Fahrenheit 9/11 (SPOILERS)

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday. That was a very good movie. I'd heard that it often garnered applause during the end credits, and sure enough, the theater I was in applauded it at the end too.

Granted, I know that the movie is meant to portray Michael Moore's opinion, and therefore biased, but if even only half of it is true, it's still pretty disturbing.

It does an awfully good job linking the Bush family to the Bin Laden family and the presidency of both Bushes to oil business interests. And even if you think that's unrelated to 9-11 and terrorism and that Bush is still a good guy with the best of intentions, the movie still shows the war in Iraq as being a mistake.

Even if it somehow seemed like the "necessary" thing to do at the time, it definitely turned out to be a mistake once it was in motion. The movie shows that too many of our people have died and that too many of the innocent Iraqi's have too. If we had been able to knock out military & governmental installations only with little or no casualities on our side, that might have been acceptable. But, the rising casualities on our side and the civilian body count on their side show that this war isn't worth it. Granted, I knew that before the movie, but the movie helps reinforce it.

Like I said, even if Bush is (or was) a good guy, I think the position has corrupted him (if he wasn't corrupted already). Plus, I think it's not just Bush but the Bush adminstration and the Bush family that are less than genuine. I don't think I like John Carey, and from what I've heard, he's not much different than Bush, but I don't think there's any way I could vote for the Bush adminstration. I think I'll be voting for a third-party candidate again.

If nothing else, the movie makes one really good point... Bush, Cheney, etc. have multiple huge business interests. Bush gets a yearly salary of $200,000 for being president, but business deals with the Saudis have yielded billions of dollars for the Bush family. So, the question is, "Where is Bush's loyalty; who does he really work for? America or the Middle East?".

If nothing else, the movie makes one really good point... Bush, Cheney, etc. have multiple huge business interests. Bush gets a yearly salary of $200,000 for being president, but business deals with the Saudis have yielded billions of dollars for the Bush family. So, the question is, "Where is Bush's loyalty; who does he really work for? America or the Middle East?".

Click to expand...

Why, what excellent questions.

I think the general public's reaction to this movie is an excellent sign that people really do want to hear the story we are not hearing on NBC, CBS and ABC, etc.

And, by the way, Mr. Moore doesn't contest that this is a movie expressing his viewpoints. It's really his reaction to the "mainstream" press. And boy, is he enjoying the reluctanct praise that is coming through for the film.

It's amazing what you don't see on the evening news, isn't it?

I went to see this last night. Was with two chicks, and they were going to see The Notebook. F9/11 got sold out, so I saw The Notebook with them.

For those that don't know, it's a weepy, ridiculous chick flick about, like, true love, or something.

The only positive thing about last night was that it shows that folks are obviously into this movie.


Moore was on some CBS morning show recently and the interviewer asked him if his movie can be called a documentary or propoganda. He told her he considered the CBS Evening News to be propoganda (along with the other networks).

She was all, "Let's just talk about your movie," and was like, "No, let's talk about this:" and railed on how the networks trumped up the war and didn't go after the evidence against it, etc, basically ambushing her on her own show. It was pretty bad-ass.

Moore has a habit of dodging accusations about his own material and instead accusing others. I'd respect him a lot more if he cut the the charade and just admitted he's no different than any other politician or journalist and he's just offerening another biased view. Becase the whole honest crusade stuff is b.s.

Two words: POLITICAL PROPAGANDA!

And if you doubt this, look up PROPAGANDA in the dictionary. This film fits the definition to a "T."

He admits happily that he is giving his perspective. Are there any facts you know of that he didn't get right?

He admits happily that he is giving his perspective. Are there any facts you know of that he didn't get right?

Click to expand...

The first thing to remember is what Sheridan said about "hidding a lie in the truth." That is the first rule of successful propaganda. Moore accomplished this by taking various news clips, interviews and sound bites from different times and events. These were judiciously studied so these clips, interviews and sound bites from different times and events could be edited and added to other clips to present the picture Moore wants the viewer to believe. To make it even more credible he called this work "A documentary," not a work of fiction.

