Fahrenheit 9/11

[justaman]

Did no one else notice its omission from the oscar nominations??

Did it miss a deadline or is the Academy playing politics after his antics last time? It was a dang good documentary no matter what else.

[Crumb]

Michael Moore insisted that it not be in the documentary category, but instead be considered for best picture, so the academy snubbed him.

[Godless Dave]

It did get a People's Choice award, however.

[Shaguar]

My view from across the pond is this. if MM had toned down the hysterical tenor of the film it might have done better, as with Bowling for Columbine the stunts he used, Charlton Heston in BFC and standing outside the Saudi embassy in 9/11 did nothing to add to the whole picture.
I am a big fan of Moores but sometimes I think he believes his own publicity too much. In addition I have done (albeit a minimal amount) some reasearch on some of his "facts" because they were so mind boggling, some of them are just downright untrue and when he gets these wrong it just gives the Right a bat to bash him with

[THX1138]

I am a big fan of Moores but sometimes I think he believes his own publicity too much. In addition I have done (albeit a minimal amount) some reasearch on some of his "facts" because they were so mind boggling, some of them are just downright untrue and when he gets these wrong it just gives the Right a bat to bash him with
Exactly. Moore really does shoot himself in the foot. He may have a good case, but he botches up little facts, chronologies, etc. In the end, that makes him an easy target to discredit. While I am certainly against Bush & his cronies, I am no big fan of MM because I think he causes more harm than good.

J

[slimshady2357]

I am a big fan of Moores but sometimes I think he believes his own publicity too much. In addition I have done (albeit a minimal amount) some reasearch on some of his "facts" because they were so mind boggling, some of them are just downright untrue and when he gets these wrong it just gives the Right a bat to bash him with

Yes, that hits the nail on the head pretty well. I used to be a big fan of Moore's, I have two books and I've been to see both films. But by the time I had seem F-9-11, I was fairly disappointed in him. I still think he's right most of the time, and I agree with him on many issues, but he just bends the truth too much for me. I can't say I've ever seen an outright lie from him, but he certianly misleads people with his presentation. As Shaguar said, it just gives little things for the Right to call him on and allows them to ignore all the good points he made. It's a shame.

Still, I do find him to be a good entertainer and I liked both movies (though F-9-11 less than BFC) and I loved his TV shows, Awful Truth and TV Nation.

Adam

[Seven of Nine]

I don't care for how he traded on Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 by choosing the title he did for the film.


Of course, for all I know, I'm a member of that "right" of which everyone speaks here, just as I'm considered "leftist" at Christian Forums. I'm reminded of the chant to which soldiers drill in a Firesign Theatre album:

"You ain't got no friends on the right!
(You're Left!)
You ain't got no friends on the left!
(You're Right!)..."

I find this so confusing that I've become increasingly unwilling to either read or post on any political thread anywhere.

This rigid labeling of people seems to me to do nothing but halt all real communication, and Moore's propagandistic film has done nothing but contribute to this. :(

[slimshady2357]

I don't care for how he traded on Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 by choosing the title he did for the film.


Of course, for all I know, I'm a member of that "right" of which everyone speaks here, just as I'm considered "leftist" at Christian Forums. I'm reminded of the chant to which soldiers drill in a Firesign Theatre album:

[i]"You ain't got no friends on the right!
(You're Left!)
You ain't got no friends on the left!
(You're Right!)..."

I find this so confusing that I've become increasingly unwilling to either read or post on any political thread anywhere.

This rigid labeling of people seems to me to do nothing but halt all real communication, and Moore's propagandistic film has done nothing but contribute to this. :(

Hey, if there is a left and a right, there must be loads of room in the middle! :D I think that's where many people fall, somewhere in the middle. But I also think there are definitely people who are 'Right' and people who are 'Left'. I've seen very reasonable people become rabid fanatics when it comes to Politics, they would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing. They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'.

Adam

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE=Seven of Nine]I don't care for how he traded on Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 by choosing the title he did for the film.


Of course, for all I know, I'm a member of that "right" of which everyone speaks here, just as I'm considered "leftist" at Christian Forums. I'm reminded of the chant to which soldiers drill in a Firesign Theatre album:

"You ain't got no friends on the right!
(You're Left!)
You ain't got no friends on the left!
(You're Right!)..."

