Fahrenheit 9/11

[TheBoyNextDoor]

Wonder if people in the USA have seen this film.. especially the people voting for Bush.

It did really frightened me. Many sleepless nights ahead I assume..

[boudicca]

Wonder if people in the USA have seen this film.. especially the people voting for Bush.

It did really frightened me. Many sleepless nights ahead I assume..

I saw it in the summer (although I'm not a Yank, obviously). *sigh* I don't know, all this stuff has just got to the point where, if I actually got worked up about it, my brain would implode and I'd end up lying in the middle of a dual carriageway, thrashing my arms about, yelling "It's pronounced terr-or, not teyrr!!"

So I just bring the shutters down now, I'm afraid to say. I take immense comfort in the idea that the human race is hurtling towards ultimate destruction whatever some arse from Texas does.

[Padstar]

Judging by the result of the election ide say that not ENOUGH people saw it.

Paddy.

[Quiff Boy]

its an interesting film & highlights some very important points, but for me its just poorly made.

i'm a big moore fan - have read most of his books, seen "bowling for columbine", etc etc i think he always raises some very interesting points in whatever he produces, and does so in a way that manages to capture the imagination of the majority of people. his whit and humour help bring difficult and uncomfortable ciurcumstances to the people's attentions in a way they can grasp, and handle.

but "...9/11" was a poor film. it was 1-sided, savagely edited to the point where it felt like propaganda, and for a large part completely unsubstatiated. he never even tried to name his sources for a lot of that stuff. it was like comparing "panorama" with "world in action".

compare it with the likes of "...columbine" which was a superb film in every respect (hell, even marylin manson comes out of it seemeing like a fine, well-balanced, intelligent & articulate chap!) and 9/11 looks like a very poor cousin.

[CellThree]

It is basically a film version of Stupid White Men (or whatever the title was, I can't remember off hand). All the sources are in the book, I agree about the way the film came over though.
It's probably more to do with that he was aiming the film at Americans and due to the culture over there (and increasingly over here too) it is better to show things at face value with instant facts than trying to get too in-depth explaining the whys and wherefores.

MM does come across as a nice enough guy, his autobiography is actually a pretty good read, shame most of his music sucks.

[andymackem]

Tend to find Michael Moore is the kind of person who makes me want to change sides. He may or may not be right, but there's a kind of aggressive self-righteousness that really boils my pi*s.

Plus it ignores the sad fact that democracy has evolved to the point where voters have chosen a very narrow path of short-term self-interest and political debate has become a localised beauty contest.

There's no longer any meaningful alternative, sadly. The revolution is dead and Moore and chums aren't going to revive it. The majority has spoken - and they've probably got it wrong.

[randdebiel²]

Judging by the result of the election ide say that not ENOUGH people saw it.

Paddy.

actually if anything, viewing anything moore makes would make me vote for Bush....I hate him...

[randdebiel²]

Tend to find Michael Moore is the kind of person who makes me want to change sides. He may or may not be right, but there's a kind of aggressive self-righteousness that really boils my pi*s.

Plus it ignores the sad fact that democracy has evolved to the point where voters have chosen a very narrow path of short-term self-interest and political debate has become a localised beauty contest.

There's no longer any meaningful alternative, sadly. The revolution is dead and Moore and chums aren't going to revive it. The majority has spoken - and they've probably got it wrong.

indeed

[randdebiel²]

It is basically a film version of Stupid White Men (or whatever the title was, I can't remember off hand). All the sources are in the book, I agree about the way the film came over though.
It's probably more to do with that he was aiming the film at Americans and due to the culture over there (and increasingly over here too) it is better to show things at face value with instant facts than trying to get too in-depth explaining the whys and wherefores.

MM does come across as a nice enough guy, his autobiography is actually a pretty good read, shame most of his music sucks.

even the book was s**t though, yes, I read it...and I was completely disgusted at the false arguments that were in it...

[boudicca]

I find Mr. Moore's appearance highly amusing. He looks like the kind of guy who you'd see shouting "USA! USA!" and sporting very right-wing bumper stickers on his giant fuel-guzzling car.