People buy into this stuff because most are poorly informed because they pay little attention to news. Since it isn't important to them at the time, they soon forget. Plus, a lot news never makes it to the small screen or print, or if does appear in print it is buried as small blurbs in sections they don't read. Thus, when a well-financed, well done propaganda piece is presented as "a documentary" they accept this without question because they have no other basis on which to judge.

Bottom line is the film is propaganda -- some truth mixed with a whole lot of distorted facts/misinformation.

Bottom line is the film is propaganda -- some truth mixed with a whole lot of distorted facts/misinformation.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to listen, but you haven't mentioned yet what these supposed "distorted facts/misinfo" are. You are assuming something, do you have any specifics? I'm assuming you have heard specific criticisms from people who actually have seen the movie, or at least read detailed accounts of it.

I haven't seen the movie, but here's the big list of accusations of F9/11 distortions that everyone and their mother is now linking to for discussion. Most of the "deceits" as Kopel calls them are not lies per se, but cases in which he accuses Moore of saying one thing and implying another, or expressing an opinion in the movie that runs counter to opinions Moore has expressed elsewhere.

One could easily apply everything you said to the how the Bush administration and their supporters have been communicating to the public.

It's just funny how some people are so pissed that Moore does it, but look the other way when people in actual power do it.

Indeed. Anyone who knows MM's work knows he has his slant on things. But I was curious to see what people can come up with in the way of actual challenges to the facts he presents.

I'm quite glad it will be released on DVD in a couple of months. I might get to see Fahrenheit 9/11 before the big JMS B5 announcement has been made.

It's just funny how some people are so pissed that Moore does it, but look the other way when people in actual power do it.

Click to expand...

Or in this case, the other way around: they got pissed at Moore *after* taking in all the war propaganda without so much as a word. Which, ironically, is one thing the movie addresses. Go figure, that.

Personally, I greatly enjoyed the movie. To me, yes, Moore tends to slant things in a way he wants to present, but then so do we all when we want to make a point. I think, personally, a problem lots of people are having is looking to Moore's movie as him trying to say "this is how it is", when in fact what's he's *really* doing is asking questions--questions that should have been asked long ago and still need to be answered.

True danger comes from when everyone starts accepting the party line being spewed by one side without question. The real strength of a democracy (or a republic, whichever) is the ability of all people to express their ideas, so that they can be shared and mixed into something greater. None of that can start until people start talking, and people can't be talking until someone starts the talking.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is Moore starting the talking, and it's about damned time someone did. Now that he did, lots and *lots* of people are talking. For or against, it doesn't matter, because right now they're talking, and that's lots more than they were doing before.

That, to me, can only be a good thing.

--mcn

when in fact what's he's *really* doing is asking questions--questions that should have been asked long ago and still need to be answered.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is one thing that concerned many of us right after 9/11. It quickly became an environment of "don't think, don't question, or you are a traitor". Any culture, but especially one with the power ours has, is in big trouble when this becomes an accepted attitude.

True danger comes from when everyone starts accepting the party line being spewed by one side without question. The real strength of a democracy (or a republic, whichever) is the ability of all people to express their ideas, so that they can be shared and mixed into something greater. None of that can start until people start talking, and people can't be talking until someone starts the talking.

Click to expand...

Ah, but politics is BIG business. Yours is a vision that is lovely, but impossible. There is simply too much money involved for any kind of "grass roots" approach to it anymore.

I have not seen yet, but I have been reading a lot about Fahrenheit 9/11.

I cannot deny I am really happy with american citizen´s reaction. Hopefully that "bozo" will not be reelected, and everyone should thanks Michael Moore and others.

Even though the truth can always be told in different views, I believe common sense based on facts is always the best answer.

