|
Post by 321boom on Jan 9, 2005 19:25:11 GMT
A few days ago I rented out of the library and watched this with my mum and dad. I thought it was great! I couldn't understand some of the too political stuff. What do people think of this? I thought it was a bit one way, it was so anti Bush it almost made me feel sorry for him. And the bit where they were showing Pakistan (if it was Pakistan) in complete happiness (the bit where is shows loads of children having fun) before the whole place got bombed. That was all sheer propaganda. Did the guy go too far or was it a joke, or am I just plain nuts?
|
|
|
Post by archangelffx on Jan 9, 2005 19:27:49 GMT
I haven't seen this film, but many Americans now hate Michael Moore for this attack on his own nation. When he made Bowling for Columbine, he rightfully exposed the problems with guns in the US as opposed to Canada, yet he seems to have no real grounds for Fahrenheit 9/11, except to have a good laugh at his President and possibly earn a lot of money for being a jerk.
|
|
|
Post by 321boom on Jan 9, 2005 19:32:35 GMT
I haven't seen this film, but many Americans now hate Michael Moore for this attack on his own nation. An attack on his nation? The film itself is about how Bush carelessly sent his soldiers to war. Or am I wrong? *waits for Ed to do a very, political post explaining about how I'm wrong*
|
|
|
Post by archangelffx on Jan 9, 2005 19:48:31 GMT
Well, you know what I mean, not literally attacking it. Heavily slating your President is like calling your Queen a prostitute. OK, perhaps its not...
*BAN'D!*
|
|
|
Post by Admin Droid on Jan 9, 2005 19:51:39 GMT
An attack on his nation? The film itself is about how Bush carelessly sent his soldiers to war. Or am I wrong? *waits for Ed to do a very, political post explaining about how I'm wrong* I have very mixed views on the Iraq war but no particular reason to argue for one side of the coin or another. The film itself, as I understand it, is basically anti-Bush propaganda that's about as reliable as your average piece of journalism in "The Sun". I'm sure parts are true, and parts are rooted in truth, but Moore's hardly coy about his agenda. Probably good entertainment value though, I'd like to see it one day.
|
|
|
Post by Shadic? on Jan 9, 2005 20:12:41 GMT
Well, you know what I mean, not literally attacking it. Heavily slating your President is like calling your Queen a [censored]. OK, perhaps its not... *BAN'D!* If the name fits... I dont like Bush.. He isnt to bright. Farenheight 9/11 isnt all about Bush.. alot of it is how people have been affected by Bush's decision.
|
|
Gizmo
Big Time Boomer
Banned
Says hello
Posts: 354
|
Post by Gizmo on Jan 10, 2005 0:14:54 GMT
owww I love micheal moore. hes so attractive in that cap of his... lol joke.
but anyway people say "Oh its one sided." or "its an attack on his nation" and "it makes bush look dumb" (that isnt as hard to do though is it lol)
to them I shall say! *does a 1960's, takes off bra and burns it*
* if you say its one sided why hasnt anyone made the other side of the argument! or is the reason micheal moore is right and you cant argue against the documentory sucessfully because the points he makes are accurate and right.
* Its not an attack on his nation is a comment on what he sees, if its wrong then its wrong and should be ignored, but since its done well inside america then surely it shows that some of his points make sense and people are interested in what he has to say and people want to see whats wrong so they can see how to fix it!
* "it makes bush looks dumb" well so do press questions and nobody complains at those, we just make a poster and stick it to the door of the lunch room.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Droid on Jan 10, 2005 0:51:28 GMT
* if you say its one sided why hasnt anyone made the other side of the argument! or is the reason micheal moore is right and you cant argue against the documentory sucessfully because the points he makes are accurate and right. No, there are popular anti-Moore films. It spawned a whole mini-industry, in fact. And accurate and right? The non-partisan Independence Institute begs to differ fifty-nine times over. (NB. That's a .pdf file, so you may need Adobe Acrobat reader). Or maybe they find Moore funny and his accusations intriguing, but only recognising it for what it is: humourous propaganda designed to paint Bush in the worst possible light. Remember, plenty of anti-Bush people hate Moore too.
