I have *seen* F9/11 and here is what I think...
- Thread starter Zensteve
- Start date
I liked it...and it DID have it's share of unknown/ little known information in it, but some stuff was VERY biased. There was a montage of Bush and his administration shaking hands with shady characters from the middle east...couldn't this montage be made about any president? There was also a list of bills passed and not passed by Bush that seemed "evil", but again, this list could be made about any president. Infact, if someone made a doc about Clinton; I truly believe equally bad, if not worse, information would be uncovered.
I'm not saying that Bush is a good president...he's not, but nor is Moore a fair and balanced filmmaker. If Moore's film was less deceptive, perhaps he would be able to actually sway MORE people toward his point of view.
Besides, is our other choice for president, John Kerry, any better than Bush? I don't think so. I think the problem isn't just Bush's administration...It's our two party system.
P.S. Nader's crazy too. So, I have no idea who I will vote for, but it will be the lesser evil...we need better candidates!!!!
I'm not saying that Bush is a good president...he's not, but nor is Moore a fair and balanced filmmaker. If Moore's film was less deceptive, perhaps he would be able to actually sway MORE people toward his point of view.
Besides, is our other choice for president, John Kerry, any better than Bush? I don't think so. I think the problem isn't just Bush's administration...It's our two party system.
P.S. Nader's crazy too. So, I have no idea who I will vote for, but it will be the lesser evil...we need better candidates!!!!
The only political swipe I'll take at the movie is I believe it's disrespectful to sling garbage at a sitting president. Not that it hasn't been done before, and it'll probably happen again from both sides of the political spectrum - but that doesn't make it right.
The sign I carried in my protest read
"Farenheit 9/11 is:
- distorted facts
- innuendo
- ad hominem attacks
ANTI-AMERICAN"
I should have added " - non-sequiter" but it would have further confused people. Seriously, I had a lot of people yell at me saying "Anti-American huh? So is censorship!"
I got a little tired of explaining I wasn't suggesting they don't see the movie, I was just saying what I thought about it. Furthermore, censorship is UN-AMERICAN. The movie, taken as a whole, is anti-American. I defy anyone to honestly say the movie was pro-American or neutral. And it was kind of fun to keep explaining what an "ad-hominem attack" is.
Anyway, I'm sad the country has come become so polarized. This movie was just like pouring gasoline on an open fire.
*Another political statement* It probably won't happen in 2004, but what I'd like more than anything else is to vote FOR someone in an election. I predict the majority of votes cast in 2004 will be "Anyone but Bush" and "Anyone but Kerry."
Indie - if I've gotten too far off topic feel free to snip this posting. I don't mean to violate board rules, I'm just very passionate about this topic. Thanks.
The sign I carried in my protest read
"Farenheit 9/11 is:
- distorted facts
- innuendo
- ad hominem attacks
ANTI-AMERICAN"
I should have added " - non-sequiter" but it would have further confused people. Seriously, I had a lot of people yell at me saying "Anti-American huh? So is censorship!"
I got a little tired of explaining I wasn't suggesting they don't see the movie, I was just saying what I thought about it. Furthermore, censorship is UN-AMERICAN. The movie, taken as a whole, is anti-American. I defy anyone to honestly say the movie was pro-American or neutral. And it was kind of fun to keep explaining what an "ad-hominem attack" is.
Anyway, I'm sad the country has come become so polarized. This movie was just like pouring gasoline on an open fire.
*Another political statement* It probably won't happen in 2004, but what I'd like more than anything else is to vote FOR someone in an election. I predict the majority of votes cast in 2004 will be "Anyone but Bush" and "Anyone but Kerry."
Indie - if I've gotten too far off topic feel free to snip this posting. I don't mean to violate board rules, I'm just very passionate about this topic. Thanks.
SPaulovich said:
I agree with that statement completely!!!! I personally don't like any of the major candidates, so my decision will be tough come voting time.
SPaulovich said:
I disagree with this statement. The whole point of "free" speech, press, etc. is to give Americans the right to point out any flaws in the government or any other authority; without fear of punishment. It also holds the president accountable for his actions!
