F911

[Floyd10]

Im surprised that no one's brought this up yet, but I do feel it should be discussed. Anyone see it? F911 is farenheit 911 (in case you didn't know). I thought it was effective and moving, even though it WAS slanted. But he didn't slant where it was crucial. You can tell when he does, if you know his style. The two things that I thought were the most powerful, and my favorite were the mother's selfdestruction, and the 911 sounds over a blank screen. It was so unique to just listen to what happened.

[Dartful Dodger]

Im surprised that no one's brought this up yet, but I do feel it should be discussed. Anyone see it? F911 is farenheit 911 (in case you didn't know). I thought it was effective and moving, even though it WAS slanted. But he didn't slant where it was crucial. You can tell when he does, if you know his style. The two things that I thought were the most powerful, and my favorite were the mother's selfdestruction, and the 911 sounds over a blank screen. It was so unique to just listen to what happened.

I like how the people had to memorize books, so there would always be a record of them. after they were burnt.  I think if I had to, I'd memorize the tripods series by John Christopher.

[NoBonus]

I didn't see the movie, but I did see an MTV interview with 3 "swing voters"(aka putty-minded MTV brainwashed stooges) hosted by Gideon Yago right after they saw the movie.  His questions were like, "After seeing this film, who are you going to vote for?", and "Did you know all of that about our president before?"  The movie might as well be called "Vote for John Kerry/911" or a better title might be "Media Brainwashing/101".

[Floyd10]

well, it isn't exactly brainwashing. no one was forced to watch it, and it does bring up interesting arguments. If you watched someone play a video game, and it looked cool, are they brainwashing you? no.

[DaveMMR]

I didn't see the movie so I cannot comment on that (an unwritten rule many staunch conservatives I know completely ignored) but from what I've heard it does seem a little (read: very) one-sided.  I think that is what NoBonus means when he compared it to brainwashing.  Technically they're not telling you how to think, but it does have an impact on the same people who probably cast their votes for Clinton 12 years ago solely because they saw him hanging around the MTV studios.

[Floyd10]

I got you, but it is ment to be one sided, he admits it, but he does show some stuff that is *on the fence*. You should still it though

[pakchooi]

I just watched it last night.
I've read most of MM's books, watched the movies and his tv show.
To me this is his best yet.
However, what always bothers me about everything he does is that he doesn't so much lie as be selective with the truth.

I like what he does but not always how he does it.

[Magnet_Eye]

OK, some of you talk about "one sided" and I wonder what that means in a movie, because EVERY movie ever made could be considered "one sided" since you have that ONE director making it, it is always a movie coming from HIS point of view. People are getting WAY TO EXCITED about this and WAY TO UPSET about it.

I happen to maintain a website for a movie theatre corporation, and we have got A LOT of interesting emails about our chain showing the film. More people are thankful than not. I have been amazed at the kind of seemingly unintelligent folk that are against the movie being played. Basically they say things like "Showing F/911 is UNAMERICAN!" or "It's a disgrace to our country." which makes no sense, since we have the RIGHT to FREE SPEECH and any man that wants to make his own movie with his own opinions is his AMERICAN RIGHT! These people are just scared and extremely closed minded.

Anyway, I haven't seen it yet. I will go this week. I also find it funny how people claim it is false and so on.. when most of it is ACTUAL documented footage! He didn't make it all up or anything, its just journalism...getting down and dirty, and yes, displaying it in his own particular way. But it makes you think, which is good.  


/rant

 

[DaveMMR]

OK, some of you talk about "one sided" and I wonder what that means in a movie, because EVERY movie ever made could be considered "one sided" since you have that ONE director making it, it is always a movie coming from HIS point of view. People are getting WAY TO EXCITED about this and WAY TO UPSET about it.

I happen to maintain a website for a movie theatre corporation, and we have got A LOT of interesting emails about our chain showing the film. More people are thankful than not. I have been amazed at the kind of seemingly unintelligent folk that are against the movie being played. Basically they say things like "Showing F/911 is UNAMERICAN!" or "It's a disgrace to our country." which makes no sense, since we have the RIGHT to FREE SPEECH and any man that wants to make his own movie with his own opinions is his AMERICAN RIGHT! These people are just scared and extremely closed minded.

Anyway, I haven't seen it yet. I will go this week. I also find it funny how people claim it is false and so on.. when most of it is ACTUAL documented footage! He didn't make it all up or anything, its just journalism...getting down and dirty, and yes, displaying it in his own particular way. But it makes you think, which is good.  


