Fahrenheit 9/11
Jun 29th 2004, 10:54 am
#46
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Waukee, Iowa
Posts: 1,583
Saw the film yesterday in Calgary and enjoyed it. It has a distinct satirical style and he presents his case as a film-maker, not as an academic.
The presentation of pre-war Iraq as an idyllic wonderland was laughable; but it's deliberately so - part of a brilliant satire that is interwoven throughout.
But the more serious points in the film are reasonably convincingly argued with good supporting evidence.
Like Bowling for Columbine, I didn't agree with everything Moore had to say, but it was certainly thought provoking and worth seeing IMO.
The presentation of pre-war Iraq as an idyllic wonderland was laughable; but it's deliberately so - part of a brilliant satire that is interwoven throughout.
But the more serious points in the film are reasonably convincingly argued with good supporting evidence.
Like Bowling for Columbine, I didn't agree with everything Moore had to say, but it was certainly thought provoking and worth seeing IMO.
Jun 29th 2004, 10:58 am
#47
Pagan Sex God
Joined: May 2002
Location: Living in Oblivion
Posts: 3,668
Originally posted by supernav
To put things in perspective.
Micheal Moore has just made MORE money off of 9/11 than any other human being on this planet.
Way to go Micheal!!!!
Box Office Receipts on the events of 9/11 Movie: $28 million
Amount going to the relatives of 9/11: $0
-= nav =-
To put things in perspective.
Micheal Moore has just made MORE money off of 9/11 than any other human being on this planet.
Way to go Micheal!!!!
Box Office Receipts on the events of 9/11 Movie: $28 million
Amount going to the relatives of 9/11: $0
-= nav =-
Back you your post, I think Haliburton, Rudolph, the architects who designed the new buildings, the lawyers representing the familes, the lawyers representing the airlines, Rush, Fox News (whos dvd of the events was a best seller), all the photographers who have published books, the film crew that had the footage of the first plane hitting, all the vendors who surround ground zero and many, many others besides are making a handsome coin from the aftermath of September 11 and I bet the families aren't seeing a penny of that. There is a lot of anti-handout shouting and screaming going on at the moment, people who dont think that victims familes should get six million dollars for nothing (you know what I mean before someone writes 4 pages of drivel about pain and suffering), maybe you should worry about that.
As a filmmaker and Novelist MM is a master, as a journalist he is as biased as Fox News. He does ask interesting questions though, especially as America was so obsessed with revenge it closed its eyes to everything else.
Way to go Nav, MM has not made 28 million, his film has. His profit from that after the cinemas have taken there cut, the distributors and everyone else is probably minimal. But by saying it and waving a flag you linked MM with making 28 million in one foul swoop from the misery of others. This is a techniqe Bush used to convince people to go to war with Iraq and MM uses in films. People will find there own truths and justify them somehow.
Patrick
Jun 29th 2004, 11:56 am
#48
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,649
I'm struggling to understand how anybody can use the words truth and Moore in a sentence. Now I'm no fan of GWBush, but Moore's stock and trade is talking out of his ass. Any man who can claim that Iraqi terrorists are akin to the Minutemen and deserve to win is severely blinkered in my view. And any man who can claim his countrymen are dumb because he doesn't agree with them is an arrogant fool.
Jun 29th 2004, 12:41 pm
#49
dealing with it
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 2,916
Originally posted by doctor scrumpy
I love the way the yanks give people the right to agree, but not disagree with their government. Do any yanks know of the Vest Wing scandal in Dublin at the moment ? the texan twat has objected to a photo of himself in a paper wearing a vest. If that is the worst he has to deal with this year, he is not doing badly.
I love the way the yanks give people the right to agree, but not disagree with their government. Do any yanks know of the Vest Wing scandal in Dublin at the moment ? the texan twat has objected to a photo of himself in a paper wearing a vest. If that is the worst he has to deal with this year, he is not doing badly.
The Yanks love people to disagree with their governement, why do you think that Moore made $22M this weekend?
Jun 29th 2004, 12:56 pm
#50
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,649
If people want to see GWBush in a vest then good for them. Perhaps a calendar could be made of various prominent politicans in vests (not looking forard to the Ted Kennedy string-vest picture myself). I understand that GWBush is irked that people are taking pics of him getting undressed through a window with a long lense, can't be fun. But so what?
