Will", which is studied today as a ground-breaking cinematic masterpiece even though it glorified the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. We can appreciate the film-making without agreeing with the content. I've watched "Triumph of the Will" and am amazed at how its stylistic elements have been recognizably copied in all kinds of more recent (and far less offensive) works such as National Geographic specials.

I also think if we accept someone else's vilification or praise of a work without any plans to witness it first hand, that is just another example of allowing someone else to skew our perception of the "facts". I think I'd rather hate the movie based on actually seeing it. :>)

Burke

[aud19]

Good points Burke :T I agree him informing us it's his own, skewed version (nevermind that I'd already figured that out on my own ) is more "honest" than we usually see and gives you some information on where you can start to form your own opinions from.

Like I said, I'll be watching it at some point just to see it but I know not to take it too seriously as "the Bush gospel according to Moore".

Jason

[George Bellefontaine]

Anyway, as Chris D so aptly put it, he would defend Moore's right to free speech. I agree because I dislike censorship in any form, but whatever agenda Mr. Moore has is of little interest to me and I chose to spend my money on something more entertaining.

[Shane Martin]

George,
Instead of me saying something stupid, let me say that you speak for me on this subject. We are in total agreement. Moore will NEVER ever see a dime from me.

[JOY DIVISION]

A friend watched this movie and he kind of like concluded Moore's film is so much suggesting that we should act like the French, I do not believe that hype about the Bin Laden's family being protected since they were connected with high politicians and he was trying to suggest that if these oil rich countries pull their money out of America we'd be in more danger. Whatever happened to the wealthiest Americans in the world that they could surpass the wealth of the whole Middle East. Micheal Moore wants you to feel scared and paranoid. He base his documentary on small towns and compare it to a big city, you gotta be kidding me on that!!! Mr. Moore would be an asset for a used car salesman because he tells you what you need to hear, editing the whole point just by giving you the positive of the negative.

Remember "Bowling for Columbine" I really felt sorry for those who got killed but stepping out of the main story, he had to go around the country and interviewed people that does not concern whatever happened that day in Columbine, like comparing Canada and Detroit that they don't lock their doors. I live in Manhattan Beach California and we don't lock our doors, he came to California but he showed How nasty South Central LA is and criticize the smog in LA, Please this had nothing to do about gun laws and Columbine. Riding on current issues and make profits from it is a little more pathetic.The only winners here is Hollywood since he increased their net worth. He shows you the bad side to get to his side. He thinks that we are not aware of what is happening and by proving his opinionated values by corrupting some folks longing for some cure to the daily grind. More of a sub elite-level tabloid reporting.

Never a day goes by that you would remember what happened in New York and soldiers getting killed everyday in Iraq ad all wars, We live in a strange time and as strange as it is, United States of America is the current world power and it will do anything to increase it's grip, We learned from the past How Empires and countries fell and I don't think we are going to make those again.

I would never see this guys film, get it! Mr Moore!! Wake up you're in America!! Be equal and get the facts from both side, not just you're side of the story.

[David Meek]

One of the interesting/surprising things about Moore is he is quite frank about his stance(s). I recently read an interview with him and to paraphrase his comments, nothing he puts in his films is erroneous - it did happen - and that's what he'll go after people about - saying that what he's showing isn't true.

BUT, and this is a big but, there are generally many other things that happened with regard to whatever event he's focusing on and he chose not to insert those pieces of information. He's giving you HIS slant on the story and he's quite clear about that. IMO, if you choose to view his work, you HAVE to keep that in mind or you'll wind up reacting to a partial view of things. Again, IMO, that's what he's going for - the emotional reaction that'll generate at best discussion, at worst arguments and anger, and ALWAYS pubilicity. And that will get more viewers in to see his work.

[Bob]

Personally, I wouldn't bother to go see the movie. Why? Because if my political bent was the same as Moore's I would probably beleive it and walk away angry and frustrated that we have such a evil government. If my political bent was the opposite of Moore's I would walk away angry and frustrated that he was manipulating peoples emotions with lies and half truths. Either way, I end up angry and frustrated. Which is why I don't pay attention to politics.
I have, however, worked on several documentries. Including working with Errol Morris, Haskell Wexler,and 60 Minutes, and have met Mr. Moore. One thing I know is absolute truth. I can follow anyone, and I mean anyone, with a DV camera for one day, asking questions. And the next day I can cut 3 films. One making the person appear to be so far to the right that the American Nazi party would start sending them liturature, and the FBI would wonder if maybe they should take a look at them. One making the person appear to be a thoughtful moderate. And one that makes the person out to be someone that thinks the US should become a socialist society and all animals should receive better treatment than children. If you have enough film of somebody you can cut and paste any kind of story you want. So, see the movie, have a good laugh, but don't take it seriously.

[David Meek]

Post deleted. That kind of rhetoric is exactly what this thread ISN'T about. Keep it cool people - JOYDIVISION, this is your one warning.

[JOY DIVISION]

I don't think that was such a rhetoric reply from me at all since I have not offended anyone in particular,readers might think it's a little right leaning but it was a form of free speech. Maybe this is not the proper forum to voice my concern but I apologized for whatever I have said about Micheal Moore of being too un-American. I as an American citizen should voice out my concern if another American is showing the shame of America by not getting his facts straightened out first, not the one-sided fact.

You know Moore even attended the Republican Convention in New York and you know what he got alot of "boos", that took alot of his nerve to show up there in the first place. He's stirring another controversy of some sort so he could sell more of his video come November. I bet you he's a hired "Dirty Tricks Department" consultant for the Democrats, just a conspiracy but he's looking more like it.

[David Meek]

JD, thanks for the considered reply. :T I'm not trying to regulate free speech, just keep things pleasant and non-confrontational.