|
|
Gizmo
Big Time Boomer
Banned
Says hello
Posts: 354
|
Post by Gizmo on Jan 10, 2005 1:09:50 GMT
urm I never said anti moore films I said "why hasnt anyone made the other side of the argument" and if you look at the ratings of the film there its not a very good one. and to say its spawned a whole anti moore inustry is a weak argument since most popular things get an anti movement, theres an anti harry potter movement, anti lord of the rings, anti tony blair, anti anything. so its not really a significant comment to say that theres anti movements, theres always a voice for and against something. its not a rock hard definitive points document, for instance most of the points are very weak e.g. the one about congressmens families, so he was a whole 1 person out... and a lot of them are ended with questions which dont illustrate the point but are designed to make the reader answer to support the anti point which is being made, and again its a nothing more then a critics analysis of what he has seen, good things all the time get critisized all the time for little and petty things for the simple reason that they dont like the person in question, this is just the same, rather then say things like "it prompts the audience to question their choices at the voting polls" it deliberately goes through the documentory and tries to degrade the film by finding tiny flaws which are easily counterable again. who buys a documentory which has recieved lots of free press publicity around the world and is known as being a film that looks at the leadership of the government and the mistakes made by the nation on the off chance that its funny? More likely they want to see if theres any truth to the claims made and word of mouth would quickly stop people getting the film if it turned out to be a madmans ramblings, however there has to be some element of truth or else people wouldnt get it, audiences dont watch or buy documentories if there isnt a strong element of truth to them or else they wont beleive it. Also a lot of people who are anti bush are not anti america, its a sad fact that america has very little culturally so if they suspect any attack on their nation they defend it like crazy even if the attack or comment is correct, and also either way it illustrates the point, if there are so many anti micheal moore people then surely there should be a films made that are the other side of all his films? yet there has yet to be one which has been taken by american publishers.
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Jan 10, 2005 9:37:04 GMT
Probably due to biased Moore fans mass-voting of 1/10.
I like Bowling for Columbine, and detest F9/11. To me, it comes across like this -
*Imagery of Bush saying/doing stupid/inappropriate things*
Moore: And now, here are some dying children!
*Heart-rending imagery of dying children*
*Audience make association*
|
|
JJ
Script Hume
Bit of a hack, really.
Posts: 4,902
|
Post by JJ on Jan 10, 2005 13:11:55 GMT
I thought Bowling for Columbine was awesome, but F9/11 left me a little cold. It's hard to get so enthusiastic about such enormously biased propaganda (sp?). It left me a little confused too, with bits like the patriotic mother who's son has gone to war, and then he dies and she goes to the White House. I didn't fully see the point of that whole bit -- were we meant to sympathise with her, or laugh at her, or pity her? The film didn't seem to be very good at making a point.
I did like the bit when 9/11 is happening and Bush is just sitting in that classroom, though. I thought that was quite powerful, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Droid on Jan 10, 2005 16:50:57 GMT
urm I never said anti moore films I said "why hasnt anyone made the other side of the argument" and if you look at the ratings of the film there its not a very good one. The film rating on imdb is just the opinion of the posters (the same dingbats who dissed “Giant” ). But in any case, my point isn't whether the response film is good or bad but the fact that it exists and that it's arguing the case against Michael Moore. You said people hadn't, but that isn't true at all. Of course, Bush’s core constituency isn’t Hollywood and the film industry; its principle weapon is the print media and radio, so that’s where you’re best off looking for the other side. I’m not talking about people burning books, I mean there’s a Christian film industry dedicated to make books in keeping with the Republican Christian beliefs, as opposed to Hollywood which is a by-word in America for ‘liberal’, and not a compliment. The family of the man (presumably the Republican) whose life Moore ignored may find it significant, but I have no idea about the context of the film. This sort of thing is the usual tactic of propaganda films and tabloid journalism though: adapting well-known facts slightly so they still ring true but have a prejudicial effect. (See below for an illustration of how this works.) I'm sorry, but I can't see how these arguments can be dismissed as 'small': it covers everything from whether Saddam Hussein threatened to attack the US, whether Enron was involved, whether Bush met with Taliban leaders... pretty much the whole lot. If you're calling people liars, fraudsters, murderers and terrorist collaborators then I