+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 118

Thread: Fahrenheit 9/11

  1. #61
    Starbucks is your friend Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Orygun
    Posts
    12,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt64
    I think the more shocking image is that of Bush with the book upside down.. not that he didn't immediately rush out of the classroom. Librarian Laura must have been proud. (That was the same event wasn't it?)
    I believe that was a photo op where book was handed to him, and a different event. But Bush is not the only one to do stupid things. The great Quayle potato incident (where incidentally, the Quayle read off the answer handed to him on a card written by the teacher... another example of our education system in action). My favorite is Al Gore walking through Mt. Vernon shortly after the Clinton inaguration and looking at a picture of George Washington, and asking "who is that?"
    "George Oscar Bluth II, aka GOB, featured magician in the best selling videotape, "Girls With Low Self Esteem" invites you to enter his world.
    -- Arrested Development, Season III

  2. #62
    Allez les Bleus! Zaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,362
    Hmm, the upside down book is just a photoshop edit. Yet another way uncontested fiction can cause some to think it's the truth:

    http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp
    "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy."
    -- Unknown

  3. #63
    Not caring is fun! Matt64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,204
    That's too bad. I really liked that picture.

  4. #64
    I like them silent WomynLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,131
    People may not agree with all of Michael Moore's conclusions, but I also doubt anyone will walk away without some new political insights. More on his "facts" can be found in his website at http://www.fansofrealitytv.com/forums/www.michaelmoore.com in the "Fahrenheit 9/11 Facts." This is where you will find his rebuttals against false claims in the media.

    Regarding his "documentary" and original link :

    'Fahrenheit 9/11' is elegant documentary, not journalism
    Michael Griffin
    July 3, 2004 GRIFFIN0703
    The release of Michael Moore's new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," has prompted a clamor of response from journalists, movie reviewers and opinion page pundits. Virtually all of the commentary, whether positive or negative, reveals a basic ignorance of the history and traditions of documentary film.

    Most commonly, press commentaries criticize "Fahrenheit 9/11" for lack of journalistic "balance." Detractors consistently question Moore's "journalistic standards," or criticize his "disinterest to giving equal time to differing opinions." More informed comments caution against confusing the film with journalism, or more wisely describe the film as a "cinematic editorial." Such comments exhibit a better sense of what the word "documentary" means.

    From its beginnings in the early 20th century, documentary film has offered a welcome alternative to routine journalism, not a reproduction of it. Rather than serving the marketing imperatives of commercial journalism, with all of the inherent biases resulting from its lack of depth, tendency toward sensationalism and adherence to superficial notions of "balance" (designed to preserve an imaginary "center" and appeal to the largest possible audience), documentary work explores issues and events in depth, building detailed presentations of facts and evidence that support a thesis or point of view.

    Much of the best documentary work, work that has survived the test of time, exhibits the same characteristic we teach students to develop in essay writing: a clear thesis, supporting evidence, illustrative examples, a logical sequence of reasoning. A good essay acknowledges and addresses competing arguments or explanations, but doesn't give equal time to all views, no matter how weak or specious. The point of an essay is to build a strong argument.

    Reviews and analyses of "Fahrenheit 9/11" should use the same criteria of evaluation. How strongly has it built its argument? What types of evidence or illustrations has it marshaled in support of that argument? What important issues does it raise?

    Approaching the film in this manner requires that commentaries address the specific issues, facts and evidence that the film presents, rather than simply characterize the film in general terms or dismiss it with an ad hominem attack.

    Of course, most of the reaction to "Fahrenheit 9/11" has nothing to do with its status or quality as a documentary film. The film has attracted media attention simply because it is politically controversial (in an election year, no less). But those working to defend the president have used the strategy of attacking the form of the film rather than discussing the issues raised by the film's argument, and many of Moore's defenders have bit on this rhetorical bait.

    The president's defenders have tried to discredit the film's arguments simply by questioning its status as a "documentary," and journalists and reviewers covering the debate have proved ill-equipped to evaluate this charge, given their own misunderstanding of what a "documentary" means.