/rant

 

You are right that every movie is 'one sided'.  But you also have to keep in mind that most movies are fictional pieces of entertainment.  When it comes down to documentaries though, being 'one-sided' is, at best, not revealing the entire truth and, at worst, outright lying.  I'm not accusing F911 of any of that, by the way.  Actually I hesitate to call it a documentary but rather an opinion piece and I think it's important to keep that in mind when viewing the film.   Once again, didn't see the film so I won't say anything else about it lest I make false accusations.

Magnet's got a point.  People get way too upset about a film they haven't seen.  It's the same way the ultra-religious get whenver a film like Passion of the Christ, or even Dogma, comes out.  Lines of people protesting its release - many who haven't seen said film and just judge it based on what they think it is.

[Floyd10]

That's where I was coming from. THANK YOU!


btw see it!

[Dartful Dodger]

btw see it!

Just rent the original "Fahrenheit 451" it's more realistic, but not as boring.

[Floyd10]

lol

EDIT: It's actually funny that you bring up Fahrenheit 451. It's being remade for 2005. lol

[Goz]

btw see it!

Just rent the original "Fahrenheit 451" it's more realistic, but not as boring.

I read somewhere that Ray Bradbury is offended by the use of the name Farenheit because of people associating  F911 with it. Can't say I blame him.

-Goz

[Floyd10]

:p

[Sasquatch!]

I just watched it last night.
I've read most of MM's books, watched the movies and his tv show.
To me this is his best yet.
However, what always bothers me about everything he does is that he doesn't so much lie as be selective with the truth.

I like what he does but not always how he does it.

Nice username/title there, d00der.  

[pakchooi]

/\ Goons Reprasent!
Nice cab btw
[/derail]

[Lilwolf]

I liked it.

I still like hearing "Its slanted"

no... what facts he brings up are slanted... sure... but they don't make them not true.

Also, "He lies"  "there are x number of lies in the movie".

1) What are those lies and please list your sources on why they are lies.
2) What are the non-lies... and don't you think many are really really bad?

But last.

I didn't like it nearly as much as Bowling for Colinbine.  That one added more humor to a bad situation.  More irony.

And it didn't sway me... Not nearly as much as his book, and other books like "the best democracy money can buy".... These where all how he helps his friends... didn't put as much into the saudi angle... but brought up there.  Without the saudi angle... I think bush is really really bad... with it...

[Dartful Dodger]

Where can find the video footage of John Kerry saying "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."?

[SirPeale]

All I can say about F911 is...if even 10% of that movie is truth, that's really, REALLY messed up.

[8bit]

This passage is out of the book Film Art: An Introduction to Film (seventh edition) by Bordwell and Thompson. This is a common text book issued to beggining film students. The subject of this passage is about Michael Moores first film Roger and Me.

"The point for our purposes is that his critics accused his film of presenting unreliable information. Even if this charge were true, however Roger and Me would not therefore turn into a fiction film. An unreliable documentry is still a documentry. Just as there are inaccurate and misleading new stories, there are inaccurate and misleading documentries. A documentry may take a stand, state an opinion, advocate a solution to a problem. As we shall see shortly, documentries often use rhetorical form to persuade an audience. But, again, simply taking a stance does not turn the documentry into fiction. In order to persuade us, the filmmaker marshals evidence, and this evidence is put forth as being factual and reliable. A documentry may be strongly partisan, but as a documentry it nonetheless presents itself as providing trustworthy information about its subject"

"When challenged by Jacobson (Michael and Me from Film Comment 25.6) about the order of events, Moore granted that 'the chronology skips around a bit. That's why I don't use dates in the film". he claimed that he had sought to portray the entire 1980s and that the chronology of the film was not intended to be exact. Moore also said that the rearranging events made the film more entertaining and allowed him to condense a decade down to a manageable viewing length. . . . Roger and Me an example of an expressive documentry, a trend that also includes such work of Errol Morris Wide Angle."

[Floyd10]

I really didn't know that. I have to use that argument from now on.

[DrewKaree]

Where can find the video footage of John Kerry saying "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."?

check my sig....it should be on one of those two sites

[Jakobud]

If you guys want to watch something worthwhile that will actually affect you and make you think about the things that really matter in life, you should watch "The Passion of the Christ".

[Floyd10]

If you guys want to watch something worthwhile that will actually affect the things that really matter in life, you should watch "The Passion of the Christ".