I find this so confusing that I've become increasingly unwilling to either read or post on any political thread anywhere.

This rigid labeling of people seems to me to do nothing but halt all real communication, and Moore's propagandistic film has done nothing but contribute to this. :(

Hey, if there is a left and a right, there must be loads of room in the middle! :D I think that's where many people fall, somewhere in the middle.

I actually managed to get a political thread going once in which people communicated, only to have the other admin insist that it be merged with a thread of the same topic in which a virtual bloodbath was occuring (a "debate" thread :eek:). Fortunately, the members taking part objected, but it was only one lone thread of a great many in which everyone demonized everyone else. :qsigh:

But I also think there are definitely people who are 'Right' and people who are 'Left'. I've seen very reasonable people become rabid fanatics when it comes to Politics, they would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing. They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'.

I'm with you there, Adam. :D
It's amazing how otherwise rational, likable people lose it when it comes to politics, and it's particularly bad on the internet, where I would most love some moderation in posting, if not in belief.
I've changed my mind many times because of taking part in reasoned discussions on all sorts of subjects, and when I haven't, I've learned a great deal more about what I don't believe, to paraphrase Dr. Richard Leakey.
I'd love to have more opportunities of this nature online...I get so few chances to discuss much of anything in my so-called 'real' life. :crazy:

[Darren]

Hey, if there is a left and a right, there must be loads of room in the middle! :D I think that's where many people fall, somewhere in the middle. But I also think there are definitely people who are 'Right' and people who are 'Left'. I've seen very reasonable people become rabid fanatics when it comes to Politics, they would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing. They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'.
Adam

Perhaps I'm misconstruing, so please forgive me if I am - but you seem to be putting forward the idea that to be politically 'right' or 'left' is to be necessarily unbalanced in some way. This argument presupposes that the correct way or answer to a given dispute is automatically some kind of compromise between two extremes, a 'middleground' or 'centre'. But, as certain people have pointed out, if this were valid and if, for example, one person were to assert that 3+3=6 and another were to assert that 3+3=8, then 3+3 would equal 7. So clearly the argument that disputes can and should necessarily be resolved by a compromise is false.
This applies to the right vs left debate as much as to any other, and applies to what I perceive as your implication that a 'centrist' political compromise is the obvious solution to the above debate.
I certainly don't agree that the desire for a planned and regulated redistributive economy (globally and locally) is a form of fanaticism. I do think that the moves towards a completely deregulated global 'free-market' economy are disastrously wrong on a number of counts and that there is a great deal of fanaticism shown by the proponents of this neo-liberalism. I also feel that Western 'centrist' politics (including the modern incarnation of the formerly Keynesian social democrats such as the British Labour Party) do not challenge this doctrine beyond a little cosmetic surgery and social damage limitation. I feel, in fact, that the 'centre' reveals far more fanatical adherence to dogma than does the 'left', generally speaking.

What I admire about Moore is that he does not pretend that he exists in a vacuum and that he isn't coming from a particular political stance. He makes his stance clear, which is a form of honesty rare in documentary and media productions. It seems to be the case that the supposed 'objectivity' of much of the media is in reality a ''right', or 'centre right' stance in disguise, and is based on what the editors of the Medialens website term the 'media bleat point', that is, the point at which something becomes true because the power brokers and their mass media mouthpeices repeat it often enough.
Also, although I can't speak for the criticisms of F 9/11, much of the criticism of BFC was bullshit from the 'right', esp. the NRA themselves.

[Seven of Nine]

Darren, I can find no mention of the necessity for "'centrist' political compromise" in Slimshady's post.
He appeared to me to be speaking of the sort of extremists who make statements such as, "President Bush is more evil than Hitler and everyone who voted for him is a moron." and, "Doctors who perform abortions are murderers who should be shot down like dogs, and everyone who does so should be given a medal."
We can certainly hold liberal or conservative stances without resorting to the demonization of those who disagree with us.

Also, although I can't speak for the criticisms of F 9/11, much of the criticism of BFC was bullshit from the 'right', esp. the NRA themselves.

I'm unsure of what you're referring to here, Darren. I haven't seen 'BFC', and have no idea what comments the NRA made regarding it. Could someone fill me in, please?
Shaguar made the following comment:

...if MM had toned down the hysterical tenor of the film it might have done better, as with Bowling for Columbine the stunts he used, Charlton Heston in BFC and standing outside the Saudi embassy in 9/11 did nothing to add to the whole picture.
<snip>

Is this what the NRA commented on, and what was MM's point in doing this?