think "tiny flaws" like the basic accuracy of the material really ought to be fact-checked. And Moore isn't saying "go and question your choices at the voting booth", he's saying "go and get Bush out of office now!" But just as he's accusing Bush of going to war based on lies, his tirade against Bush is demonstrably based on lies. And it hurts his integrity as a critic. Now, this list of flaws may be flawed itself, but it at least comes from a source that claims itself to be independent – unlike Moore. Anyone who knows Moore's comedic stylings but has grave doubts over his record for factual accuracy? I’d watch Fahrenheit for its comedy value, but not because I expect accurate journalism. The BBC and the daily papers frequently fall well below my criteria for objectivity, let alone Michael Moore. You can do a lot with a "strong element of truth" you know. For example, here's two reports based on the same factual truth (well, a factual truth I made up for illustrative purposes ): Blair reneges on diet pledgeShamed Blair was under fire last night for failing to keep to his diet. An anonymous source last night told journalists, "He's guzzled more than a hundred Mars bars and shows no sign of stopping. The man’s a pig!" The Downing Street dietician, Glen Whittaker, from the McDonald’s corporation, was mysteriously not available for comment. Tony’s Diet Triumph “Since I started my diet, I feel fitter than ever,” Tony Blair confided in a top aide last night. The Prime Minister has met all weight loss targets since 1998. His dietician, world-leading expert Glen Whittaker, attributes the weight loss to strong incentives. “Every month for the last decade, Tony treats himself with a small Mars bar. It’s a way of celebrating his success.” So, yes, I’m sure Michael Moore’s documentaries do have *an element* of truth. But I don’t think it’s the whole, unbiased, truth. I think it’s one perspective, and I’ll treat it with the cynicism I would any other kind of spin. I think I’m misunderstanding this ‘very little culturally’ point? )Steinbeck, Frost, Whitman, Faulkner, Kubrick, a massive portion of international pop culture in the 20th century etc. is hardly little after all). Anyway, nobody’s quibbling that many patriotic Americans will have enjoyed, and perhaps agreed with, Moore’s film. But that doesn’t mean it’s accurate. It just means that some people agree with it. But the whole point I was making is that many of these people sympathetic to Moore’s cause loathe his aims because they’re counter-productive: lies to criticise lies. As I said, "Michael Moore Hates America", now on DVD. Or any of the anti-Moore books, which can be ordered off Amazon. (Of course, you’re right that no documentary film – at all – has the width of audience of Fahrenheit 9/11. Perhaps because Moore is a household name, perhaps because the people against Bush have more to prove – I mean, Bush is in the White House, so it’s no sweat for his supporters. But bear in mind also that until quite recently, Hollywood Republicans have had it rough It would be a brave move for any distributor to take on too Republican a film without a clear profit margin, and Passion of the Christ was the first real indication that there was a market for movies catering for non-Hollywood people). Of course, none of this is to say that Moore’s film should be entirely discredited. I’m just saying, it has an agenda of its own.
|
|
|
Post by Omnion (yes, he is a man) on Jan 10, 2005 18:16:06 GMT
Bowling for Columbine-good. This-garbage.
Moore hates Bush so much (so do I, but that's not the point) that he doesn't give about his tactics, just attacking Bush. His reasons are truly pathetic, and the few good questions he raises are never even answered. Moore, like Eminem, is just trying to be all controversial by attacking someone pretty unpopular-he knows that most of the world is so politically ignorant that it won't notice the holes all over his case. they just want to see George Bush being shown up. I hope that he returns to form in his next film. (want a good controversial journalist, read Joe Sacco. I swear. Read it)
|
|
JJ
Script Hume
Bit of a hack, really.
Posts: 4,902
|
Post by JJ on Jan 10, 2005 19:53:28 GMT
Oh, I didn't realise 'Michael Moore Hates America' was out, I'll have to give that a look.
|
|
|
Post by Omnion (yes, he is a man) on Jan 10, 2005 20:18:06 GMT
Nooooooo....!
|
|
Mrcuddlebunny
Big Time Boomer
Writer of appauling stories
Posts: 146
|
Post by Mrcuddlebunny on Jan 10, 2005 23:07:09 GMT
I think there's also a film coming out called "Fahrenhype 9/11" which supposedly attacks Moore's film...
|
|
|
Post by Omnion (yes, he is a man) on Jan 11, 2005 17:18:36 GMT
I think there's also a film coming out called "Fahrenhype 9/11" which supposedly attacks Moore's film... Seriously? That's one for my "to see" list. Oh, and Michael Moore does not hate America, nor implies it, so please don't say that. His little vendetta against Bush gets so carried away he just forgets all logic and goes in a frenzy. I hardly think Bush represents America. (probably never will unless he gets his act together) *UPDATE* Google searched Farenhype and found nothing important, just a few mentionings, and the IMDB don't have anything on it. Not sure if it's maybe a straight-to-video/DVD release.
|
|