I think that Moore's approach was all wrong, but he definitely should be able to express his contempt for the current president if he wants to. It's not wrong to sling garbage unless it's false garbage (in my opinion).
Personally, I don't think "anti-american" is a bad thing, because I don't believe in being patriotic. America is no better that any other country, your just BIAS because you live there. BUT IF when you say patriotic you mean celebrating ones culture, then I think it's a really good thing.
I am going to save the rest of my comments cause I don't have the energy to fight with americans about this stuff. I just voted in our election, that's enough for me.
I am going to save the rest of my comments cause I don't have the energy to fight with americans about this stuff. I just voted in our election, that's enough for me.
Tine said:
I can think of a few countries that America is better than. And it's not because I live here, it's beacuse I can see with my eyes that a majority of the rest of the world is a shitty place to live. There's a reason people flock to America illegally and legally - it's a great friggin' country to live in, and our women don't look too bad neither.
We can argue all day if it's the best or not, but to say it's no better than any other country is puerile poppycock and harebrained hullabaloo.
I'd like to think that Mr. Moore himself would agree on this point (although I couldn't say for sure). America isn't perfect (we did give the world Michael Jackson and Pauley Shore), but it sure as hell isn't on the same level as Kenya or France (sorry Frenchies, but I can't pass up a dig on les amis météorologiques justes).
Maybe I'm biased and maybe you're jealous.
Red, White, and Poke
HAHAHA.....I haven't seen the movie yet so I have nothing to say except: Poke, that was some funny shit! 
Poke
Nope, your definatly bias. I am certainly not jealous, I would not be happy living in the states. I like Canada. But You say the majority of the world is a pretty bad place to live? I disagree. Kenya is not the majority of the world. And some parts of kenya are fine. Nope, I wouldn't want to live in a country where people sue left and right, where everyone has a gun, and the general attitude seems to be arrogance. (I am not saying everyone, I've got friends from the states including people from this bored, but that's what people think of then they think of the U.S.)
I stand by my statement, the U.S. is no better than any other country.
-Tine
What do you know, I guess I do have the energy.
Nope, your definatly bias. I am certainly not jealous, I would not be happy living in the states. I like Canada. But You say the majority of the world is a pretty bad place to live? I disagree. Kenya is not the majority of the world. And some parts of kenya are fine. Nope, I wouldn't want to live in a country where people sue left and right, where everyone has a gun, and the general attitude seems to be arrogance. (I am not saying everyone, I've got friends from the states including people from this bored, but that's what people think of then they think of the U.S.)
I stand by my statement, the U.S. is no better than any other country.
-Tine
What do you know, I guess I do have the energy.
Tine said:
To each his (or her) own I guess, but personally, I think you're straight up playa hatin'.
Non-suing, Non-gun owning, but Plenty arrogant Poke
Tine: Aren't you patriotic to Canada?
We are biased, but why is that bad? We care about the place that we came from. We were raised here. We want our people to prosper, and we want what's best for our society. What's wrong with that?
I'm certainly not anti-Canadian. Americans joke a lot about Canada, but truth be told, most Americans love Canada's culture and people...and most Americans are not as war hungry as we appear to the rest of the world.
Why would I want to move to a "better" place if I can make things "better" for my home country?
America has problems, but I don't think that any of them are unfixable (yet), so I invest hope in my nation, just like most people.
P.S. Tampa Bay won the Stanley Cup. TAMPA BAY!!! We're better. BOOYAAA!!!!
We are biased, but why is that bad? We care about the place that we came from. We were raised here. We want our people to prosper, and we want what's best for our society. What's wrong with that?
I'm certainly not anti-Canadian. Americans joke a lot about Canada, but truth be told, most Americans love Canada's culture and people...and most Americans are not as war hungry as we appear to the rest of the world.
Why would I want to move to a "better" place if I can make things "better" for my home country?
America has problems, but I don't think that any of them are unfixable (yet), so I invest hope in my nation, just like most people.
P.S. Tampa Bay won the Stanley Cup. TAMPA BAY!!! We're better. BOOYAAA!!!!