    Before commenting further on the merits of "Fahrenheit 9/11," journalists should educate themselves about the nearly 100-year tradition of documentary film.

    By doing so they would not only see that Moore's work fits squarely within that tradition, but that it represents an elegant and provocative example of it, which will undoubtedly be studied in courses on the documentary decades from now as a skillful model of expository and rhetorical form.

    Michael Griffin, chair of the Visual Studies Division of the International Communication Association, teaches a course on the history and practice of documentary film and video at Macalester College.

  5. #65
    It's a bird, it's a plane EXlurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,241
    I finally saw this yesterday and really liked it. I don't consider myself a Michael Moore fan or someone who takes everything he says as the gospel truth but he does make a lot of good points. Why was it so important to get the Bin Laden family out of the country without allowing investigators to question them? Also the number of connections the Bush family and administration has to the companies that are profiting from the war is scary. I've been hearing about Halliburton and the conspiracy theories since before the war in Afghanistan and I never wanted to believe them, and when we went to war with Iraq over the "WMD's", I was for it. Here we are now and there's no "WMD's", people are dying everyday, and Halliburton is making millions. I believe in coincidence but how many coincidences does it take till we can call it a conspiracy? Or at the very least launch an investigation. Love him or hate him, agree or not, at least Michael Moore has gotten people to think and talk about something more important than who Britney Spears is gonna marry and what color diamond J. Lo has on her ring.

  6. #66
    Staying Afloat speedbump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    New England
    Age
    41
    Posts
    6,952
    I was hoping to have seen the movie last week, but will have to wait until the middle of this week, so I'm reserving judgement.

    I did see a news piece yesterday that showed some of the video footage Moore used was actually from Gulf War 1 and from the bombing of the pharmacutical plants. Also, the footage of Bush on the golf course was supposedly a few months before 9/11 and he was referring to an Israel/ Palestine incident.

    I think this is the kind of manipulation that is frustrating people. Footage out of context and out dated footage to meet his agenda. So, then when someone says his movie show's all the facts, it can't possibly be true.


    Quote Originally Posted by EXLurker
    Here we are now and there's no "WMD's", people are dying everyday, and Halliburton is making millions. I believe in coincidence but how many coincidences does it take till we can call it a conspiracy? Or at the very least launch an investigation.
    If you're into conspiracies, look into the Illuminati and the Bilderberg group. You'll find all kinds of goodies relating to what you mentioned.
    You got to cry without weeping. Talk without speaking. Scream without raising your voice.- U2

  7. #67
    Scrappy Spartan Broadway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    18,963

    Entertainment Weekly Q&A w/Moore

    from the July 9 article: (speedbump... if you see the question regarding the golf course shot... it would appear that your info is incorrect, that that scene was filmed in the Summer of 2002, not the summer of 2001)

    Starting with Florida and twisting its way through the war in Iraq, Michael Moore's new movie, ''Fahrenheit 9/11,'' by turns humiliates, condemns, and brutally diminishes the President and his inner circle. Other than Miramax's Harvey and Bob Weinstein -- who bought back ''Fahrenheit'' when Disney dumped it and are presumably busy rolling naked in money at the moment -- no one knows what to make of the phenomenon surrounding the movie, which soared to the top spot at the box office with $24 million and broke all kinds of records. Right-wing advocacy groups are trying to use federal campaign finance laws to force the ads for ''Fahrenheit'' off the air and out of print after July 30. Liberal organizations are marshaling supporters to go see the movie. Conservative critics are howling about errors and malicious omissions. Nobody is sure if it will make a difference in the election -- but with the race so close, the number of undecided voters so small, and the bases of the Republican and Democratic parties so rabid, it doesn't seem impossible.

    Ever the giddy bomb thrower, Moore, 50, sat down with EW for his most candid and extensive discussion yet of ''Fahrenheit'' and its controversies.

    ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: You had to be really disappointed by the opening-weekend gross, right? You almost got beat by ''White Chicks.''
    MICHAEL MOORE: [Laughs] I was thinking 10 million. Twelve, maybe. It's like if this week the No. 1 album on the Billboard chart was a compilation of Bulgarian folk music. That can't happen! The pundits were saying that only the Bush haters would see this film, and it's No. 1 everywhere. The red states and the blue states.

    Was it your intention to take down Bush?
    My intention was to make as good a film as I could make.

    But this movie is an explicit political attack.
    If you start out with that as your primary motivation you're doomed. Case in point: ''The Day After Tomorrow.'' Well-intentioned. Good politics. I saw it at 10 p.m. opening night and there was so much laughter that people started chanting ''RE-FUND! RE-FUND! RE-FUND!'' ''China Syndrome'' is the opposite. Well-made movie first, and then people were willing to open up and listen to the politics.

    It seems to me that what you were trying to do was build the left's most sensational, potent case against this administration.
    My own motivation [was the thought that] we can't leave this up to the Democrats. It's too serious now. I mean, this is a party that can't even win when they win. They lose when they win, you can't get more pathetic than that. We have to save them from themselves.

    Is this why you pushed for it to be released on June 25? And the October DVD date? To directly assist the Democrats in the election?
    Yes.

    Talk to me about Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq. The story of her political conversion makes up roughly the last third of the movie. How did you find her?
    I didn't know her at all. In the first month or two of the war, I noticed that [some] soldiers had died from Flint. I said we should start calling some of [their relatives] and see if they'll talk to us. The first three people said they would, so immediately we were like, whoa, because military families tend to be more conservative. As we followed Lila's story for three months there was a really interesting arc, because she was essentially this conservative Democrat, very pro-military. And we saw this shift take place over a period of months, and so you see it in the film.

    So the first time you met her, her son had already died in that helicopter crash?
    That's right. It was a number of months after her son had died, I can get you the exact dates, but I just constructed it in such a way that you don't know he's dead until [later in the film].

    The first flash point for most people seems to be the footage of Bush in the grade-school classroom, when he is informed of the planes hitting the towers on 9/11. You are essentially imagining what Bush is thinking then. That's pretty audacious.
    It's in a satirical voice. ''Which one of them screwed me?'' Clearly he's not thinking that, but yeah, I'm imagining that in a satirical voice.

    How'd you get the tape?
    We called up [the school] and they said, ''Sure we made some tapes!'' Because parents wanted a tape of the President there. That's a home-video VHS that the teacher set on a tripod. And I'm telling you, we're being kind to Bush. You should see the longer version where I let it run for, like, three of the seven minutes. It is painful. PAINFUL!

    People have problems with your portrayal of kids playing in Baghdad before the bombings. I get what you're going for there, that those positive images were never seen, but Saddam was a bad guy and there's nothing to that effect in the film.
    Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war. For 20 seconds in this film, I become essentially the only person to say, I want you to take a look at the human beings that were living in Iraq in 2003. The ones that we were going to bomb indiscriminately. In those 20 seconds I show a child in a barbershop, a young boy flying a kite, a couple getting married. People having lunch at a café. Anyone who takes that and says that I'm trying to say that Saddam's Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot. The New York Times reports that our air strikes that week were zero for 50 in terms of hitting the targets. We killed a lot of civilians, and I think that we're going to have to answer for that -- whether it's now or in the hereafter. If you pay taxes and you're an American your name is on those bombs. They were human beings who were just trying to get on with their daily lives.

    But if you'd just taken a second to show that they weren't exactly living under the best circumstances, that would have defused this criticism from the beginning. Right?
    No.

    No?
    I refuse to participate in the brainwashing that the media was doing to the American public. I didn't need to state the obvious. Kurt Vonnegut in ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' isn't criticized for not showing the horrors of the Nazi regime even though he shows that the people who we firebombed in Dresden were essentially old men, women, and children. Is he doing something dishonest or wrong? I know it upsets a lot of people in the media that I'm not playing ball, that I'm not showing the images that they showed. I know it's embarrassing to them because anybody who sees my film now knows that you were only presented with one side.

