Fahrenheit 9/11
reasa
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Fair or not?</div> Well as many of you know Moores film Fahrenheit 9/11 starts in theaters this Friday. So I'm curious to see what you think about this film and what effects, if any, it will have on the election?
Heres both sides of the issue,
<a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.michaelmoore.com/</a>
<a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584' target='_blank'>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584</a>
Discuss.
Heres both sides of the issue,
<a href='http://www.michaelmoore.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.michaelmoore.com/</a>
<a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584' target='_blank'>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584</a>
Discuss.
Comments
As for its effect on the election, my money says it won't make an overwhelming difference, but it might drive a few fence-sitters into the Dems camp. If conservatives weren't making such a big deal about it, it probably wouldn't be nearly as big as it is now. It seems that no lessons were learned from when Fox tried to sue Al Franken. Moore's demographic tends to be people who are already solidly in the "Bush is a ******" category. As such, Moore is likely preaching to the choir. I'll probably rent it, or just buy it when it comes out on DVD. Winning Best Picture at Cannes is worth something, after all.
I didn't care for the Slate article. Hitchens likes to alternate between attacking the movie and attacking Moore himself. Hitchens seems to fall just shy of the "Moore hates America" mantra that seems so popular with the old, white guys nowadays. If you don't like <i>Fairenheit 9/11</i>, that's fine. Attack the movie and tear it asunder, but don't pepper your argument with ad hominems. It makes your argument seem petty.
I will not see Fahrenheit 9/11 <span style='color:white'>See below.</span>
That may be harder than it sounds. Moore obviously cares about what he does and pours his soul into what he does (I still dont like the guy though). To commintate on a movie based on one man's beliefs, and keep it seperate from the man is going to be near imposssible.
<span style='color:white'>I don't want you to not mention Moore, but he shouldn't be main topic of this thread - the movie should be. It's much like a discussion of Bushs policy in Iraq. Sure, it's impossible to completely differentiate it from the man, but in the end, the emphasis isn't on him, but on what he produces.</span>
However, as far as its <i>potential</i> impact in the theaters, <i>if</i> it isn't too shrill or polemic, and <i>if</i> the facts are solid enough to withstand the barrage of criticism/venom being mounted against it and its creator (there is one group in particular running ads against Moore; I'll have to find the link), then it could have some impact, primarily if undecided swing voters go to see it.
The Liberal/Democrat base is already incredibly energized against Bush, and Bush's supporters are unlikely to be swayed (especially given Moore's reputation, and <i>especially</i> given Moore's reputation from those on the right) so both choirs already have their marching orders.
Who knows how big the impact will be--when you consider that a percentage of those swing votes will view it, and a percentage of <i>them</i> will have a positive reaction to it, and <i>then</i> a smaller slice of them will be moved by it enough to switch their vote, or just vote in the first place, then the impact might not be large-- but as we've seen in the last election, that doesn't mean it can't be significant.
Yeah...
Should be some serious fun. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeah...
Should be some serious fun. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
From that terrific article provided by reasa:
"The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm."
As for the movie, if it is as ridiculous as the article says it is, it might even weaken the left's position as a bunch of crazies. I think the largest impact will come after the movie, when more reviews and rebuttals have been written.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I enjoyed the article allot, I know it's long but it's the reason I haven't posted an argument as it covers all the points I wanted to make, so please read it.
I wonder how many people actually realise how much of his last movie was <u><i>SET UP</i></u> to look a certian way.
- The bank scene, omitting the extensive paperwork moore had to go through to get the gun.
- Moore's <a href='http://moorewatch.com/comments.php?id=P547_0_1_0_C' target='_blank'>Exploitation</a> of a Columbine victim.
- precision editing to give a false impression of Charlton Heston
- using <i>Terry Nichols</i> as the example gun owner defending the typical arguments
- Heston showed up 'right after' to 'hold a big pro gun rally' in Flint. He came 8 months later, to rally voters, Moore was at that rally, he should have known.
- Notice how in the beginning of the film, he shows the gun-related murder rates of a number of western-european countries, and canada. Then he shows that of the United States, "Oh my! We have such an amazingly high murder rate! It must be because we dont have strict enough gun control!"
When the truth is, he chose to only show the murder rates of SPECIFIC nations. He should have showed that of nations like Mexico (which is closer to the US and more relevant), where firearms are banned, yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the western hemisphere. Or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, he should have showed Switzerland, who has very little gun control. their militia system requires most males between 18-42 (not sure the exact numbers) years of age to carry a assault rifle in his home. Yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Yes... he doesn't lie, but he doesnt show the WHOLE story. Just the parts that are in favor of his "arguments".
I will not go see this crap fest... all it does is line Moore's pockets, his only real goal in doing these films.