What I admire about Moore is that he does not pretend that he exists in a vacuum and that he isn't coming from a particular political stance. He makes his stance clear...

Yes, he certainly does: the film's title alone makes his viewpoint crystal clear from the outset.

[Clutch Munny]

This rigid labeling of people seems to me to do nothing but halt all real communication, and Moore's propagandistic film has done nothing but contribute to this. :(

Been a while since I saw it, but I don't recall Moore even mentioning the "right" or the "left" in American politics. If he does, it is by no means an organizing principle of the film.

So I don't quite see why you'd say this.

[Seven of Nine]

This rigid labeling of people seems to me to do nothing but halt all real communication, and Moore's propagandistic film has done nothing but contribute to this. :(

Been a while since I saw it, but I don't recall Moore even mentioning the "right" or the "left" in American politics. If he does, it is by no means an organizing principle of the film.

So I don't quite see why you'd say this.

It's been a while for me, too. I would have to do some research in order to give specific examples of Mr. Moore's disregard for some basic facts in order to characterize President Bush (who is, I think we all agree, is mighty conservative) as a lazy, indecisive bungler, but I was particularly struck by the cropping of a clip of Bush at Camp David, in order to depict him as goofing off when, in reality, he was conferring with a foreign head of state at the time.

[slimshady2357]

Perhaps I'm misconstruing, so please forgive me if I amYou are forgiven. :)
- but you seem to be putting forward the idea that to be politically 'right' or 'left' is to be necessarily unbalanced in some way.Not at all, I'm sorry that it seems so to you. What you call right and left could very well be quite different than what I call right and left. I thought I was clear that I was calling people that "would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing" left and right. If you fall into that category, then, yes, I think you are unbalanced in some way. Nothing in your post would suggest that you do, however.
This argument presupposes that the correct way or answer to a given dispute is automatically some kind of compromise between two extremes, a 'middleground' or 'centre'. But, as certain people have pointed out, if this were valid and if, for example, one person were to assert that 3+3=6 and another were to assert that 3+3=8, then 3+3 would equal 7. So clearly the argument that disputes can and should necessarily be resolved by a compromise is false.Certainly, I never made any such claim. Nor would I be likely to.
This applies to the right vs left debate as much as to any other, and applies to what I perceive as your implication that a 'centrist' political compromise is the obvious solution to the above debate.
Well, I was implying no such thing, I hope that's clear now. If you re-read my post with that in mind, I hope you can see that I was implying an honest look at the issues is what makes sense, not simply towing the party line, regardless of the issues.
I certainly don't agree that the desire for a planned and regulated redistributive economy (globally and locally) is a form of fanaticism. I do think that the moves towards a completely deregulated global 'free-market' economy are disastrously wrong on a number of counts and that there is a great deal of fanaticism shown by the proponents of this neo-liberalism. I also feel that Western 'centrist' politics (including the modern incarnation of the formerly Keynesian social democrats such as the British Labour Party) do not challenge this doctrine beyond a little cosmetic surgery and social damage limitation. I feel, in fact, that the 'centre' reveals far more fanatical adherence to dogma than does the 'left', generally speaking.Ok. Would you simply agree with and support anything the liberal (or conservative) media or politicians put forth, regardless of what it might be? If not, then I wouldn't label you at all, neither Right, nor Left nor anything else. If you choose to label yourself a leftist, or left I would be aware you are likely using it differently than me. Again, I thought I've seen very reasonable people become rabid fanatics when it comes to Politics, they would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing. They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'.was fairly clear.
Anyway, no harm done :)

Adam

[Darren]

Darren, I can find no mention of the necessity for "'centrist' political compromise" in Slimshady's post.
He appeared to me to be speaking of the sort of extremists who make statements such as, "President Bush is more evil than Hitler and everyone who voted for him is a moron." and, "Doctors who perform abortions are murderers who should be shot down like dogs, and everyone who does so should be given a medal."
We can certainly hold liberal or conservative stances without resorting to the demonization of those who disagree with us.