I agree, the film had more than a hint of propaganda about it, but heigh-ho, it didn't work anyway. Did anyone else see the Dead Ringers take-off of it, by the way? They royally took the p*ss out of both sides.

[Ian - Rhythm Smurph]

but "...9/11" was a poor film. it was 1-sided, savagely edited to the point where it felt like propaganda, and for a large part completely unsubstatiated. he never even tried to name his sources for a lot of that stuff. it was like comparing "panorama" with "world in action".

I think in all fairness that it was intended to be propaganda - it was a political piece of film making. Bear in mind that this was released at a time when it was common practice for TV debate anchors to be referring to Kerry as ' That Terrorist' or 'Sadam's Friend'.
We may love a well made documentary which allows us to make up our own minds, but this was one film standing against a tirade of Pro-Bush anti-Kerry TV, Radio and general media - its a shame MM had to stoop to the level of one sided propaganda, but given the environment into which the film was release I can entirely understand why he went for this approach.

Re the films impact - I have spend a lot of time in the US over the last few years and its really hard to appreciate (at least for a Brit) the fundamental patriotic undertone in American culture until you’ve been in it - unfortunately what is to many a real sense of community spirit, belonging and an 'all pulling together mentality' (which frankly we could do with a lot more of in the UK - ironically this is what the British used to have a rep for - the Blitz spirit et al) can be subverted by nefarious characters into xenophobia or jingoism. If your mass media is practically telling you ‘you are a trater if you don't vote for Bush’, its very difficult for one movie to reverse the trend.

The movie (among other initiatives) probably did have an impact, just compare voter turn out for this election to recent showings.

[randdebiel²]

This is utter s**t...he didn't "sink to that level" he never was on a higher one....
even though I agree on the basics about it, bowling for Columbine was exactly the same kind of s**t, lying propaganda, the difference being:no one objected to that at the ime because banning weapons seems to be common sense for more people...
the "stupid white men" book, which appeared before kerry even started to be known, was also one-sided lying propaganda...and I even went crazy with Riger & me, from 89, he was already the same at that time...so don't give me the "he HAD to" crap...he just IS like that...
and one-sided pro-bush propaganda? from what I've seen here, it seemed only fox was really pro-bushly biased...the rest seemed quite neutral....

[Padstar]

This is utter s**t...he didn't "sink to that level" he never was on a higher one....
even though I agree on the basics about it, bowling for Columbine was exactly the same kind of s**t, lying propaganda, the difference being:no one objected to that at the ime because banning weapons seems to be common sense for more people...
the "stupid white men" book, which appeared before kerry even started to be known, was also one-sided lying propaganda...and I even went crazy with Riger & me, from 89, he was already the same at that time...so don't give me the "he HAD to" crap...he just IS like that...
and one-sided pro-bush propaganda? from what I've seen here, it seemed only fox was really pro-bushly biased...the rest seemed quite neutral....

Im curious to know what parts you consider lies in the documentary?


Paddy.

[Rivers]

I find it amusing almost that right-wing inspired propaganda flows constantly from newspapers, tv news and hate spouting talk radio hosts in USA but the minute anyone puts out an alternative piece then its shot down in flames.
Strange world, we'll get the one we deserve no doubt.

[boudicca]

I find it amusing almost that right-wing inspired propaganda flows constantly from newspapers, tv news and hate spouting talk radio hosts in USA but the minute anyone puts out an alternative piece then its shot down in flames.
Strange world, we'll get the one we deserve no doubt.

You have a point, but I don't think many of the people here who are criticising Mr. Moore have any time for the Neo-Con drivel - I think the same goes for the majority of people in Western Europe (even if they are just bandwagon-jumpers). Personally, I dislike propaganda even when I totally agree with it (and there was little in the film that I actually disagreed with). Channel Four News springs to mind. I don't like hearing opinions where there should be plain (or as-plain-as-possible) facts.
I suppose Moore did not have the same obligation as news media to be completely impartial though - I just wish backed up his case with a bit more meat rather than relying on menacing background music and so on.

[randdebiel²]

Im curious to know what parts you consider lies in the documentary?