Two things:
1. He wasn't saying it had to do with gun control, he was saying it had to do with fear.
But sure. These style of "documentaries" are really editorialized-films. They're not there to document anything, but try and convince an audience of a particular point and entertain them at the same time. Moore is good at both.
He can't tell the whole story, because the whole story would contradict his points, and he wouldn't have much of a movie; and certainly not an entertaining one.
2. You are treading Nemesis' stated guideline, this is not a place for Moore bashing but about the movie itself. That said, I'm sure it will be outrageously stupid, which is a bit sad seeing as there are good criticisms for going to war, and Moore makes them all look like idiotic.
I'm not bashing moore... I'm bashing his horrible pieces of work. I haven't seen this... thing moore recently put out, but I have seen bowling for columbine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These style of "documentaries" are really editorialized-films. They're not there to document anything, but try and convince an audience of a particular point and entertain them at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the audience doesn't know that... most of the audience will take the movie at face value and not look to see how heavily manipulated Moore's movies actually are. Face it... a large portion of the population in the United States are Sheeple... stuck in the grips of groupthink.
And its precicely for that reason that virtually nobody will be swayed one way or the other by this movie. Right wingers are huddled together in support of bush, and left wingers are similarly rallying against him. Left wingers will see the movie to support moore, and get some more fodder for arguments with bush supporters. Right wingers will avoid seeing this movie, or if they do see it they will automatically discount everything it says as lies and, if anything, be even more convinced that the left are demons sent from the bowels of hell to ruin everything good and christian in the world.
I think this is incorrect. Not every citizen in the US is a self-proclaimed rightwinger or left-winger, there are at least, what, 30% moderates out there. That's who this movie will affect.
Trevelyans somewhat derogatory comment of "sheeple" is more or less on point. After I saw Bowling, I liked it and didn't challenge anything in it, mostly becuase I was neutral on the subject. After reading the rebuttals to the movie, which was only made aware to me by a forum-goer, I did an about-face.
People will accept this movie unless it is challenged, and unless they are made aware of such a challenge. I guess if Ms. Coulter's hypothesis of leftist media control is correct, "Moore rebuttals" will go unpublished and unaired and we can expect a large amount of people to be swayed against Bush because of the film.
One difference between Bowling though: I suspect that Fahrenheit will be so ridiculous that any sensible moderate adult will at least do a cursory search to check the validity of the points Moore makes.
Right... because we are all close minded, stubborn individuals huddled together in bomb shelters clutching our precious guns. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If i were not in such a good mood I'd take that as a personal attack... but hey, we are all only human. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Consider the hypocricy of this:
Left Wing: Well, I saw Bowling for Columbine, and I think that supports my issues on gun control.
Right Wing: Yeeeahaaawww! Bowling for Columbine was an utter, outrageous line, this, this, this, that, that, this, that, this this, and that was wrong.
Left Wing: So you're saying that guns do not cause more deaths. Look at these graphs, both from the department of justice and the ATF, both of which coorelate saying that gun ownership has gone UP since 2000, and proportionally, the murder rate, the number of fatal shootings, and guns involved in a crime have gone up as well, and the chance of surviving a shooting have dropped from 30% down to less then 10%.
Right Wing: Well you're not looking at it right- you see, you have to look at blah blah blah, and look here, this article writting by an Alabama newspaper shows that guns REDUCE crime!
What am I getting at? When the right wings face resistance, they pass it off as exaggeration, lies, and utter falsehoods. Then they more often then not manufacture THE EXACT SAME THING THEY JUST PASSED OFF AS LIES, and try to use THAT to support their 'stance' even though it's <i>just as biased, wrong, and slanted as Moore's films</i>.
Really, 'you guys' are no better then Michael Moore. If he's an exaggerating lying sack of crap, what does that make you? Nothing published by the government suggests that crime has gone DOWN while gun possession has gone UP (In fact, Kansas City had an experiment where they made their police and special task forces work overtime to sieze weapons, and gun crimes declined 49 percent in the target area. Drive-by shootings fell from 7 to 1 in the time periods compared.
OBVIOUSLY more guns means more safety!
BTW before you people crap your pants, this is the focus of 'left wing propoganda' on right-wing. I'm not saying that left-wing doesn't complain just as much about 'right wing propoganda (ie Fox news)', but that's not the topic at hand.
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>W
T
F!!!!!</span>
Figures that i haven't gotten a serious response yet.
Also... i swore this was the discussion forum, not the "bash right wingers" forum.
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>W
T
F!!!!!</span>
Figures that i haven't gotten a serious response yet.