Well, Seven for Nine, I did indicate that I might have been jumping to the wrong conclusion; but Slim did say: "They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'" referring to people he viewed as "rabid fanatics" regarding their respective political viewpoints. I understood this to mean that Slim classes right and leftwingers as rabid fanatics and that he views them (and their respective positions) negatively because of this.
In between the left and the right is the 'middle' position, where, Slim said, "many people probably fall". Slim's middle position (usually referred to as "the centre" in political debate) is defined in opposition to the "rabidly fanatical", "demonizing" and thus inherently negative right and left wing positions bracketing it. The implication is that it (the middle) is, at least potentially, a positive position because it is not necessarily a negative one - unlike the right and left positions as viewed by Slim.
"Centrist political compromise" is the term I used to refer to the "middle position" as defined by Slim in his post.
I quite agree with the last sentence in your paragraph quoted above - in fact, if you look closely enough it is Slim who demonizes the right and left wing positions in a way which is, to my mind, an oversimplification of the debate, and one which falls foul of reason.

Also, although I can't speak for the criticisms of F 9/11, much of the criticism of BFC was bullshit from the 'right', esp. the NRA themselves.


I'm unsure of what you're referring to here, Darren. I haven't seen 'BFC', and have no idea what comments the NRA made regarding it. Could someone fill me in, please?
Shaguar made the following comment:

...if MM had toned down the hysterical tenor of the film it might have done better, as with Bowling for Columbine the stunts he used, Charlton Heston in BFC and standing outside the Saudi embassy in 9/11 did nothing to add to the whole picture.<snip>

Is this what the NRA commented on, and what was MM's point in doing this?


Sorry Seven for Nine, BFC is shorthand for Bowling for Columbine. There was a barrage of criticism from the right, mainly NRA, following the release of the film. You would need to see the film for any of it to make sense. Ultimately, most of it amounts to a criticism of Moore's style (fair enough) - which is then presented as a criticism of the veracity of parts of the film (not fair). It's a good film and worth watching.
As for toning down the hysterical tenor of F 9/11, Shaguar, why not rather say that The U.S. and British governments should tone down the hysterical tenor of "The War Against Terror"? I would also say that it's worth remembering that all documentaries are productions, involving necessarily subjective technical decisions which could all be described as stunts, depending on the critic's (necessarily subjective) point of view.

What I admire about Moore is that he does not pretend that he exists in a vacuum and that he isn't coming from a particular political stance. He makes his stance clear...


Yes, he certainly does: the film's title alone makes his viewpoint crystal clear from the outset.

That's true. BFC really is worth watching too, as is Rodger and Me, Moore's first (and some say best) documentary about the closure of General Motors' operations in Flint, Michigan.

[Darren]

Perhaps I'm misconstruing, so please forgive me if I amYou are forgiven. :)
- but you seem to be putting forward the idea that to be politically 'right' or 'left' is to be necessarily unbalanced in some way.Not at all, I'm sorry that it seems so to you. What you call right and left could very well be quite different than what I call right and left. I thought I was clear that I was calling people that "would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing" left and right. If you fall into that category, then, yes, I think you are unbalanced in some way. Nothing in your post would suggest that you do, however.
This argument presupposes that the correct way or answer to a given dispute is automatically some kind of compromise between two extremes, a 'middleground' or 'centre'. But, as certain people have pointed out, if this were valid and if, for example, one person were to assert that 3+3=6 and another were to assert that 3+3=8, then 3+3 would equal 7. So clearly the argument that disputes can and should necessarily be resolved by a compromise is false.Certainly, I never made any such claim. Nor would I be likely to.
This applies to the right vs left debate as much as to any other, and applies to what I perceive as your implication that a 'centrist' political compromise is the obvious solution to the above debate.
Well, I was implying no such thing, I hope that's clear now. If you re-read my post with that in mind, I hope you can see that I was implying an honest look at the issues is what makes sense, not simply towing the party line, regardless of the issues.
I certainly don't agree that the desire for a planned and regulated redistributive economy (globally and locally) is a form of fanaticism. I do think that the moves towards a completely deregulated global 'free-market' economy are disastrously wrong on a number of counts and that there is a great deal of fanaticism shown by the proponents of this neo-liberalism. I also feel that Western 'centrist' politics (including the modern incarnation of the formerly Keynesian social democrats such as the British Labour Party) do not challenge this doctrine beyond a little cosmetic surgery and social damage limitation. I feel, in fact, that the 'centre' reveals far more fanatical adherence to dogma than does the 'left', generally speaking.Ok. Would you simply agree with and support anything the liberal (or conservative) media or politicians put forth, regardless of what it might be? If not, then I wouldn't label you at all, neither Right, nor Left nor anything else. If you choose to label yourself a leftist, or left I would be aware you are likely using it differently than me. Again, I thought I've seen very reasonable people become rabid fanatics when it comes to Politics, they would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing. They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'.was fairly clear.
Anyway, no harm done :)