 

(waits to be flamed)

[Dartful Dodger]

If you guys want to watch something worthwhile that will actually affect you and make you think about the things that really matter in life, you should watch "The Passion of the Christ".

I read the book.

[Floyd10]

My religion burned my 17 copies.

[shmokes]

The Passion of Christ was awful.  Mel Gibson is an ass.

I haven't seen Farenheight, but I think Michael Moore is a untrustworthy and I'm just about as liberal as they come).  He's very loose with the truth, and he takes cheap shots, like in Bowling for Columbine when he deliberately misrepresented himself to gain access to Charlton Heston's home only to start showing him pictures of dead kids and say, "What do you have to say about this?"  The guy is more interested in pulling at your heartstrings to get you to change your position than just presenting something even attempting objectivity and letting the facts speak for themselves."

A girl I know recently described a scene from farenheight that she thought was really powerfull.  Michael Moore approached Senators who supported the war in Iraq asking them if they would be willing to sign their kids up for the war?  Does anybody see a problem with this?  I simply refuse to believe that Michael Moore is unaware of the fact that Senators (or anybody else) cannot sign up there children, or anybody else, to serve in a war.  

Michael Moore may not tell many outright lies, but he has no problem deliberately misleading, and manipulating his viewers in order to achieve his goals.  Even though I strongly identify with the cases he makes, I find his lack of ethics difficult to stomache.

[shmokes]

The Passion of Christ was awful.  Mel Gibson is an ass.

I haven't seen Farenheight, but I think Michael Moore is untrustworthy and I'm just about as liberal as they come).  He's very loose with the truth, and he takes cheap shots, like in Bowling for Columbine when he deliberately misrepresented himself to gain access to Charlton Heston's home only to start showing him pictures of dead kids and say, "What do you have to say about this?"  The guy is more interested in pulling at your heartstrings to get you to change your position than just presenting something even attempting objectivity and letting the facts speak for themselves."

A girl I know recently described a scene from farenheight that she thought was really powerfull.  Michael Moore approached Senators who supported the war in Iraq asking them if they would be willing to sign their kids up for the war?  Does anybody see a problem with this?  I simply refuse to believe that Michael Moore is unaware of the fact that Senators (or anybody else) cannot sign up there children, or anybody else, to serve in a war.  You have to sign yourself up.  That's the only way (barring a draft).  Not only that, but what person would want their child to serve in ANY war, no matter how justified the war was?  It's a loaded question and he knows it, but he also knows that it's effective.  He wants to do his part to oust a dishonest administration, so he fights dishonesty with dishonesty.  

Low.

Michael Moore may not tell many outright lies, but he has no problem deliberately misleading, and manipulating his viewers in order to achieve his goals.  Even though I strongly identify with the cases he makes, I find his lack of ethics difficult to stomache.

[fredster]

I'd rather not pay this man to make more movies.  I don't think it's right to dishonor the fallen to make money.  

[Jakobud]

If you guys want to watch something worthwhile that will actually affect you and make you think about the things that really matter in life, you should watch "The Passion of the Christ".

I read the book.

Even better

[Goz]

Just think of Michael Moore as a really fat Jedi.

His mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

Some of his stuff is funny. But when I saw F911 I was convinced that we as citizens have a responsibility to freedom of speech, but freedom of speech that is negatively impacting in a time of war should be considered sedition and this film actually makes all of us look bad to the rest of the world.

just my .02

-Goz

[fredster]

His mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

Well said Goz

[blue]

I'd rather not pay this man to make more movies.  I don't think it's right to dishonor the fallen to make money.  

Big part of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' profit goes to charity

[blue]

A girl I know recently described a scene from farenheight that she thought was really powerfull.  Michael Moore approached Senators who supported the war in Iraq asking them if they would be willing to sign their kids up for the war?  Does anybody see a problem with this?  I simply refuse to believe that Michael Moore is unaware of the fact that Senators (or anybody else) cannot sign up there children, or anybody else, to serve in a war.  

I have not seen the film, but isn't he trying to make the point of 'would you want your child going to war?' And "signing" them up you don't mind and are fine with them fighting. Not actually making that decision for them.

Michael Moore may not tell many outright lies, but he has no problem deliberately misleading, and manipulating his viewers in order to achieve his goals.  Even though I strongly identify with the cases he makes, I find his lack of ethics difficult to stomache.

Isn't that what the Bush administration did to go to war?

[shmokes]

Sorry about my second post up above...I must have hit "reply with quote" instead of "modify".  I fixed it to make it easier to read, at least.

