Fahrenheit 9/11

[it290]

Anyone else gone to see this film yet? I saw it on Saturday- the lines were incredible, it was like going to see Return of the Jedi or something.

I thought it was a good movie, maybe not quite as well produced as Bowling for Columbine, but still very good. I felt the emphasis of the film was kind of all over the place, and that perhaps Moore should have spent more time going into depth about the Saudi-9/11 connection and the Patriot Act rather than mentioning them fairly superficially, as he did (well, he spent more time on the Saudis but it still wasn't very informative on that point). I'm also sort of irritated by his use of popular music, and I feel that he pulls on emotional strings at times when it's inappropriate.

Very little of the information in the film will be a surprise to anyone who follows the news regularly, but it is contrasted in a manner that makes it very clear. Even if you don't like Moore or his agenda, it's hard to get around some of the things that are shown in this movie. It really does show some of the blatant lying and manipulation that the Administration has indulged in. Also, the scenes of some of the young soldiers in Iraq really open your eyes. Some of those kids really just don't know or care about what's going on or why they're there, while others are horrified at the things they've experienced.

Anyway, as many others have said, I don't think this movie is going to change the political views of many. I do hope, however, that it will encourage some of the younger demographic to get out there and vote against Bush (the overwhelming majority of people in line where I saw the film were in their early 20s-early 30s). But regardless of how you feel about the war or the President, I advise you check out the film, as it paints a vivid picture no matter what your political orientation may be.

 

[racketboy]

My opinion: Michael Moore is an idiot.

I'll leave it at that.

But I have heard (even from liberal media outlets) that this movies was deceiving and full of crap.

 

[it290]

Hmm, well, I don't think he's an idiot, but he certainly does target the lowest common denominator... I guess someone's gotta do it though. He's certainly no worse than Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, or the like (in fact I'd say he's pretty much kept himself above their level so far).

I agree that he does use misleading editing tactics at times, but really, who doesn't? I think you'll find that pretty much everything stated in the movie is actually true and backed up by evidence.

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by it290@Jun 29, 2004 @ 03:59 PM

I think you'll find that pretty much everything stated in the movie is actually true and backed up by evidence.

I wouldn't know -- I'm not wasting my time and money to watch it.

But to be honest, I wouldn't waste my time and money watching much of anything to do with politics...

 

[it290]

Hmm, okay. But honestly, I think you might get a kick out of it even if you're a Bush supporter.

 

[Quadriflax]

Originally posted by racketboy@Jun 29, 2004 @ 11:04 AM

I wouldn't waste my time and money watching much of anything to do with politics...

You and everyone left voting for Bush in November.

:flamethrower:

 

[crystalmethod]

Well, I saw this movie, and I've never had to wait in line to get into a theatre before as I have for this one. As a political science student, Moore intrigue's me, as does the whole situation you Americans have on your hands.

Although I am not a fan of Moore, I watched Bowling for Columbine and must say was much more impressed with that movie than this one. It just seemed to be more polished and entertaining. This movie did not startle me as anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past 3 years would have had at least some exposure to some of the claims and conspiracy theory-esque content of the movie.

With that said, the movie did nothing but reintroduce tried and true attacks onto Bush. Albeit in a mildly entertaining manner. Oh well, I"m sure the masses loved it because they felt as if they've unearthed some huge conspiracy.

 

[Caelestis]

If I took things out of context too, I bet I could make a 2-3 hour documentary about how my friend Jim thinks potatoes are the same thing as onions.

In other words, Moore is a skilled editor with a political agenda, but that doesn't make the movie worth bollocks.

 

[it290]

Well, nonetheless, the movie has gotten favorable reviews all over the place; it's highly accurate if sometimes misleading, but you can't knock it for its entertainment value (which is high).

In other words, Moore is a skilled editor with a political agenda, but that doesn't make the movie worth bollocks.

Yes, of course he has a political agenda. Does that make it a bad film? No. Have you seen it? Because if you haven't, your opinions about taking things out of context aren't worth bollocks either.

 

[Caelestis]

Originally posted by it290@Jun 29, 2004 @ 02:45 PM

Well, nonetheless, the movie has gotten favorable reviews all over the place; it's highly accurate if sometimes misleading, but you can't knock it for its entertainment value (which is high).

Yes, of course he has a political agenda. Does that make it a bad film? No. Have you seen it? Because if you haven't, your opinions about taking things out of context aren't worth bollocks either.

If the political agenda is aimed at putting the democrats in power, I can safely say that it's a bad movie, entertainment value or no.

 

[it290]

Wow, I marvel at your open-mindedness. BTW, the film is rather harsh on the Democrats as well, particularly Tom Daschle. But you're right. I've gone so far as to read Ann Coulter books.... now THAT's entertainment value.

 

[Runik]

This movie won the "Palme d'Or" in Cannes film festival last month ...

 

[Caelestis]

Originally posted by it290@Jun 29, 2004 @ 03:45 PM

Wow, I marvel at your open-mindedness. BTW, the film is rather harsh on the Democrats as well, particularly Tom Daschle. But you're right. I've gone so far as to read Ann Coulter books.... now THAT's entertainment value.

You should try Al Franken. It seems he thinks he's still writing for SNL. Truth be damned, he's gonna be funny.

 

[it290]

Yup, I'm not a huge fan of Moore, and I'm certainly not a huge fan of Franken. Regardless of that, however, it's safe to say that Moore's movie is more accurate and more truthful than a great number of statements that have been made by the President and his cabinet over the past two and a half years.