Adam

All right, we definitely don't agree on the use of the terms "left" and "right". Here is a very general summary of how I view the terms: The first refers generally to positions which view the economy as a means to an end - the end being various degrees of redistribution of wealth to benefit society in general. The health of society is viewed as being of primary importance. The Right considers the economy as an end in itself and may or may not believe in the existance of such a thing as society (c.f Margaret Thatcher "society does not exist"), and certainly considers that, if it does exist, its needs are secondary to those of the economy.

It's quite possibly cultural. I'm Scottish, but I spent half of my youth in South Africa and now I live in France.
When I lived in S.A. there can be no doubt that the prevailing Political Economy was well to the Right. Political debate was non-existant or underground. In Britain, I find that political debate is generally limited in scope to centre right and right - this arises from a strong media bias towards a free market economy. The free market economy is one of the purest expressions of right wing thought - society is to be ruled by market forces, public expenditure must be curtailed etc.
In France, political debate is still vigorous. In conventional terms, political representation runs from the Trotskyist Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) on the far left through to the unashamedly fascist neo-nazi National Front (FN) on the far right. The terms left and right wing have a very powerful resonance here.
To me, identifying with the political left means that I believe society comes first, and that I believe the economy should serve human society, not vice versa. What I intended with my post above was to attack the idea that the left can somehow simply be equated with the right as an extremist position, which is a fairly common viewpoint, and that sense somehow lies in between. I do not feel this is the case. I am also extremely negative with regards to certain right wing ideologies such as the global free market so desired by corporations and so many first world governments, and the racism and xenophobia of the far right which is on the rise throughout Europe - these are not knee-jerk reactions, I've had to learn about these issues and this has involved effort. I would also demonize these ideologies, not out of self-righteousness or because of some labels, but because of a raft of reasons which lead me to genuinely fear their effect on humanity and because of a desire to convince others not to believe in them.

Also, I would like to stress that, with the exception of the high priests, I am talking about ideas, not people so, for example, I loathe Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the FN, but I certainly don't loathe or despise people who vote for the FN - these are the people I'd like to convince.

[slimshady2357]

Well, Seven for Nine, I did indicate that I might have been jumping to the wrong conclusion; but Slim did say: "They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'" referring to people he viewed as "rabid fanatics" regarding their respective political viewpoints.No, not "regarding their respective political viewpoints", with regards to their actions, specifically people who "would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing.

And then I clearly (I thought) said:

"They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'."

I understood this to mean that Slim classes right and leftwingers as rabid fanatics and that he views them (and their respective positions) negatively because of this.

I hope, after reading this and my last post you will have dropped that idea. I said that the fanatics are the ones that I call Right and Left. I don't label anyone else and I don't have any 'middle' loyalty what-so-ever.

In between the left and the right is the 'middle' position, where, Slim said, "many people probably fall". Slim's middle position (usually referred to as "the centre" in political debate) is defined in opposition to the "rabidly fanatical", "demonizing" and thus inherently negative right and left wing positions bracketing it. The implication is that it (the middle) is, at least potentially, a positive position because it is not necessarily a negative one - unlike the right and left positions as viewed by Slim.
"Centrist political compromise" is the term I used to refer to the "middle position" as defined by Slim in his post.

Wow, you really carry a lot of baggage about this issue, you read loads of crap into my post that was never there.

Adam

[Darren]

Well, Seven for Nine, I did indicate that I might have been jumping to the wrong conclusion; but Slim did say: "They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'" referring to people he viewed as "rabid fanatics" regarding their respective political viewpoints.No, not "regarding their respective political viewpoints", with regards to their actions, specifically people who "would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing.

And then I clearly (I thought) said:

"They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'."

I understood this to mean that Slim classes right and leftwingers as rabid fanatics and that he views them (and their respective positions) negatively because of this.