    There's a lot of stuff we haven't seen before in this movie. Wounded civilians, recuperating soldiers, casualties. How did you get it?
    I realized early on that we were going to have to do an end run around those at the Pentagon and the way they were stage-managing the news. They successfully got the networks to drink the Kool-Aid. Some of it was from freelancers who were already there. Some of it was from freelancers we sent there. Some of it was from people who were there who we gave cameras to. Some of it was from foreign news. And some of it was from people in the American news media who were disgusted by how the news was being censored and filtered and that Americans were only given one view of the war.

    Is that where the footage of Bush after he addresses the nation on the golf course comes from?
    Correct. Because a deal is made and this is what the deal is: Bush is on the golf course. So they allow a pool camera in only to film the statement he's going to give. Nothing before or after -- and if you do film [before or after] you're not to use it. And publicists from the White House will stand blocking the camera before the statement starts and then move right back in to block the camera when it's done. But by the summer of '02 the media had been so complicit in presenting a good face on Bush [that] his people had started to relax, because they knew that the media would censor themselves. And so, sure enough, on the night when that ran, ''A message to all terrorists!'', everyone had the rest of it and nobody ran it. Because of this implied agreement that we're going to protect each other, Bush feels comfortable enough making a crack like that. [''Now, watch this drive!''] It's like the Marine recruiters that we show? To do that we had to get permission from the Marine Corps. So we called Marine Corps headquarters and I don't even have to get to the point of saying this is Michael Moore's film, because they don't ask. They just make the assumption if media is calling saying they want to film some recruiters doing their job, well, that's a positive story!

    Did you get the footage of the sexual abuse before or after the prison scandal broke?
    Before.

    Why didn't you make it public? Or at least give it to the government?
    I thought, What should we do? We don't have a show, we're not going to give it to these networks. They're all cheerleaders for Bush.

    Do you really believe that?
    There's not a single network I would give this footage to and expect them to handle it properly.

    But isn't there a chance that you could have stopped this earlier? Don't you have to take that chance?
    It's funny, you know, it's kinda damned if you do, damned if you don't. If I had released this before Cannes, they would have all said that this is a publicity stunt for this movie. And now they're killing me that I waited.

    What's the next movie?
    I go after these HMOs and these pharmaceutical companies. The style of the film is like ''Run Lola Run.'' I don't know if I can run that fast for hours, but I just thought, What if we were just relentless motherf---ers, because I can't think of anything more evil than these HMOs. We try to see how many lives we can save in 90 minutes.

    Ever worry about your tone? I mean, this guy IS the President.
    I understand what you're saying. He is the President of the United States. Look, here's a good example of how I feel about this. A couple of weeks ago, out here on Broadway, a guy comes up to me and says, ''I'm a Navy surgeon. And I was on a ship off Iraq the night you made your speech at the Oscars and I was very angry at you. I remember yelling with the others at the screen. Now I just want to apologize. You were right. You were telling the truth.'' And I said, Listen, you don't owe me any apology. Apologize for what? That you believed your Commander-in-Chief? That you believed the President of the United States? Why should you feel bad? You SHOULD believe the President, because if we can't believe our President we're in deep trouble. You don't have to apologize for anything. In fact, I want to thank you for offering to risk your life to defend us. I think it would make the founding fathers proud to see the country still survives in their first belief, that's why it's their First Amendment, that somebody has the ability to express themselves and criticize the top guy. That's the country they created. That's the country that gave us Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and Groucho Marx. And that can't be anything but a good thing for America.

    (This is an online-only excerpt of Entertainment Weekly's July 9, 2004, cover story.)

