Farenheit 9/11

[benzocaine]

The Grandin Theatre is just a stones throw away from my house here in Roanoke VA. It's the only theatre in town to show the contraversal film by Micheal Moore. The streets are literally lined with cars that belong to moviegoers. Many are at least 3 to 4 blocks away and it's a rainy day here.

I saw the first veiwing today. When I first walked into the loby I saw what I expected... hippie wannabees.

Then I walked into theatre and was amazed by what I saw. At least 1/4 the theatre was filled by "the greatest generation" and the rest by baby boomers and x-ers (like me ).

It was quite a thought provoking film.

The good ol' boy network that GW may be involved in is highlighted throughout the film.

After the film ended there was a standing ovation.

The whole movie left me spinning. I truly don't know what to believe.

I am willing to bet that this film may very well pull those on the fence onto the democrats side.[/url]

[Doug Erickson]

Before you make any decisions on what to think of the film, make sure to take a little while to read some of the following if you haven't seen them already:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

http://www.moorewatch.com

http://www.moorelies.com

And this review of the film at, of all places, Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I'm not saying any of these sources have cleaner hands than Mr. Moore himself, but suffice it to say that he has taken plenty of criticism in the past--from BOTH conservatives and liberals--for outright lying, lying by omission, and intentionally creating false impressions through "creative" editing, and there is ample documentation of this at the sites referenced above.

My own opinion is that this guy's credibility is nil, and that he shamelessly profited from the tragedy at Columbine and now is attempting to do the same from 9/11 and its aftermath, but obviously that's something people need to decide for themselves after seeing his body of work and, hopefully, reading some of the critiques that folks have written of him and his work as well.

-Doug

[Valkenar]

Of course for every criticism there's a counter argument. And then for every counter argument there's a counter-counter argument and so on.
I've read a number of the criticism pages, I've read Moore's response to some of them, and then some of the responses to Moore's rebuttal. But that's as deep as I went with it.

My impression of Moore's films is that you do have to watch with a critical eye because he very much is spinning the truth in the direction he wants, which is something he admits to. It's no more full of outright lies than anything else you're going to find.

Ultimately it is entertainment, but fairly informative entertainment as such things go. I'm looking forward to seeing Fahrenheit 9-11 tomorrow, but expect to roll my eyes at some of the more awkward implications made.

[Gene DeMambro]

So don't go see the movie, Doug. See "Harry Potter", "The Terminal" or even "Dodgeball". It's a free country....so far. Those three films all got decent to very good reviews. Ben wanted to see for himself, and he did.

And for every Slate review, there's others like this one from - of all places - Fox News.

Funny. Watch what the Republicans do "with a critical eye", and you're accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Watch what the Democrats do "with a critical eye" ad you're called Patriotic!

As for me, I'm waiting for "I,Robot" and hope it doesn't turn out to be a dud.

Gene

[Doug Erickson]

So don't go see the movie, Doug. See "Harry Potter", "The Terminal" or even "Dodgeball". It's a free country....so far.

Take it easy there, Gene. I am actually interested to see the movie, but I'll wait and see it on someone else's nickel sometime. Not really interested in helping fill Mr. Moore's coffers.

I'm not saying people shouldn't see the film and I wasn't one of those who wanted to censor it or block its release. Moore has the right to make any movie he wants, and use whatever techniques he chooses in making it.

On the flip side, if people take issue with those techniques, they have the right to criticize him for it. When I went to see Bowling for Columbine a few years ago, I had never heard of Michael Moore. Like everyone else in the theater, I thought the movie was great at the time. Later, when I read about all the deceptions, the falsely created impressions, etc., I was *really* pissed off. If your points are valid, as opposed to just propaganda, then there's no need to try to trick your viewers.

Has he done the same with Fahrenheit 9/11? I don't know. Haven't seen it yet; only read others' accounts of it. But I'm betting it's more of the same.

Obviously people should go to this movie if they're interested in seeing it. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. Like I said, I'll see it myself. But it's impossible to come to a truly informed decision about what to think of the movie if you don't know anything about its source. It's important to know that Michael Moore's credibility has been called into question by people from all across the political spectrum--NOT just conservatives. It's important to know the techniques he has employed in his prior work.

Ben wanted to see for himself, and he did.

Obviously. And he also said that after seeing it, he didn't know what to think. Seeing Moore's film will pull you one way. Reading what critics have said about him will (or might) pull you another. Bottom line is you can't come to informed decision about an argument without hearing both sides of it.

-Doug

[benzocaine]

When I saw "Bowling" I could see throught the bullsh#T.

No doubt Moore is biased.

Like I said though 9/11 left me spinning. A lot of what is put up on screen is backed up with facts.

He does a masterful job of making G.W. look like a ####.

[Dana Sheets]

Michael Moore himself has been quoted as caling this an "op-ed" piece. He timed his release in order to give the campaigns enough time to run with it, and he has often put "the story" above "the truth" in this other films.

It's not a balanced, journalistic approach to a series of facts. It is Michael Moore doing his best to mudsling against the G.W. Bush administration.