I hope, after reading this and my last post you will have dropped that idea. I said that the fanatics are the ones that I call Right and Left. I don't label anyone else and I don't have any 'middle' loyalty what-so-ever.

In between the left and the right is the 'middle' position, where, Slim said, "many people probably fall". Slim's middle position (usually referred to as "the centre" in political debate) is defined in opposition to the "rabidly fanatical", "demonizing" and thus inherently negative right and left wing positions bracketing it. The implication is that it (the middle) is, at least potentially, a positive position because it is not necessarily a negative one - unlike the right and left positions as viewed by Slim.
"Centrist political compromise" is the term I used to refer to the "middle position" as defined by Slim in his post.

Wow, you really carry a lot of baggage about this issue, you read loads of crap into my post that was never there. Adam


Sorry, Adam - no offence intended, please see my second post for a clarification of my views.

Darren

[slimshady2357]

Double post, feel free to remove it any admins :)

[slimshady2357]

Ya, we crossed posts there. Thanks for clarifying :)

Adam

[Godless Dave]

My view from across the pond is this. if MM had toned down the hysterical tenor of the film it might have done better

What hysterical tenor? I found the tone of the movie at times somber, touching, and funny, but never hysterical. What was hysterical about it?

[Shaguar]

IMO the hysterical tag applied to the movie as a whole, the premise appeared to be that the whole of the Bush administration had conspired to bring about the situations Moore was exposing, my use of the word was in the following context : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess.

Moore throw all this stuff out there with inaccuracies and sometimes I think it generates irrational fear in people.

All the best documentaries I have seen have always been presented in as neutral a position possible that gives us the chance to decide whatever truths we find.

I think that any chance Moore may have had of converting Bush supporters or even "Don't knows" was lost because of the way it was done.

An example I would use is Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them. You know where he stands and what you are going to get, a thoroughly biaised picture and a damn funny on at that.

Moore presents his work as balanced and accurate, which it is not.

[Godless Dave]

IMO the hysterical tag applied to the movie as a whole, the premise appeared to be that the whole of the Bush administration had conspired to bring about the situations Moore was exposing, my use of the word was in the following context : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess.

I didn't see unmanageable fear or emotional excess in the movie. As to the Bush administration conspiring to bring about events, I'm not sure what you mean. Moore presented the Bush administration's failure to respond to warnings of Al Qaeda attacks as an example of incompetence, not conspiracy. He presented the Bush administration's case for Iraqi WMDs as a campaign of deliberate dishonesty; this is hardly hysterical - it is a hypothesis well-supported by the facts. He then presents his opinion that the Iraq War had nothing to do with terrorism, was not in the interests of the United States, and was poorly planned because the planners put ideology ahead of the facts. This is not a radical idea; it is shared by professors at the Army War College and former generals Anthony Zinni and Wesley Clark among many, many others.

Moore throw all this stuff out there with inaccuracies

Maybe you can enlighten me, but I know of zero inaccuracies in Farenheit 9/11.

and sometimes I think it generates irrational fear in people.

Fear of what? I saw the movie as being intended to generate anger, not fear.

Moore presents his work as balanced I disagree vehemently with this. Moore makes no secret of the fact that he is presenting his opinions and point of view. You seem to be falling into the fallacy many of Moore's critics do: making assumptions about his films and then criticizing them for not living up to those assumptions. I have heard people criticize Bowling for Columbine for not making a convincing case for more gun control in the US. They miss the fact that Bowling for Columbine was not intended to advocate for more gun control. Yes, his movies are opinion pieces. They are intended to be and marketed as opinion pieces.

[Shaguar]

Inaccuracies

1)The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"
We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call
Moore says, "The plan to have Bush get out of the limo for the traditional walk to the White House was scrapped. But according to the BBC, "Mr. Bush delighted his supporters by getting out of his limousine and walked the last block of the parade, holding hands with his wife Laura."


2) Moore says, "The plan to have Bush get out of the limo for the traditional walk to the White House was scrapped. But according to the BBC, "Mr. Bush delighted his supporters by getting out of his limousine and walked the last block of the parade, holding hands with his wife Laura."