Also... i swore this was the discussion forum, not the "bash right wingers" forum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How was my response not adaquet? Moore is left, you are right, and all the right wingers scream 'lies, deciet, trickery and lies!' about it, so pretty much I addressed all your fabric points and more. Nor am I bashing conservatives. Pretty much everything I said (RW: This is a lie, and this article is true!) can be proven true in every gun control thread, "Bush Sucks" thread, and in this thread on these forums.
I can give you dozens of examples of your 'right, christian way' denouncing ANYTHING that contradicts your point of view as 'an utter lie', then your side produces something just as flimsy and biased, all from these forums.
This thread may be under the guise of 'is moore right / is moore wrong', but ultimately it's just a right wing vs. left wing thread agian.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right... because we are all close minded, stubborn individuals huddled together in bomb shelters clutching our precious guns.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironic, eh? See? <i>nobody</i> likes to be stereoyped.
We all have our various biases here, but I think this thread came about a bit too early, because <i>until</i> the movie comes out, and <i>we've</i> seen it, and we've seen some <i>solid, lucid</i> critiques (just because someone contradicts Mr. Moore, it doesn't automatically mean that they're right, either) it's all guesswork and conjecture.
My hope is that because of all the heat he has taken for his previous . . . er . . . 'creative' use of facts and editing, and because of how important he seems to think this issue is, it will mean that he's really focused on putting together a production that is thoughtful, provacative, and <i>honest</i>.
I'm not holding my breath, but until I see it, I think we can at least give it the benefit of the doubt, or at least hold off on simply dismissing it as a worthless piece of cheap propaganda.
Yes but you fail to mention that we are right allot of the time, you know many of the facts in this movie well be manipulated, and the cinematography heavily edited to show you only 1 side of the story. This thing IS going to be full of deceit and left wing blah, and you know it.
Yes but you fail to mention that we are right allot of the time, you know many of the facts in this movie well be manipulated, and the cinematography heavily edited to show you only 1 side of the story. This thing IS going to be full of deceit and left wing blah, and you know it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A documentary on tigers isn't going to have footage of a bunch of tigers mauling villagers and chewing open the skulls of their babies, then feature footage on how much money the tiger fur trade makes, and how to skin one, is it? No, because the documentary is about the lives of tigers, not making them out to be cold-blooded murdering killers that deserve to die.
Only if it's a good one.
It should present both sides of the issue at hand.
There's a difference between <b>being</b> right, and <b>thinking</b> you're right.
Seeing as how you've already dismissed a movie that you haven't seen, and convinced yourself of the worthlessness of its content, it makes me a <i>wee</i> bit suspicious of your criteria.
Oh I plan to see the movie, but I'm not going to take it any more seriously then I would take a FOX documentary on the life of Bush...well ok a little less seriously. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm just making a point based on what I know about the movie thus far.
I'm sure this topic will still be here by Friday, and we can see what we all think after that.
Oh I plan to see the movie, but I'm not going to take it any more seriously then I would take a FOX documentary on the life of Bush...well ok a little less seriously. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm just making a point based on what I know about the movie thus far.
I'm sure this topic will still be here by Friday, and we can see what we all think after that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Hell if I'm going to waste a Friday night on a documentary . . . <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Maybe Monday.
This is what I'm getting at: Bashing Moore claiming he's a liar just turns you into a hypocrite. Just live with it. Left wings have their propogandists, right wings have theirs. Bashing Moore just to pretend to put you into the 'right, just, true, christian way' is laughable, since there's very little each side can produce that factually, unbiasedly proves that they're right.
Left Wing have 'propogandists' like Michael Moore, who takes things that are somewhat true and is able to blow them up to look absolutely true.
Right Wings have their OWN 'propogandists' like Charleston Heston, who will sit there all day talking himself to death about how guns protect his family.
A left wing might use Moore's work to justify his point of view, and a right might use Heston's speeches to justify his point of view. Are either of them right? No. Do each believe THEY are right? Yes.
For the record, I consider myself a moderate, and am strongly FOR gun control, for hundreds of reasons I can give you with pure numbers statistics from, like I said, the Department of Justice, the ATF, city, county, state ownership and crime statistics, and crime trends. I saw Bowling for Columbine, had a good laugh, put a few things into perspective, and more or less haven't really thought about it.
PLEASE notice i said the word "lie" ONE TIME, in THIS sentance:
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes... he doesn't lie, but he doesnt show the WHOLE story. Just the parts that are in favor of his "arguments".
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now i dont know about you, but that sure doesn't sound like your description of what i said.
You listen to me, if your going to read anything read this: What i posted is 100% FACT. no cries about "HE IS TEH LIER!", just simple facts about his previous movie (which would reflect upon how this one may be made).
Edit: Also I'm not christian, I'm not a spiritual/religious person. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->