Hell Yea Tampa......lol
Someone should run up to Michael Moore with a camera and microphone and get in his face and ask him if he's going to give all the money he's making from this movie to the poor people of Flint, Michigan and then film his reaction and cut the camera before he has the chance to say anything. Then cut to pictures of him eating at cannes. Show him at the post oscar parties sipping wine and eating. Then show pictures of poor black people in Michigan and say "why didn't michael moore give any of his money to these people?" then slowly zoom in on his face and play errie piano music.
-Mike Stoklassa
(I saw this in a different forum and had to share it)
-Mike Stoklassa
(I saw this in a different forum and had to share it)
http://moorelies.com/
God why did i ever look at this thread???
Tine: America is better than most countries. Ask yourself why you live here. Its the best place for you. Otherwise you would move(right?).
Michael Moore should not call himself a director. What did he direct? Unless ofcourse....hes saying something here. Like in Bowling for Columbine, the whole unlocked doors thing in canada, Did he direct that? meaning it was staged?
Either way he should call himself an Editor, Traitor, and Communist Anti American liberal.
(i say communist because thats the far left end of the Political spectrum..if you dont know it goes like this :
Communist_Socialist_Liberal_moderate_Reactionary_Conservative_Fascist)
Atleast, as far as i can remember thats teh Political spectrum
God why did i ever look at this thread???
Tine: America is better than most countries. Ask yourself why you live here. Its the best place for you. Otherwise you would move(right?).
Michael Moore should not call himself a director. What did he direct? Unless ofcourse....hes saying something here. Like in Bowling for Columbine, the whole unlocked doors thing in canada, Did he direct that? meaning it was staged?
Either way he should call himself an Editor, Traitor, and Communist Anti American liberal.
(i say communist because thats the far left end of the Political spectrum..if you dont know it goes like this :
Communist_Socialist_Liberal_moderate_Reactionary_Conservative_Fascist)
Atleast, as far as i can remember thats teh Political spectrum
rizien said:
Tine's a neighbor from the north (aka Canadian).
Poke
Well, at least the thread hasn't devolved into the traditional "Moore is fat!" comeback, when running short on ideas. 8)
But back to the film itself...
I think it was well crafted. Extremely well put together. Was it good enough to win the top prize at Cannes? I do not know. I have not seen the other competing films.
Unlike other Moore films (and tv shows), he is remarkably absent from from the screen... but his voice is that of the narrator, so he still has a presence. For the most part, when he does appear on screen doing his "schtick", I think it was well placed to provide a sense of comic-relief... cleverly inserted between the main segments that continually get darker, heavier and almost overwhelming. It provides a needed jolt to an amusing (and cynical) "high", before continuing the freefall drop back to the main story.
I found it interesting that the movie ends with some analogies from Orwell's classic "1984", concerning war and the reasons for why (or why not) it is waged. Ironically, I would say the film has an Orwellian tone of its own that I have not seen addressed anywhere so far. In "1984" there is the weekly "Hate" that people can attend to vent their anger and frustration at regimes.
In the context of the book, these Hates were arranged by the government to rage against the current enemy-du-jour. (I think it was Goldstein, irc) The images of atrocities committed by Goldstein and whichever country he was from are flashed over a screen in a montage-like fashion, and the faces merging in & out with that of a bleating sheep... focusing the anger of the people to distract away from their own regime's faults. I see F9/11 in a similar fashion, on some levels... but with clearly different targets.
Now the thing that makes the movie so difficult for many people, it seems, is a confusion between "truth" and "facts". Does the movie lie? The facts are all correct, yes? That makes for a "true" movie, right? Wrong.
In reality, there are no truths.
You can have verifiable facts and incidents... and use those to tell a story... but it's the fashion of presentation and an ever-present bias of some kind that will always blur a truth, to some degree. Combine that with what an audience wants to hear, and we end up with F9/11. To the people that want to hear it, it's the call to give Dubbya his marching orders. To those that want to hear it, it's a smear campaign by the so-called liberals to damage a sitting President. (I have yet to talk to any undecideds to guage their reaction to it)
Now the funny thing is... both ends of the political spectrum are correct in their views of the film. The "facts" presented in the film are certainly verifiable, but the truthfulness of the film itself is most hotly debated. The real question is... what was the motive behind these confirmed facts and actions that took place (or did not take place)... and Mr Moore, in his typical fashion, has merely asked these questions and provided no concrete answers.... but an awful lot to think about.