Oh, and I liked this analysis by Andrew Sullivan...
"Some more thoughts on the Gibson/Moore parallels. It occurred to me as I witnessed the unanimity in the audience watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" that I had been in a similar situation before. Yes - this was exactly what it felt like at an early showing of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Both movies were designed for people who already held - as theological certitude - the basic line of the work. Both used the most egregious devices of propaganda to reinforce this point. Gibson used extreme and constant violence - as if to say that recoiling from that horror was proof that his vision of Christianity was correct. The loving camera shots of pure pornographic pain and gore were devices to end thought, short-cut any audience autonomy, and reinforce orthodoxy. And that was Moore's device as well. The long views of the faces of various villains; the camera edits to create menace; the emotional manipulation of a bereaved mother; the swelling, ominous orchestral swoops. All we didn't have was a Pieta scene. One was designed for the unthinking hordes of the far right; the other for the unthinking hordes of the far left. Both were deeply depressing indicators of how far our culture has curdled into unthought and emotional extremism. Neither sought to convert or explain or persuade. Both were designed to bludgeon the viewer into ideological conformity. And if you resist? You are a heretic or a dupe. Whatever happened to "intelligent viewer"?"
That's pretty much were I came in. I don't agree with much that GWBush has espoused in the last 3 and a half years, but because I think Moore is a dishonest man I'm apparently a partisan kneejerk. From what I can tell it's been influential people of the left (Roger Simon, Jeff Jarvis, Christopher Hitchens) who've balked at Moore the most. None would be putting a cross anywhere near a Republican's name on this years ballot if given the choice.
Oh, and I liked this analysis by Andrew Sullivan...
"Some more thoughts on the Gibson/Moore parallels. It occurred to me as I witnessed the unanimity in the audience watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" that I had been in a similar situation before. Yes - this was exactly what it felt like at an early showing of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Both movies were designed for people who already held - as theological certitude - the basic line of the work. Both used the most egregious devices of propaganda to reinforce this point. Gibson used extreme and constant violence - as if to say that recoiling from that horror was proof that his vision of Christianity was correct. The loving camera shots of pure pornographic pain and gore were devices to end thought, short-cut any audience autonomy, and reinforce orthodoxy. And that was Moore's device as well. The long views of the faces of various villains; the camera edits to create menace; the emotional manipulation of a bereaved mother; the swelling, ominous orchestral swoops. All we didn't have was a Pieta scene. One was designed for the unthinking hordes of the far right; the other for the unthinking hordes of the far left. Both were deeply depressing indicators of how far our culture has curdled into unthought and emotional extremism. Neither sought to convert or explain or persuade. Both were designed to bludgeon the viewer into ideological conformity. And if you resist? You are a heretic or a dupe. Whatever happened to "intelligent viewer"?"
That's pretty much were I came in. I don't agree with much that GWBush has espoused in the last 3 and a half years, but because I think Moore is a dishonest man I'm apparently a partisan kneejerk. From what I can tell it's been influential people of the left (Roger Simon, Jeff Jarvis, Christopher Hitchens) who've balked at Moore the most. None would be putting a cross anywhere near a Republican's name on this years ballot if given the choice.
Jun 29th 2004, 12:59 pm
#51
@matthewb76
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Missouri
Posts: 21,886
Originally posted by cuckoofrommars
If people want to see GWBush in a vest then good for them. Perhaps a calendar could be made of various prominent politicans in vests (not looking forard to the Ted Kennedy string-vest picture myself). I understand that GWBush is irked that people are taking pics of him getting undressed through a window with a long lense, can't be fun. But so what?
Oh, and I liked this analysis by Andrew Sullivan...