At any rate, yeah....I think it is very likely that the Bush administration deliberately mislead, on really big issues, the American people to gain public support for war.  It ain't right.  But Michael Moore's lack of ethics doesn't, in my mind, make up for President Bush's lack of ethics.  I see them as two, unfortunately influential, yet ethically stunted people from opposite ends of the political spectrum that we'd be better off without.  And I'm not saying that you have to be moderate.  You can lean heavily left or right and still be ethical.  And you can be a straight-down-the-center political moderate and be morally bankrupt.  It's not a matter of ideology.  It's a matter of honesty.

This is an unethical war.  But it's not unethical because the people in charge don't want their children there.  I like strippers.  That doesn't mean I want my daughters to grow up and choose that as a profession.  I think most people would agree that D-day was a morally justifiable battle.  How many parents do you suppose wanted their children there?  We want the best for our children.  We don't want what's fair for them.  That's what makes Moore's indictment of those senators spurious.  He frames a completely irrelevant question in such a way as to make it sound like it's the smoking gun...and he's largely successful because people don't stop to think about what a retarded question it is.  He's basically asking a parent, "Do you want your child to risk getting his head blown off?"  

What!!!!?  You don't want your child to die?  But you supported the war?  If it's an ethical war, why should you care whether your child lives or dies?  Why should other people fight in the war and not your kids?"  But he doesn't ask the Senator, "Would you be proud of your child if they signed up for war and died for their country?"  Just because a senator doesn't WANT their child to die, whether it's in Vietnam or WWII, doesn't mean that the Senator doesn't believe that the war is truly a good cause.  It just means that they love their kid.

[abrannan]

Michael Moore may not tell many outright lies, but he has no problem deliberately misleading, and manipulating his viewers in order to achieve his goals.  Even though I strongly identify with the cases he makes, I find his lack of ethics difficult to stomache.

Isn't that what the Bush administration did to go to war?

Yeah, but Michael Moore, unlike Bush, is in a position of real power.  He's with "The Media".  The Media determines for a lot of Americans what is true and what is not.  Bush used The Media to present the case for the Iraq war, by creating the implication of a link between Saddam Hassein and Al Qaeda.  Without ever out and out saying that there was a definitive link, The Media's coverage of Bush, Powell, Rice, etc. was strong enough that the numbers of people who believed there was a link jumped from 3% right after 9/11 to (and I don't have the exact number with me) around 40%.  It's that kind of public opinion manipulation that Moore is trying to do with F911.  Pass all the laws you want, it's The Media that controls public opinion, and that's the real power.

I'm as liberal as they come, and I'm ashamed at Moore.  He could create an almost as compelling a case without resorting to the shell games and misdirection that he does.  The man does have an artistic knack, though.  

[RandyT]

RE: Michael Moore

This guy is about as controversial as they come, but you have to admire his tenacity.  He also has a talent for finding or creating footage where his "targets" do more to make themselves look bad, than he ever could merely through his own intentions to do so.  You really have to ask yourself why anyone would ever want to do an interview with him,  unless of course they enjoy being portrayed in a negative light .

I haven't seen the film, but I suspect that I will eventually.  I only saw BFC a few weeks ago, and I disagreed with a lot of it.  There were also a lot of good points made.  I also learned that Marilyn Manson has a brain .

But I guess my point is this: Anyone who is afraid of information, good or bad, probably won't have the capacity to understand it once it is presented.  Those who do, will take a piece like this for what it is: An entertaining statement by one individual, backed up with documentary evidence that is carefully selected to support it.

People that want the film banned sound a little too similar to those guys that run around with those funny shaped X's on their armbands.

You might not agree with Moore's statement, but you probably won't walk out in the middle, and you might even learn something.  What's so bad about that?

RandyT

[Floyd10]

say, anyone here see Wag the dog?

[Goz]

say, anyone here see Wag the dog?

Yeah wasn't that later renamed "The Bill Clinton Story" ?

-Goz

[Setabs]

lol

EDIT: It's actually funny that you bring up Fahrenheit 451. It's being remade for 2005. lol

Finally I watched the movie in english class and thought it was made in the 60's or 70's, found out it was made in britian in the early 90's.  The story was fine but the future they created was horrible.


Anyone remember the Real Bob Roberts.  Had a cameo with Jack Black.  If you watch the DVD there are multiple audio commentaries and one is from these 2 guys talking about a book they wrote on the CIA trafficking in Cocaine to the U.S. it had nothing to do with the movie at all.  Just seemed really odd.