In some ways, this method of presentation is a good thing. Show some facts, show some footage, ask some questions... what does Joe Public conclude from it? On the same hand, it also allows people that disagree with the film's obvious bias to rationalise many of the films "facts". There is no disputing the fact that after Mr Bush was told that America was under attack, he opened his copy of Billy the Goat and began to peruse the pages for several minutes.
But what does that really mean?
Why did he take that course of action? Noone will ever really know for sure, but we can all second-guess what was going through his mind. And that's about it. The left will continue to believe he was in a state of frightened stupidity, the right will continue to say he needed those minutes to formulate a plan of action. The audience saw what they saw... but did they really know what it was they saw?
(cont'd)
But back to the film itself...
I think it was well crafted. Extremely well put together. Was it good enough to win the top prize at Cannes? I do not know. I have not seen the other competing films.
Unlike other Moore films (and tv shows), he is remarkably absent from from the screen... but his voice is that of the narrator, so he still has a presence. For the most part, when he does appear on screen doing his "schtick", I think it was well placed to provide a sense of comic-relief... cleverly inserted between the main segments that continually get darker, heavier and almost overwhelming. It provides a needed jolt to an amusing (and cynical) "high", before continuing the freefall drop back to the main story.
I found it interesting that the movie ends with some analogies from Orwell's classic "1984", concerning war and the reasons for why (or why not) it is waged. Ironically, I would say the film has an Orwellian tone of its own that I have not seen addressed anywhere so far. In "1984" there is the weekly "Hate" that people can attend to vent their anger and frustration at regimes.
In the context of the book, these Hates were arranged by the government to rage against the current enemy-du-jour. (I think it was Goldstein, irc) The images of atrocities committed by Goldstein and whichever country he was from are flashed over a screen in a montage-like fashion, and the faces merging in & out with that of a bleating sheep... focusing the anger of the people to distract away from their own regime's faults. I see F9/11 in a similar fashion, on some levels... but with clearly different targets.
Now the thing that makes the movie so difficult for many people, it seems, is a confusion between "truth" and "facts". Does the movie lie? The facts are all correct, yes? That makes for a "true" movie, right? Wrong.
In reality, there are no truths.
You can have verifiable facts and incidents... and use those to tell a story... but it's the fashion of presentation and an ever-present bias of some kind that will always blur a truth, to some degree. Combine that with what an audience wants to hear, and we end up with F9/11. To the people that want to hear it, it's the call to give Dubbya his marching orders. To those that want to hear it, it's a smear campaign by the so-called liberals to damage a sitting President. (I have yet to talk to any undecideds to guage their reaction to it)
Now the funny thing is... both ends of the political spectrum are correct in their views of the film. The "facts" presented in the film are certainly verifiable, but the truthfulness of the film itself is most hotly debated. The real question is... what was the motive behind these confirmed facts and actions that took place (or did not take place)... and Mr Moore, in his typical fashion, has merely asked these questions and provided no concrete answers.... but an awful lot to think about.
In some ways, this method of presentation is a good thing. Show some facts, show some footage, ask some questions... what does Joe Public conclude from it? On the same hand, it also allows people that disagree with the film's obvious bias to rationalise many of the films "facts". There is no disputing the fact that after Mr Bush was told that America was under attack, he opened his copy of Billy the Goat and began to peruse the pages for several minutes.
But what does that really mean?
Why did he take that course of action? Noone will ever really know for sure, but we can all second-guess what was going through his mind. And that's about it. The left will continue to believe he was in a state of frightened stupidity, the right will continue to say he needed those minutes to formulate a plan of action. The audience saw what they saw... but did they really know what it was they saw?
(cont'd)
Oh wow it's hard to keep up if I don't come here every day!