Paddy.

in which one? bowling for columbine?
for a starters the whole "open an account in our bank and you get a free gun" thingie

[randdebiel²]

I find it amusing almost that right-wing inspired propaganda flows constantly from newspapers, tv news and hate spouting talk radio hosts in USA but the minute anyone puts out an alternative piece then its shot down in flames.
Strange world, we'll get the one we deserve no doubt.

You have a point, but I don't think many of the people here who are criticising Mr. Moore have any time for the Neo-Con drivel - I think the same goes for the majority of people in Western Europe (even if they are just bandwagon-jumpers). Personally, I dislike propaganda even when I totally agree with it (and there was little in the film that I actually disagreed with). Channel Four News springs to mind. I don't like hearing opinions where there should be plain (or as-plain-as-possible) facts.
I suppose Moore did not have the same obligation as news media to be completely impartial though - I just wish backed up his case with a bit more meat rather than relying on menacing background music and so on.

yup

[randdebiel²]

also in bowling: serious parts of the marylin manson interview were rubbish...very one-sided..well, the whole movie is of-course...

[Ian - Rhythm Smurph]

This is utter s**t...he didn't "sink to that level" he never was on a higher one....
even though I agree on the basics about it, bowling for Columbine was exactly the same kind of s**t, lying propaganda, the difference being:no one objected to that at the ime because banning weapons seems to be common sense for more people...
the "stupid white men" book, which appeared before kerry even started to be known, was also one-sided lying propaganda...and I even went crazy with Riger & me, from 89, he was already the same at that time...so don't give me the "he HAD to" crap...he just IS like that...
and one-sided pro-bush propaganda? from what I've seen here, it seemed only fox was really pro-bushly biased...the rest seemed quite neutral....

I stick by the "had to crap" - the language you speak as a political activist is the language of your intended audience in the language of the contemporary culture in which you are operating - MM has no interest in putting together a balanced view of an argument in order preach to the converted - he has a political point of view which he wants to get to as wide an audience as possible - bare in mind this is was cinema release of a documentary!

Why MM should be expected to take the moral high ground or be derided for not being superior to 'Fox' is beyond me. He may be a reaction to US mass media, but he is also a product of it, guided by the same culture. Just because his work hasn't reflected a 'higher level' in your analysis or opinion doesn't mean he isn't capable or that he hasn't made an editorial decision to frame his work in the terms he does. You may well be right, I don't know the man!

Yes its propaganda, yes its crass but I don't believe that subtlety in the face of a mass media presenting a diametrically opposite view is ever going to make an impact.

I also have to disagree about your assertion that it was only Fox that was pro-bush - they were the most blatant by far, but far from unique - ever seen CNN? The world view presented is laughable.
And what about the very pro-bush 'Clear Channel' and their hold on radio?

[randdebiel²]

I stick by the "had to crap" - the language you speak as a political activist is the language of your intended audience in the language of the contemporary culture in which you are operating - MM has no interest in putting together a balanced view of an argument in order preach to the converted - he has a political point of view which he wants to get to as wide an audience as possible - bare in mind this is was cinema release of a documentary!

Why MM should be expected to take the moral high ground or be derided for not being superior to 'Fox' is beyond me. He may be a reaction to US mass media, but he is also a product of it, guided by the same culture. Just because his work hasn't reflected a 'higher level' in your analysis or opinion doesn't mean he isn't capable or that he hasn't made an editorial decision to frame his work in the terms he does. You may well be right, I don't know the man!

Yes its propaganda, yes its crass but I don't believe that subtlety in the face of a mass media presenting a diametrically opposite view is ever going to make an impact.

I also have to disagree about your assertion that it was only Fox that was pro-bush - they were the most blatant by far, but far from unique - ever seen CNN? The world view presented is laughable.
And what about the very pro-bush 'Clear Channel' and their hold on radio?