What is really surprising us is that the american society changed, because for lot less Richard Nixon had to resign the presidency. I cannot believe this american government still have support.

About DVD question, I am almost sure that will only be available after the elections, therefore it is better to go to the theaters and convince the "stupid white americans" you know to leave their pride, acknoledge GWBush is the worst, and vote against him.

I thought part of the distribution deal was that the DVD would be out eariler, IIRC. A very patriotic decision, because it has inevitably encouraged some (like me) to wait, which must be negatively impacting his box office. Imagine: someone considering his message more important than making as much money as possible.

Not that you'd notice.

The below text is taken from the MM´s web page and, perhaps, answer A_Ranger and Gangster lack of confidence on Farenheit 9/11:

" In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!). For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered. ."

And PLEASE do not mention "The Ilusion of Truth" trying to show Michael Moore as an ISN reporter. We have been discussing for over two years that GWB is definetly Pres. William Clark.

One could easily apply everything you said to the how the Bush administration and their supporters have been communicating to the public.

It's just funny how some people are so pissed that Moore does it, but look the other way when people in actual power do it.

Click to expand...

Thanks GKE...I was going to make that point.

And thank you za_ha_dum for quoting MM's statement here. I know he's done a lot of work to ensure that no one can say his facts are wrong. Did he slant the facts to his bias? Yes...but as was stated earlier here...he's asking questions that are legitimate and deserve an answer.

I personally, am glad MM is out there.

CE

Moore hasn't posted anyway evidence yet. Meanwhile, evidence has already been given against his film (as was posted earlier).

My problem with Moore is that in any interview, he only dodges questions about his own validity and instead starts his own accusations. That's irresponsible and it only makes me not want to listen to what you're trying to say or questions you're tryign to ask. If he really just wants to ask a bunch of questions, I respect that, but only if he allows himself to be scrutinized as well. Otherwise, he's just like all politicians who he is tryign to get everyoen else to scrutinize.

My problem with Moore is that in any interview, he only dodges questions about his own validity and instead starts his own accusations.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but at least he is just a film maker and not a powerful person in the government. There is a huge difference there. They are the people whose dodges we should be worrying about.

Ninja_Squirrel, on 6/26 I posted a thread with exactly the same title, but I posted it in Off Topic, even though it is about the film, since I knew the discussion would be very political. I saw the film in a packed house of 1700, at a Midnight, Thursday show, the opening show. Anyone intertested in reading my review can go to Off Topic.

The film was the top box office for its opening weekend, and best ever for a documentary, especially considering it was only shown in one third as many theaters as the runner up. It is still second, well behind #1, Spiderman. It was even #1 in the 'red states.'

A_Ranger, I read a few of the supposed untruths in the link you list. I don't need to read MM's rebutal to see how absurd they are. Their technique is to latch on to a detail in the film clips used to illustrate points, and say it is supposed to mean something MM wasn't trying to put forth. This is called a strawman argument. In #1, they try to snow you by trying make you think that MM's point was that Gore was in Florida, when MM's point is that the only reason anyone considered the election 'won' by GWB was that one of GWB's relatives working for Fox News called it for him, when everyone else said it was too close to call, thus making Gore look like a sore loser. That they don't rebut.

The third hand info from Ed Koch could mean anything, since we don't know the context. Anyone seeing the film would know that MM DIDN'T think the 9/11 attack was no big thing. Christopher Hitchens has been making similar allegations, even saying MM is pro Taliban, without any rebuttal on the shows I saw. That is assinine, totally untrue.

Your link even thinks it is wrong for MM to use political methods to defend himself from political attacks. They give a slanted version of something I mentioned in my F9/11 thread, that is that MM has formed a 'war room,' patterened after Clinton's war room in his '92 campaign, including some of the same people, to rebut the right wing attacks. I'm sure his rebuttals to any serious attacks will come soon, if you care to check his site for them. He has been rather busy lately.