Poke:
I think you're straight up playa hatin'
Absolutly not true. I don't hate anyone.
LOGAN:
Tine: Aren't you patriotic to Canada?
We are biased, but why is that bad? We care about the place that we came from. We were raised here. We want our people to prosper, and we want what's best for our society. What's wrong with that?
I'm certainly not anti-Canadian. Americans joke a lot about Canada, but truth be told, most Americans love Canada's culture and people...and most Americans are not as war hungry as we appear to the rest of the world.
Why would I want to move to a "better" place if I can make things "better" for my home country?
I absolutely agree 100%. I think it's great to be patriotic if you mean to celebrate your culture and to be happy with where you live. What I am saying is, some people don't mean that when they say they are being patriotic. Some people just say "My country is better than yours". That's what I don't agree with.
LOGAN:
Someone should run up to Michael Moore with a camera and microphone and get in his face and ask him if he's going to give all the money he's making from this movie to the poor people of Flint, Michigan and then film his reaction and cut the camera before he has the chance to say anything. Then cut to pictures of him eating at cannes. Show him at the post oscar parties sipping wine and eating. Then show pictures of poor black people in Michigan and say "why didn't michael moore give any of his money to these people?" then slowly zoom in on his face and play errie piano music.
LOL Awesome! Good point.
rizien:
America is better than most countries
I still disagree. It is very different, yes. But not necisarily better.
Okay I am not all the way through Zen's monster post, so I'll wait to respond to that one for now.
Poke:
I think you're straight up playa hatin'
Absolutly not true. I don't hate anyone.
LOGAN:
Tine: Aren't you patriotic to Canada?
We are biased, but why is that bad? We care about the place that we came from. We were raised here. We want our people to prosper, and we want what's best for our society. What's wrong with that?
I'm certainly not anti-Canadian. Americans joke a lot about Canada, but truth be told, most Americans love Canada's culture and people...and most Americans are not as war hungry as we appear to the rest of the world.
Why would I want to move to a "better" place if I can make things "better" for my home country?
I absolutely agree 100%. I think it's great to be patriotic if you mean to celebrate your culture and to be happy with where you live. What I am saying is, some people don't mean that when they say they are being patriotic. Some people just say "My country is better than yours". That's what I don't agree with.
LOGAN:
Someone should run up to Michael Moore with a camera and microphone and get in his face and ask him if he's going to give all the money he's making from this movie to the poor people of Flint, Michigan and then film his reaction and cut the camera before he has the chance to say anything. Then cut to pictures of him eating at cannes. Show him at the post oscar parties sipping wine and eating. Then show pictures of poor black people in Michigan and say "why didn't michael moore give any of his money to these people?" then slowly zoom in on his face and play errie piano music.
LOL Awesome! Good point.
rizien:
America is better than most countries
I still disagree. It is very different, yes. But not necisarily better.
Okay I am not all the way through Zen's monster post, so I'll wait to respond to that one for now.
rizien said:
By that rationale, to "direct" a documentary is to "stage" a documentary, which means that all documentaries that aren't filmed exclusively with "found footage" are false. That's a tough charge to back up.
Equally tough is the charge that Moore is a Traitor or a Communist or Anti-American. I guess that depends on what your idea of being Patriotic or Pro-American is, but I think raising salient points about a sitting President is part of one's duty as an American (or anyone's duty to their own nation). Sitting idly by and blindly supporting your leaders doesn't make someone a good citizen.
Granted, I'm a liberal and I don't agree with most of Michael Moore's points. He's certainly as reactionary as the Bill O'Reillys of the world, and he manipulates the facts to serve his thesis (was I the only one who wanted to walk out when he devolved into a montage of the Bushes shaking hands with the Saudis to the tune of "Shiny Happy People"?).
But I do appreciate him for at least pointing out the bare minimum of the ugly interconnection between business and politics in this country. He leaves viewers with a lot of questions from his films, which they'd do well to follow up on independently.
But I will also agree that most of what he creates feels deliberately staged, and his cheap shots undermine the legitimacy of his facts (which are already edited into a Moore-specific context).
MOORE IS FAT!!!!!.....haha jk Zen