I understand what you're saying, but don't you think you have more chance to convert anyone by giving an honest documentary than with blatant propaganda? what I mean is this: I know I agree on the viewpoints of his documentaries (anti-weapon, anti-bush, etc), but I feel offended by him, and since you KNOW some of the stated information is false, if you don't agree to the viewpoint you will never be converted, because you don't take him seriously....
I mean if someone tries to persuade me that evolution took place by referring to flying elephants that you have in a zoo in New-Zealand, I will laugh, but the next time that person will try to persuade me of anything he knows for sure, I will dismiss him in advance...bearing in mind that he came with those flying elephants...
that's exactly what happens with moore(I think)

[Ian - Rhythm Smurph]

Yes - absolutely - The boy who cried wolf is a very relevant analogue. I agree if someone lies to me, I tend not to trust what they say next.

I'm suggesting though, that his approach presents easy to remember headline type statements - we are after all in a sound bite culture and sad as it is, I don't belive that the majority of people who have seen or know about MM and his films have the inclination or abilty to disect them or indeed to have the kind of debate we are currently engaged in.

I am not as certain as you are about what his lies are, I see certain distrotions, certain mis-representations or certain 2+2 = 5 type conclusions (but thats not unusual in jounalism) but as for blatently stating untruths I'm obvously not in the posestion of the knowledge that allows me to spot it.
I have heard a lot of people claiming MM is spouting a pack of lies, but I've not yet seen anyone tell me what they are, let alone prove their case.
I am always open to a change in view point but a raft of people less eliquent than your good self shouting "He's a lier don't belive a word he says" without actually being able to tell me what those lies are makes me more inclined to give MM time as he is so obviously touching a raw nerve somewhere.

In your reply to Paddy you suggested that the 'Free guns with a bank account' thing was a lie, can you explain? Is it not the case that the bank he walked into had a promotion that gave a gun with a new account?

I'm hungry for the truth as ever.

[Ian - Rhythm Smurph]

BTW - I've look through this:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

and it all seem like hystrical nit picking to me!

[randdebiel²]

In your reply to Paddy you suggested that the 'Free guns with a bank account' thing was a lie, can you explain? Is it not the case that the bank he walked into had a promotion that gave a gun with a new account?

in the film he specifically states that you get a gun "just like that" in that bank, actually his whole point is that they give the gun to anyone, which was absolutely false, the bank in question specifically listed their procedure afterwards, and the double-checked everything (they had to make links to federal registers to make sure the people the gave the gun to weren't registered as dangerous); now while the policy of giving the gun away is disgusting, Moore specifically lied about the fact that you got a gun just like that, he actually even scene the scene itself because the real-life experience didn't work how he wanted it to be....
you can call it how you want, but it IS a pure lie, not an omitment, not jumping to conclusions or anything, it was a pure lie....

[randdebiel²]

the thing that annoyed me most is actually (if I remember correctly) was that moore made a webside on which he "countered" the lying-accusations, but about that one all he had to say was "well it's a movie, not a documentary"....

[Ian - Rhythm Smurph]

Interesting I'll have a dig!

I didn't read that scene as the point being that they give a gun to anyone.
The point I took from that 'free gun' promotion was that MM was trying to suggest how ingrained the notion of gun ownership is and how 'normal' a commodity it was. Whether or not there was a background check policy was irrelevant, in fact I'd assumed that there was.
So maybe I am already filtering through the propaganda to a certain extent when watching his films.

If that scene was staged it is very disappointing, and it does annoy me!


To me MM is a patriotic American who is on a quest to understand why his country is going down the s**t - some of the biggest questions he was asking in BFC was why for instance if Canada has a higher per-capita gun ownership than the US, was their significantly less gun crime - he was I think trying to uncover the attitude or collective mental state of the nation which makes it so violent and understand how to fix it.

I feel the same way about the extremely childish attitude to alcohol in the UK. Drinking to excess being pretty much the excepted norm. The resultant street violence, injury, vandalism etc etc etc and the full A&E departments on Friday and Saturday nights seemingly being separated out in peoples minds from the drinking.
We think we can handle out booze in this country because we drink a lot - in fact if you act like a twit from pint 3 on wards you aren't handling you booze.

I think our attitude to alcohol is very similar to the American view of firearms. We think its our unalienable right to get wankered/carry a gun. Street fighting/kids shooting their class mates is just unfortunate and we refuse to see any cause and effect.

It about time we all grew up!