  8. #68
    Staying Afloat speedbump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    New England
    Age
    41
    Posts
    6,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadway
    from the July 9 article: (speedbump... if you see the question regarding the golf course shot... it would appear that your info is incorrect, that that scene was filmed in the Summer of 2002, not the summer of 2001)
    Thanks, I stand corrected (although, my excuse is that I'm loopy on percocets at the moment ). I'll try to dig up the backround of the golf course incident, as I truly remember Bush was talking about an Israel/ Palestine incident and wasn't referring to Iraq. I should be up and about to see the film on wednesday hopefully.
    You got to cry without weeping. Talk without speaking. Scream without raising your voice.- U2

  9. #69
    Starbucks is your friend Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Orygun
    Posts
    12,166
    Either way the golf course incident was heavily spliced. Secondly, Bush has referred to certain Palestinian groups as terrorists, and Moore doesn't actually say that video is not from the time frame reported in the news. Typical.

    I love the article posted by Womanlee. It is so Clintonian in nature. See, it all comes down to the meaning for the word documentary, which apparently in Moore's case equals slander.

    Oh, and the media hits on Moore are backed up by actual facts, not fabrications of an overactive imagination wishing the very worst things on one man. I notice that he doesn't actually address any of the factual lies he has been caught in.

    The bin Laden family consists of dozens (I am trying to remember, but honest to God I think the number is in the 50's) of brothers and sisters who disowned Osama decades ago (though they are the owners of a very successful and well respected business that deals in Oil for the Saudi governement), and not just with the US, but any country (France and Germany come to mind) who deal in oil exports from the middle east. That issue was reviewed by extraordinarily liberal NY Times years ago and no wrong doing was found. Further, Bush did not send them out of the country as implied by Moore, and again all of this was long ago investigated. If your brother was a psychotic killer, would you expect your life to be under suspicion forever? There was no reason to question them, as they have been seperate from Osama for years, and there is zero evidence that they have any involvement with Osama, and there was a lot of probability that their lives would be in danger in NY given their family name.

    Moore is an out and out liar to claim that the networks are cheerleaders for Bush. That is most outlandish, unsubstantiated claim I have heard since "I did not have sex with that woman..." CBS / NY Times, CNN, etc. HATE Bush. Dan Rather has had fundraisers for the DNC at his house. Moore knows this. He is a liar.

    Rather than blow the whistle on prisoner abuse (which he claims to know in advance, and given his record, he is likely lying about that too) all in the name of keeping his show in tact. So he could make more money. He has the audacity to then attack others?

    Here we are now and there's no "WMD's", people are dying everyday, and Halliburton is making millions.
    Except of course for the biological agents that the Kay team did find. The ongoing weapons programs found. The 100+ violations of the UN resolutions also found, and the WMD's (sarin gas) used to attack American troops. The dozens of connections between AQ and Iraq.

    As for Halliburton, they are operating under an EXISTING contract in Iraq. One which was going to be renewed anyhow, and Bush didn't need a war to give Halliburton money, they have been getting it, and all through the Clinton administration too... That is one of my favorite red herrings.

    You see, the final word on this movie is that it asks questions already answered. Moore is not interested in actually giving the answers to those questions because he knows full well the answers. He said it best himself in the article above. He wants to influence the election.

    I hope that folks will not fall for the manipulators on either side of the political spectrum, and Moore is definately one of them.
    Last edited by Bill; 07-05-2004 at 03:59 AM.
    "George Oscar Bluth II, aka GOB, featured magician in the best selling videotape, "Girls With Low Self Esteem" invites you to enter his world.
    -- Arrested Development, Season III

  10. #70
    Starbucks is your friend Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Orygun
    Posts
    12,166
    Late to add. I promise now I will leave you to your regularly scheduled praise of the brilliant Michael Moore. I cheated and posted again, and this is my last note on the topic. I just always ask folks to think for themselves and get the facts. Not someone's, including my, version of the facts. Especially not the facts of those who have a clear agenda behind their work.

    Have fun in the thread.
    "George Oscar Bluth II, aka GOB, featured magician in the best selling videotape, "Girls With Low Self Esteem" invites you to enter his world.
    -- Arrested Development, Season III

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.