3) The clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and then hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least partially:

Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

and there are plenty more of them,

Moore does sell himself as the righter of wrongs and presenter of the truth, not only that he presents himself as oppressed because of it, just look at his hand wringing in Cannes about the distribution of 9/11 in the USA, then guess what he has massive publicity and a good opening because of his posturing.

Don't get me wrong by I am by nature a socialist and a soclialist in the UK would be classed almost as a communist in the USA, I have no problem with moores politics nor his attacks on Pres Bush but there are inaccuracies and they dilute the message.

[Seven of Nine]

Darren, I can find no mention of the necessity for "'centrist' political compromise" in Slimshady's post.
He appeared to me to be speaking of the sort of extremists who make statements such as, "President Bush is more evil than Hitler and everyone who voted for him is a moron." and, "Doctors who perform abortions are murderers who should be shot down like dogs, and everyone who does so should be given a medal."
We can certainly hold liberal or conservative stances without resorting to the demonization of those who disagree with us.


Well, Seven for Nine, I did indicate that I might have been jumping to the wrong conclusion; but Slim did say: "They are the ones I refer to as 'Right' or 'Left'" referring to people he viewed as "rabid fanatics" regarding their respective political viewpoints. I understood this to mean that Slim classes right and leftwingers as rabid fanatics and that he views them (and their respective positions) negatively because of this.
In between the left and the right is the 'middle' position, where, Slim said, "many people probably fall". Slim's middle position (usually referred to as "the centre" in political debate) is defined in opposition to the "rabidly fanatical", "demonizing" and thus inherently negative right and left wing positions bracketing it. The implication is that it (the middle) is, at least potentially, a positive position because it is not necessarily a negative one - unlike the right and left positions as viewed by Slim.
"Centrist political compromise" is the term I used to refer to the "middle position" as defined by Slim in his post.
I quite agree with the last sentence in your paragraph quoted above - in fact, if you look closely enough it is Slim who demonizes the right and left wing positions in a way which is, to my mind, an oversimplification of the debate, and one which falls foul of reason.

I'm hoping that Slim has clarified his post to your mutual understanding? :)
I understood, and agreed with, Slim based on his narrow definition, which was, as he pointed out, based on "their actions, specifically people who would defend their side and demonize the other no matter what either was doing."
I heartily dislike this knee-jerk defensive reaction, whether it comes from those considered rightwing or leftwing, as it prevents all real communication through which we might learn from one another, and people seem to feel freer to exhibit such behavior on the internet, so that the worst possible name-calling is falsely characterized as "debate".


Also, although I can't speak for the criticisms of F 9/11, much of the criticism of BFC was bullshit from the 'right', esp. the NRA themselves.




I'm unsure of what you're referring to here, Darren. I haven't seen 'BFC', and have no idea what comments the NRA made regarding it. Could someone fill me in, please?
Shaguar made the following comment:

...if MM had toned down the hysterical tenor of the film it might have done better, as with Bowling for Columbine the stunts he used, Charlton Heston in BFC and standing outside the Saudi embassy in 9/11 did nothing to add to the whole picture.<snip>

Is this what the NRA commented on, and what was MM's point in doing this?


Sorry Seven for Nine, BFC is shorthand for Bowling for Columbine.

Mea culpa, Darren! :kickscan:
I was, shall we say, a bit slow to catch on that day? :blush3:

There was a barrage of criticism from the right, mainly NRA, following the release of the film. You would need to see the film for any of it to make sense. Ultimately, most of it amounts to a criticism of Moore's style (fair enough) - which is then presented as a criticism of the veracity of parts of the film (not fair). It's a good film and worth watching.
<snip>

erm...I believe I belonged to the NRA at the time, and yet, I know nothing about this at all. This is why I'm confused. I need to see the film for any of it to make sense? Was Charlton Heston shown in BFC, and in what way? Did the film comment on him specifically as a spokesman for the NRA?
Until now, I thought I had a fairly good handle on another film, The Passion of Christ, without seeing it. (I was attempting at the time to determine if I wanted to see it.)
arrggghhh! I see yet more research looming in my future. :sadcheer:

What I admire about Moore is that he does not pretend that he exists in a vacuum and that he isn't coming from a particular political stance. He makes his stance clear...


Yes, he certainly does: the film's title alone makes his viewpoint crystal clear from the outset.