 

[Sundance_2]

Moore's movie has an obvious slant (and an adjenda), but he seems to have taken a comical approach and makes no excuses about the what the purpose of the movie is (unlike certain nationally syndicated radio hosts and authors). Some people will hate it, and they'll hate it because Moore shares the same hatred for republicans as republicans do for him (regardless of the focus of the movie). You see this is evident when your average conservative 'net reviewer rips apart "Roger and Me" which whether you agree with him or not on current issues, it a very poignant, funny and excellent film (Still probably the highlight of his career, for better or worse).

I haven't seen the film itself (and probably won't unless it pops up on TV) so I won't comment on it. After all, it's just a film and isn't going to send shockwaves through me or what my political beliefs are.

 

[ExCyber]

I'd like to see it (though probably not in the theater) just out of curiosity about how Moore presents it. Everything I've read about the movie says that it's factually very solid for the amount of spin that's in it - about the only thing I've seen resembling a solid claim of deception is that Moore pulls a Bush/Fleischer/McClellan and weasel-words/edits a sequence to make people think that a group of rich Saudi nationals was allowed to fly out of the country when airspace was closed. I have yet to hear of another claim that sounds remotely credible (i.e. a claim by someone who saw them movie and was clearly paying attention). This isn't surprising, since the movie is said to rely predominantly on stuff that's been in the news for ages. By all accounts I've read, anyone who follows media with an actual liberal/Democrat bias (IMO most media in this country is more centrist than liberal, but to today's Republicans centrism apparently looks like radicalism) has heard this stuff a hundred times already.

You should try Al Franken. It seems he thinks he's still writing for SNL. Truth be damned, he's gonna be funny.

I've never heard of Franken being discredited on facts (I have heard him called an unfunny idiot, but so long as liberals reserve the right to say the same of e.g. Dennis Miller* I don't think there's any real harm there). Care to point out some examples? I do like to know when I'm being lied to.

I've gone so far as to read Ann Coulter books

Ann Coulter is so ridiculous that I think she's faking it. She's like a caricature of the stereotypical "right-wing bigot". I mean, come on:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

And this is me wondering who pays her to write this stuff.

*: I haven't seen any of Miller's recent material, so I can't comment on it. I'm not a politically-motivated humor bigot - I find Colin Quinn funny, for instance. But lately I hear a lot of Miller-bashing, so I figured it was an appropriate example.

 

[Caelestis]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoul...c20011220.shtml

I'm not debating how ridiculous Coulter can be. While the circumstances and opinions she presents are usually valid, I honestly can't be sure if she wants to attack France or not... that in itself is enough to scare me away from using her as a tool in my debates.

As far as the general bias of the media, something like 25% of the newscasters consider themselves conservative and 39% liberal, with the rest declaring 'independant' status. I can't remember the exact numbers, but liberals certainly lead. Ironically, the much-maligned Drudge Report was just ranked as one of the most central news outlets. I imagine if you're actually talking about politics, you know about the Drudge Report... or else you probably have no business even voting (hey, I still believe people should have to take tests to be allowed to vote).

Anyways, back to Franken. His facts typically aren't disputed (though the validity of the sources sometimes are). The problem lies with the 'conversations' he likes to quote in his book. A lot of people have claimed he faked interviews with them. While it's certainly possible a few of them are lying, or just don't remember it correctly, I'm inclined to not believe him so much when so many people have problems with his interpretations of events.

 

[ExCyber]

Anyways, back to Franken. His facts typically aren't disputed (though the validity of the sources sometimes are). The problem lies with the 'conversations' he likes to quote in his book. A lot of people have claimed he faked interviews with them. While it's certainly possible a few of them are lying, or just don't remember it correctly, I'm inclined to not believe him so much when so many people have problems with his interpretations of events.

I've read very little of Franken's writings, but it sounds like he's doing spoof interviews...

 

[it290]

It really depends on what you consider to be liberal. I agree with ExCyber that the majority are certainly fairly centrist for the most part. Many people consider the New York Times to be a fairly liberal institution, yet they also showed a lot of support for the war in general. Most of the so called 'liberals' in this country have really tended towards the center a lot in the past several decades, and certainly would not be considered very far to the left in most parts of the Western world. Personally, I feel that it's time to throw out this political tactic, as it has probably cost the Democrats more than a few elections.

As for Coulter, I kind of agree with you... it almost seems like she takes things a little TOO far. She has also been known to make herself look ridiculous. But hey, Rush does the same. Obviously, those tactics are good for business and publicity.

 

[mtxblau]

NYC isn't Gotham. Yes, it's completely unrelated, but it bugs me.

I don't particularly like Michael Moore. But nothing in that movie is new news. And it certainly wouldn't have been as popular had the right wing shut their traps and let it go as is. They gave it much more publicity than warranted.

However, I think this movie was very important in the grand scheme of things - the voting populace has been particularly apathetic about government and policies. Moore's movie will at the very least get people thinking about politics again, and god forbid they might see the movie and start questioning or validating their beliefs. People might even vote! I'm an unabashed liberal, but I must say that I would prefer that a person vote Republican than not vote at all.

Ann Coulter is a loon. What really irks me about her is her supercilious manner. She's always haughty when doing interviews, as if the questions being posed to her are ridiculous, and anything that challenges them are ludicrous. And the best part is, she never really answers any questions! Her books are just cliches strung together. Yet she's gotten popular in that regard. (How? Why?) I guess it's true what they say about blondes...

I thought the same about Rush Limbaugh (land votes??) but it turns out he was/is a raging drug addict, and it finally all makes sense.

Dennis Miller is unfunny. That is, at first blush you would think that what he said was funny, and technically, should be funny - but it isn't. The more you wonder, the more you try to figure out how he got a job in the first place.