"Some more thoughts on the Gibson/Moore parallels. It occurred to me as I witnessed the unanimity in the audience watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" that I had been in a similar situation before. Yes - this was exactly what it felt like at an early showing of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Both movies were designed for people who already held - as theological certitude - the basic line of the work. Both used the most egregious devices of propaganda to reinforce this point. Gibson used extreme and constant violence - as if to say that recoiling from that horror was proof that his vision of Christianity was correct. The loving camera shots of pure pornographic pain and gore were devices to end thought, short-cut any audience autonomy, and reinforce orthodoxy. And that was Moore's device as well. The long views of the faces of various villains; the camera edits to create menace; the emotional manipulation of a bereaved mother; the swelling, ominous orchestral swoops. All we didn't have was a Pieta scene. One was designed for the unthinking hordes of the far right; the other for the unthinking hordes of the far left. Both were deeply depressing indicators of how far our culture has curdled into unthought and emotional extremism. Neither sought to convert or explain or persuade. Both were designed to bludgeon the viewer into ideological conformity. And if you resist? You are a heretic or a dupe. Whatever happened to "intelligent viewer"?"
That's pretty much were I came in. I don't agree with much that GWBush has espoused in the last 3 and a half years, but because I think Moore is a dishonest man I'm apparently a partisan kneejerk. From what I can tell it's been influential people of the left (Roger Simon, Jeff Jarvis, Christopher Hitchens) who've balked at Moore the most. None would be putting a cross anywhere near a Republican's name on this years ballot if given the choice.
If people want to see GWBush in a vest then good for them. Perhaps a calendar could be made of various prominent politicans in vests (not looking forard to the Ted Kennedy string-vest picture myself). I understand that GWBush is irked that people are taking pics of him getting undressed through a window with a long lense, can't be fun. But so what?
Oh, and I liked this analysis by Andrew Sullivan...
"Some more thoughts on the Gibson/Moore parallels. It occurred to me as I witnessed the unanimity in the audience watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" that I had been in a similar situation before. Yes - this was exactly what it felt like at an early showing of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Both movies were designed for people who already held - as theological certitude - the basic line of the work. Both used the most egregious devices of propaganda to reinforce this point. Gibson used extreme and constant violence - as if to say that recoiling from that horror was proof that his vision of Christianity was correct. The loving camera shots of pure pornographic pain and gore were devices to end thought, short-cut any audience autonomy, and reinforce orthodoxy. And that was Moore's device as well. The long views of the faces of various villains; the camera edits to create menace; the emotional manipulation of a bereaved mother; the swelling, ominous orchestral swoops. All we didn't have was a Pieta scene. One was designed for the unthinking hordes of the far right; the other for the unthinking hordes of the far left. Both were deeply depressing indicators of how far our culture has curdled into unthought and emotional extremism. Neither sought to convert or explain or persuade. Both were designed to bludgeon the viewer into ideological conformity. And if you resist? You are a heretic or a dupe. Whatever happened to "intelligent viewer"?"
That's pretty much were I came in. I don't agree with much that GWBush has espoused in the last 3 and a half years, but because I think Moore is a dishonest man I'm apparently a partisan kneejerk. From what I can tell it's been influential people of the left (Roger Simon, Jeff Jarvis, Christopher Hitchens) who've balked at Moore the most. None would be putting a cross anywhere near a Republican's name on this years ballot if given the choice.
Jun 29th 2004, 1:40 pm
#53
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,894
Originally posted by cuckoofrommars
I'm struggling to understand how anybody can use the words truth and Moore in a sentence. Now I'm no fan of GWBush, but Moore's stock and trade is talking out of his ass. Any man who can claim that Iraqi terrorists are akin to the Minutemen and deserve to win is severely blinkered in my view. And any man who can claim his countrymen are dumb because he doesn't agree with them is an arrogant fool.
I'm struggling to understand how anybody can use the words truth and Moore in a sentence. Now I'm no fan of GWBush, but Moore's stock and trade is talking out of his ass. Any man who can claim that Iraqi terrorists are akin to the Minutemen and deserve to win is severely blinkered in my view. And any man who can claim his countrymen are dumb because he doesn't agree with them is an arrogant fool.
Yes I agree that the minuteman reference is flawed. Minutemen were fighting against their own country. Iraqi 'terrorists' view themselves as fighting an overseas invader.
Jun 29th 2004, 1:40 pm
#54
Pagan Sex God
Joined: May 2002
Location: Living in Oblivion
Posts: 3,668
Originally posted by cuckoofrommars
I'm struggling to understand how anybody can use the words truth and Moore in a sentence. .
I'm struggling to understand how anybody can use the words truth and Moore in a sentence. .