That's true. BFC really is worth watching too, as is Rodger and Me, Moore's first (and some say best) documentary about the closure of General Motors' operations in Flint, Michigan.[/QUOTE]

You don't find the implication that American society resembles the totalitarian one depicted in Fahrenheit 451 just a bit over the top?
It seems somewhat unethical to me that MM tweaked Bradbury's title because of the subliminal effect using it must have had on many of the film's viewers who read the book or saw the film too many years ago to be aware of being manipulated by MM's title.

There is such a strong tradition of attempting an unbiased approach in the production of documentary films that the director of the first, Nanook of the North, came under fire in recent years merely for asking his subjects to repeat their performances of routine tasks, so that he could better film them. Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned, but I hate to see that approach abandoned. :(

I had no idea that he had done a documentary about the closure of the auto industry. I was personally affected by the closure of two auto plants (International Harvester went under entirely and a Dodge Ram axle plant closed) in the Indiana city which I lived because I worked in a service industry (vending). I, along with thousands, lost my job, and couldn't find another. I would very much like to see that film! Thank you,Darren! :D

[Craigart14]

Inaccuracies

1)The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"
We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call

Moore also points out that the Fox executive who made the call was Bush's cousin.

Moore says, "The plan to have Bush get out of the limo for the traditional walk to the White House was scrapped. But according to the BBC, "Mr. Bush delighted his supporters by getting out of his limousine and walked the last block of the parade, holding hands with his wife Laura."

Whence Moore's footage of the limo being egged? Bush did walk the last block--as he did again in 2005--but that part of the route, because of its proximity to the ceremony itself, is blocked and barricaded. Protesters couldn't get close enough to land any more eggs. BBC and the American networks showed the last block; Moore showed the next to last.

3) The clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and then hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least partially:

Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

Since Fox is nothing more than a right-wing cheering section, I would like to have another source verify this--perhaps one with a journalist or two on the payroll?

Moore does sell himself as the righter of wrongs and presenter of the truth, not only that he presents himself as oppressed because of it, just look at his hand wringing in Cannes about the distribution of 9/11 in the USA, then guess what he has massive publicity and a good opening because of his posturing.

Many filmmakers go to Cannes to find distributors, and the film won presitious prizes there. Do we have free speech in America if no distributor will touch a Cannes prize-winner that criticizes the president?

George Bush is a disgrace as president. Moore did expose a great many truths about his prior careers as town drunk and military deserter. The Bush White House conducted a ten-month campaign of lies in order to support its invasion of Iraq. They traded on the honorable reputation of Colin Powell to convince the UN to support their efforts, though Powell's presentation was full of lies. (Scott Ritter pointed out that the mysterious facility in Powell's video had already been inspected, that the suspicious vehicles that had been moved were fire trucks, and that the airplane shown dropping "simulated anthrax" had been destroyed in 1991.)

As for BFC, Charlton Heston was shown speaking out against gun control in places like Littleton, CO and a Michigan town which had just suffered terrible gun tragedies. Heston was also shown at his own home, where Moore asked him why he needed guns in his house, which was already protected by iron fences and security guards. Heston began ranting about his rights.

Both sides criticized BFC, but I think many people simplify the film. Moore pointed out, for example, that Canada has about as many guns per capita as the US, but Canadians hardly ever shoot one another. Why? Though violent crime declined in the US during the 90s, media coverage of violent crime increased by about 600%.

I don't think Moore ever presents himself as a neutral observer. Many people support liars while criticizing Moore for "shading the truth" or making implications. Many others have pointed out that Bush sold his Arbusto stock two weeks before his company went under, reaping a $750,000 profit. Many others have pointed out that the Texas Rangers partners squeezed a new stadium out of Arlington taxpayers which was later ceded to the Rangers for about one-third of its cost. Bush was a very minor partner in the Rangers, yet he made millions when he sold his interest in the team. On the strength of tactics like these, he was marketed to American voters as a shrewd businessman. He raised investment funds for his businesses by trading on the Bush name. Name recognition made him governor of Texas, libel against John McCain made him the GOP candidate, and a three-year, taxpayer financed smear campaign against Bill Clinton made him president, and some carefully orchestrated lies against John Kerry, along with the Repubican manipulation of homophobia, got him re-elected. He's an embarrassment.

Moore's candidate of choice? Oprah Winfrey. I would vote for Oprah. I'd vote for Oprah's dog before I would vote for Shrubya.

Craig