I plan to see the film - and as a documentary filmmaker I kind of view Michael like a controversial figure from any major sport. He's made the world a more interesting place for people like me because the level of exposure he gets helps the entire "reality television" industry. (Evidently - calling films about real people "documentaries" isn't cool enough anymore.)

At the same time, people think of documentaries as films that make a special claim to representing life "as it is". Which is really a stretch when you think about it. Like "as it is" is really boring - and a good film is made up of the interesting bits all strung together.

Michael likes to string interesting bits together that really set people off. And sometimes his interesting bits aren't even true. But if the movie is entertaining to people...**shrug**... that's Hollywood baby.

---end of rant---
Dana

[pshaw]

Bush doesn't need Moore to make him look like a blithering ****!

Biased? Absolutely! Masterful? You bet.

This film is extremely thought-provoking. Go see it and make an enlightened judgement for yourself.

The theater I saw it in was also packed and the film ended with a rousing standing ovation as well.

[Valkenar]

Biased? Absolutely! Masterful? You bet.

Having seen it now, I wasn't as impressed with it as I had hoped to be. Maybe my expectations were too high, but it actually seems a bit disjointed and wandering. Moreso than his other works which I've enjoyed highly.

But there certainly were some very interesting things shown that I didn't know about. I wouldn't be able to explain to anyone else the layers of business relations between Bush, the Saudis and the war, but it was very interesting. It's always impossible to tell how many Iraqis want us there and how many don't but some of that was quite telling. And the changing assertions before and after 9-11 regarding the war (Sadaam is no threat vs. Sadaam is a great threat).

This film is extremely thought-provoking. Go see it and make an enlightened judgement for yourself.

I would actually very much like to hear from critics of it. I feel that going with a bunch of my liberal friends, in a liberal state I'm just getting a lopsided series of opinions on it. And especially since its message is lost on me since I already agree with most of the premises (Bush needs to go, the war is wrong, the patriot act is a hideous miscarriage of justice), and I'd like counterpoints to it from people who aren't preached-to choir.

I have read a few things online opposing it, but haven't found much that brings real criticisms, most opposed opinions I've found so far just seem to nitpick things about specious implications and the style of it (which are complaints I agree with to some extent).

[Mark Weitz]

I saw the film and for the record I'm a Liberal, though in Canada, that would translante to being a supporter of either the NDP or Liberal party.

The film, like all of Michael Moore's films, is unapologetically biased and has an agenda. But so what? Everyone knows who Michael Moore is and his politics. The same could be said of Fox News. And yes, film directors, including those who make documentaries, have biases too, and nobody is surprised by that.

That being said, the film presents a lot of information that is thought provoking and should be looked at as non-partisan. The link between the Bin Ladin family, and/or the "house of Saud", and the Bush family's (notably George Sr.) involvement in the Carlyle Group and other investments/companies is striking

How the Bush administration handled events leading up and following 9/11 is also interesting and this too is a non-partisan issue because it addresses how a government responded and questions Bush's preparedness, or lack thereof, to deal with it. Remeber that many Republicans, including the Bush administrations senior staff, including former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil and Richard Clark - counter-terrorism chief have been critical of Bush, as have many within the non-civilian military and most currently, the "anonymous" source from the CIA who is publishing a book about Bush's mishandling of terrorist threats.

Bottom line: don't let partisan politics explain away Moore's axe to grind as simply the ravings of a lefty. He's a lefty, for sure, though a wealthy one, but he has some legitimate questions to ask.

Another point. Some of the sites that dis Moore are equally biased and lack any pretense of rigour. I checked "moorelies" and their criticisms, at least the one's I looked at are baseless and are simply rhetorical responses. They also put quotation marks around comments that at first glance appear to be made by Moore but are in fact their own rhetorical statements. The most offensive one is that Moore isn't behind the soldiers. See the movie and you'll see that he is very sympathetic to the soldiers and he shows soldiers who are critical and some who are gung prostitute, but he's supportive of the soldiers, their families, and puts the blame for their poor treatment on Bush, who by the way drastically reduced their benefits.

Mark

[Joe Graziano]

Moore is a fat f$$k idiot. President Bush is a good man and good President.

[benzocaine]

Moore is a fat f$$k idiot. President Bush is a good man and good President.

Don't hold back Joe... tell us how you really feel.

PLease prove to me that GW is a good man... I want to beleive.

[Kevin Mackie]

Dittos, Joe.

Benzo, how does one actually "prove" an opinion?

Kevin

[pshaw]

In the case of our current sitting president, just take a look at his past performance. Stellar on all issues from the economy to the environment. NOT!

[Kevin Mackie]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist

No, it simply takes someone to read the news and look at facts.

The economy is going great by any measure you care to look at, Dow, Nasdaq, jobs are all up, interest rates are down.

And the environment is in much better shape today than 30 years ago thanks to the work of many and the continued support of many administrations including those who look at the science before allowing knee-jerk reactionary environmental laws to cripple growth. (That would include Reagan and Bush.)

Kevin