Jun 29th 2004, 1:45 pm
#55
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,649
Calm down. I wasn't attacking anyone, just offering my opinion. I don't expect anyone to change theirs because I don't like Moore. You like him, I don't. I think he's a proven liar, you don't. No need to get shirty.
Jun 29th 2004, 2:12 pm
#56
Pagan Sex God
Joined: May 2002
Location: Living in Oblivion
Posts: 3,668
Originally posted by cuckoofrommars
I think he's a proven liar, you don't.
I think he's a proven liar, you don't.
I haven't said whether I like MM or not, all I have said is that those clips don't lie. The film itself is brilliant, as far as being 100% truthful, well you will have to make your own decision on what you beleive or not, but it cant be any less truthful than the person it focuses on most (gwb). And it doesn't matter that BFC wasn't 100% accurate, it got a message across, and of course all the slamming of that movie was from the NRA, the group it was about so they are going to make him out to be as big a liar as possible. Just like you are standing against this film because you think he is a liar, I don't understand why you went to see the movie if you don't like the guy and think he is full of crap? Opinions are like clitoris's, every ****'s got one!
There is no need for me to calm down, I am not the one throwing my teddy in the corner because some people like something by someone you don't like. It seems to me that you are trying too hard to prove your point.
Last edited by Patrick; Jun 29th 2004 at 2:15 pm.
Jun 29th 2004, 2:30 pm
#57
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,894
I like the irony of people thinking that Moore is the only Hollywood director who could have ever told a lie with a film.
U-571 anyone ?
Moore's films present his view of the way his country has been let down by people who should be protecting it. If you hate this so much, go find someone to back you financially & make your own film. Must be millions of yanks who would love to back a film attacking Mr Morre's viewpoint right ?
U-571 anyone ?
Moore's films present his view of the way his country has been let down by people who should be protecting it. If you hate this so much, go find someone to back you financially & make your own film. Must be millions of yanks who would love to back a film attacking Mr Morre's viewpoint right ?
Jun 29th 2004, 2:44 pm
#58
Through the square window
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,723
Originally posted by CalgaryAMC
Saw the film yesterday in Calgary and enjoyed it. It has a distinct satirical style and he presents his case as a film-maker, not as an academic.
The presentation of pre-war Iraq as an idyllic wonderland was laughable; but it's deliberately so - part of a brilliant satire that is interwoven throughout.
But the more serious points in the film are reasonably convincingly argued with good supporting evidence.
Like Bowling for Columbine, I didn't agree with everything Moore had to say, but it was certainly thought provoking and worth seeing IMO.
Saw the film yesterday in Calgary and enjoyed it. It has a distinct satirical style and he presents his case as a film-maker, not as an academic.
The presentation of pre-war Iraq as an idyllic wonderland was laughable; but it's deliberately so - part of a brilliant satire that is interwoven throughout.
But the more serious points in the film are reasonably convincingly argued with good supporting evidence.
Like Bowling for Columbine, I didn't agree with everything Moore had to say, but it was certainly thought provoking and worth seeing IMO.
There are still some here with a blinkered view which will never change.
But never mind.
Just keep blaming Al-Qaeda eh ?
Incidently - the U.S Department of Justice has put online an Al-Qaelda training manual for all you budding terrorists ->
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm
How very helpful of them.
Jun 29th 2004, 2:55 pm
#59
@matthewb76
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Missouri
Posts: 21,886
top work by the GMP then.............
Jun 29th 2004, 3:20 pm
#60
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Dahn Sarf
Posts: 287
Originally posted by cuckoofrommars
I'm struggling to understand how anybody can use the words truth and Moore in a sentence. Now I'm no fan of GWBush, but Moore's stock and trade is talking out of his ass. Any man who can claim that Iraqi terrorists are akin to the Minutemen and deserve to win is severely blinkered in my view. And any man who can claim his countrymen are dumb because he doesn't agree with them is an arrogant fool.
I'm struggling to understand how anybody can use the words truth and Moore in a sentence. Now I'm no fan of GWBush, but Moore's stock and trade is talking out of his ass. Any man who can claim that Iraqi terrorists are akin to the Minutemen and deserve to win is severely blinkered in my view. And any man who can claim his countrymen are dumb because he doesn't agree with them is an arrogant fool.