The Daily Kos calls it "the most effective anti-Bush commercial ever made."
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Slick. Very slick. "I call upon every nation, to do anything they can, to stop these terrorist killers. Now watch this drive!"
What's that Jimi Hendrixy soul/rock-song being played in the end of the trailer? Anyone? It sounds like he's singing "no fellow should, no fellow should".
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
TSN, if we ever meet in life, I'm buying the nip-on-a-stick's for our two families, at the theme park. There we may stroke our beards and reminisce at the bliss that was Flare, early 21st Century, while our grandchildren are running circles around us, getting icecream everywhere and throwing tofu at geese. *sigh*
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I saw a interview this week (while I was laid up in hospital) with a congressman that's pissed his interview with Moore is edited to make him look bad: Moore askes him what he's doing about the lack of evidence for invading Iraq and every time he starts to answer, he's edited out.
In the actual conversation, the congressman actually offers to help Moore gather some info and is generally in agreement with him.
This is the kind of cheap tricks that undermined the premise of Bowling (a film I really liked prior ro learning how Moore edits things to his POV).
It's not a documentary if you alter tyhe facts and the interviews are edited to make only your case: then it's just one long anti-Bush commercial.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
But "Bowling" makes a good point, you have to admit. Some parts w/Chuck Heston were edited and I've heard that the scene in the bank was set up...but it asked a piviotal question: why do we love guns so much? Also, see "Roger and Me."
Most liberals acknowledge that while Moore is annoying and at times an a**hole, he is a brilliant filmmaker. Just look at his devoted fans. And look at who he pisses off. He's stirring up as much controversy as Mel Gibson did with "The Passion." While Moore edits and distorts (just like the person he is campaigning against), he tells the truth as well, and makes people seriously think.
posted
You'll write "pisses off", but not "asshole"?
And you've highlighted the problem right there. He edits and distorts, but tells the truth as well. So how are we suppossed to know when he's telling the truth, and when he's making stuff up? How can we believe anything he says?
(Apparently the gun murder stats given near the end of the film are almost all complete bollocks.)
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"...in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair..."
I'll admit that Heston's "racially insensitive" comment was probably more a slip of the tongue than anything, and wasn't as important as Moore suggested by latching onto it. But, I don't know that I'd call it "unfair", unless there's something else I don't know about.
"...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."
What does the plaque actually say, I wonder? I don't seem to recall that the movie gave the exact wording. Only that it said the plane took part in such-and-such mission. And that that mission involved such-and-such number of deaths (which, one would assume, is not printed on the plaque).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I�ve never been a fan of the ambush interview that Mr. Moore seems to love. And I was pretty uncomfortable with his interview of Mr. Heston.
It�s pure speculation on my part, but in the interview Mr. Heston struck me as a man not totally in control of his memories or mental faculties, and certainly wasn�t prepared for Mr. Moore�s line of questioning. Knowing what we know now, that he has Alzheimer�s Disease, the ambush seemed rather cruel.
I have to imagine, however, that the interview was done before the actual announcement of his being diagnosed with the disease, and if he was acting as NRA spokesman, he fair game and should have been ready to defend his positions. But still, he struck me as not altogether with it.
I'd like to see the interview again to see if my interpretation holds up.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I noticed your Grover Norquist quote in your signature:
quote:Alexander Hamilton has been on the 10 [dollar bill] since 1928, he's been well-honored by the country, was a great, uh, secretary of the Treasury, but, of all the people on the currency, the only one who isn't a president.
As Lewis Black said on "The Daily Show," I bet you $100 he isn't the only one who isn't a president on the currency.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
I support Moore's point of view, he intelligent and usually speaks the truth, but I can't stand his attitude, especially the way he uncovers the obvious. He's always searching for the biggest pile of dog dirt on the street, and if he found it, he points at it and starts to scream. He's not very productive. He says what's wrong, but doesn't say how it could be done any better (and when he does, it's usually only a sarcastic comment). That's the main reason I didn't like his books and movies that much. I've also seen his early works, and in this regard they are much better because less drastical. Today he has become more of an attention-seeking celebrity-whore. Instead of promoting his stuff as a documentation, he makes it an event. It becomes Propaganda. I don't know if he wants to use the weaopns of his favourite enemy, the current Administration, against them or if just slipped into this direction to get more media. The Bush-Bin-Laden connection for example is historical fact, but the way he uses it, by loosing his neutrality on the subject, he also looses credibility in favor of public interest (especially in connection with Moore usually reasonable people quickly become narrow-minded pro/contra-fanatics). And I simply don't know if that's the best thing to do. Besides that, I have the strange feeling that if his rise to stardom happened under a democratic government, it wouldn't have changed anything besides the names on his hate-list. (Furthermore I found his book Stupid White Men to be somehow disjointed. Instead of a central theme he was just bashing everything that stood in his way. In that context, I'm more of a "fan" of the movies than the books).
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Michael Moore is sort of a dick. I'm glad he's pissing everyone off. You should be irritated by him. The shit needs to be disturbed. There is a news channel on the air 24 hours a day which has (once or twice) distorted or deliberately mis-represented information including editing interviews and transcripts, even occasionally seeming even a little hypocritical about their tactics. This is a fucking News Station, mind you. A News Station who in its own words purports to be 'fair and balanced.' You should be pissed. This is dirty pool. Integrity was a long time ago.
I'm not saying that I'm not bothered by any distortions his films may contain. I certainly am. OTOH, I don't think his motto says anything about being fair or balanced.
If you're looking for things to be pissed off about, the way Micheal Moore chooses to present his message should be fairly low on your list. We are watching the same old cycle of human history where the rights and priveleges of the average citizen evaporate into an increasingly xenophobic elite (itself growing smaller and smaller) who will cling desperately to their decreasingly relevant wealth even as society crumbles around them. When will you bring the inevitable revolt? Because as far as they are concerned you're not going to get any of the pie. That you should be pissed about.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic