I saw the movie today. Since I saw nothing here in Cafe Society I thought that I could start a thread discussing its merits as a documentary. I imagine that most of the people that have rushed to see it (myself included) are doing so in order to crystalize their own feelings regarding our current “conflict”.
Moore paints a compelling picture of the past four years, one that many will decry for being too revisionist. I was told tonight by a cow-orker that the film is mere propoganda (I wonder if she’ll go see it).
The heart of the film lies not with its condemnation of Dubya and his “base” (the elite), but with the words and sorrow expressed by Lila, a Flint woman who lost her son to Baghdad (Michael Pederson, who shares my birthday of May 27).
I do have to say that the film definitely deserves an R rating.
A few of the things I didn’t like about the movie were minor points. Moore has a habit of completing the answers of his interviewee’s questions. Let them say what they’re going to say and stop trying to put words into their mouths!
Second, Moore oftentimes paints a picture that because Bush (et. al) worked with person X in the past, and now person X plays a role in the current administration, somehow this must be corruption. While it’s undoubtibly true that SOME people rose to power merely through family loyalty, this cannot be the case across the board. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite. Working with someone in the past is the best way to gauge their intelligence, work ethic, and ability to assume responsibility.
But these are minor points in the grand scheme of the movie. The critiques Moore makes in his film are valid. Not a single senator stepped forward to challenge the election results on the Senate’s floor. We let the Bin Ladin family go without bothering to question them about the attacks. Bush’s ties to the Saudi royals and to oil companies are such a huge conflict of interest in his job as President of the United States.
Moore is biased. He’ll be the first admit that. But he raises issues that desperately need to be addressed. I can’t wait to see if the DVD comes with an “extended edition” to cover these last few months with Abu Gariib, the 9/11 commission, and the transfer of power on June 30.
Haven’t seen it yet, but if the lines are not too long, will go this weekend.
Any truth to the rumor it will be out on video/DVD by August, come hell or high water? I heard Moore wants to make sure people have it at home, or to send to friends, in time for the election.
At any rate…jehovah68 or those who have seen it, is it only “preaching to the choir”?
I saw it last night at what was apparently the only theater in town that would play it. Overall, color me unimpressed. Moore did a great job in that he made a movie that will surely bring in tons of cash; you laugh, you cry, you tell your friends to go see it. It’s decent entertainment, probably more so if you’re a hardcore democrat, but it’s not what I’d call a serious study of the issues.
I share Enderw24’s complaints regarding Moore’s tendency to talk over or completely answer for his interviewees and his insistence that connections = corruption. I also found his take on the 2000 election pretty bogus; sorry, but I’m not buying the theory that Bush won as a result of some kind of plot involving Fox News and, as Moore would portray it, complete disenfranchisement of non-whites.
There were some things that I did like about the movie, however. The footage of Bush at a Florida elementary school on 9/11 was something I hadn’t seen before and something I’d be interested in hearing Bush’s take on. I also wasn’t aware that the bin Laden family had left the country, and while I don’t know how useful questioning them would have been, it couldn’t have hurt. One portion of the movie I really was able to get into was his segment on Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, which I found to be generally even-handed and actually quite amusing.
It’s 6:30 AM, so I’m sure there’s plenty that I’m forgetting, and I’d probably need a transcript to really cover a lot of what was said, but overall it was an interesting way to kill a couple of hours. I’m not voting Bush, but I’m not a democrat either, so I’m not exactly Moore’s target audience. Overall, for me this gets put in the same file as The Passion, interesting for the discussion it sparks but not, in my opinion, amazing or life-changing.
I haven’t seen it (babies apparently preclude some sort of normal life in this respect) but I’m going to weigh in with my opinion anyway (shmuck!).
I’m a pretty solid lefty, dislike Bush and his policies greatly. But Michael Moore bugs the hell out of me. I don’t trust the guy, and I don’t trust his motivations for making these films, so I find myself having to try to second guess everything he says (more so than most sources), so other than the entertainment value, these movies have very little value to me.
The value in this film is the way Moore thrusts the grotesqueness of war in the face of the viewer. His condemnation of Busco is old hat, but well presented, if not altogether fair. It is indeed ‘preaching to the choir’.
But anyone who thinks war is noble or who thinks that it’s been a walk in the park will be sharply disabused by portions of this film. Hearing about victims and seeing them are not remotely the same thing.
The point he makes well is that we as a country have been lied to (again), and continue to be lied to, and it’s cost this time is in blood. The taxpayer is being repeatedly gang-raped by Halliburton, Bechtel and others with the blessing and assistance of the White House.
The story of Lila Pederson and her family is compelling. Her early support for the military, urging her children all to join the military to escape the economic depression of Flint, her declaration of being a ‘conservative Democrat’, and her ultimate disintegration on the sidewalk in front of the White House following her son’s death is powerful stuff.
When Moore tries to be a journalist, he succeeds well. He needs to do more of it, and leave the comedy to others.
My friends and I were surprised it wasn’t playing in Bellingham. We had to go to Burlington to see it. The 2:15 show was sold out, so we bought tickets for the 5:00. I heard from a friend of a friend who caught the earlier show (he approached us as we were standing in line) that cinemas had to “bid” for the film. I don’t have more information than that. Were the venues chosen by lot? Or did the distributor rent the film to the highest bidder?
The audience were definitely anti-Bush. However the film itself presented facts and cites. For example, Moore showed a report that was censored to delete a name (Bath) and he also showed a report he had obtained before 9/11 that did not have the name censored. I thought it was a cite worth of The Straight Dope. The film is mostly made up of file footage. I saw this as less “preaching to the choir”, and more “Look: Here is the actual footage with the dates it was broadcast. Here is what so-and-so actually said, and you can see it with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears.” In other words, I thought it was less preaching, and more of a challenge to Bush supporters to come up with arguments agains the documented facts.
Indeed. This is why Bush supporters need to see this film. I used to work in Orange County, CA – “Reagan Country”. When I tried to explain to my cow-orkers why I don’t support Bush, they came back with “Well, all I know is…” I hate it when people say that! Rather than examine a problem, they turn back to what they “know” (which, IMO, is often wrong; otherwise we wouldn’t have been having the discussion).
Lila Pederson was trying to explain to a protester (who had set up a little tent) that she agreed with her to some degree. Then a passer-by walks up and says, “Don’t believe it! It’s all propaganda!” Lila turned to her to tell her that her son had been killed, but the woman wouldn’t listen at first. But she finally shut the woman up… until Lila had walked away, and you could hear the woman shout, “Blame it on Al Qaeda!” :rolleyes:
I think that one important message people should take from the film is that the Iraq War, which took Lila’s son, is not The War Against Terror. The passer-by, by saying Al Qaeda should be blamed for Lila’s son’s death, was being supported by Saddam. There is plenty of evidence showing this was not true.
As we were standing in the queue and the 2:00 audience were leaving, someone said to be sure to stay 'til the end of the credits. (I normally do anyway.) I’m not sure why she thought this was particularly important. Could have been the URL at the end, or maybe she was amused by the “Dog Eat Dog Productions” animation.
Hmmm…a TWAT perpetrated by a twit.
Our audience was obviously anti-Bush (actually, this showing was a deliberate gathering of the left in town) as well. The audience applauded several times during the show, first in appreciation of Lion Gate Films for having the guts to distribute it, then for Michael Moore as writer/director (didn’t get my applause), then for the Marine who said he would refuse to go back and kill poor people, then for the wounded vet in the hospital who said he was converted from the Republican party by the experience and would be an activist for the Democratic party once home again.
I saw the movie last night, with Catalyst. We didn’t stay til the end of the credits; our full-theater audience applauded at the end, and laughed a good deal throughout.
Do I think it was propaganda? Yes, and I dearly hope that Bush supporters and ‘swing voters’ go see this film, rather than just Democrats or Bush-haters, and decide for themselves how they feel about the movie, rather than letting everyone else’s reactions make up their minds.
As we headed into the theater, a friend of ours told us, “It’ll make you laugh, it’ll make you cry-- everything!” And it did. I cried far, far more than I anticipated: first at footage of the Iraqi war and then later during the drawn-out footage of a mother who lost her son, an American soldier, in Iraq. I’m one of those who is easily provoked by “tugging-at-heartstrings” prompts in film, but I found a good deal of that tugging to be well-done. I was glad that footage of the soldiers in Iraq who are my age, pumped up by rock music playing in their tanks and helmets as they aim missiles and fire guns, was included. One of the most heartbreaking parts of the “War on Terror” in Iraq to me has always been that to a great extent it is the young people of our country that are “dying for our freedoms.”
Is Moore inflammatory? Sometimes misleading? Obnoxious? Yes, yes, yes, but as with Bowling for Columbine, I can’t help but feel you need to examine his message first and foremost, rather than picking on the way he sometimes mishandles his presentation.
Watching the movie made me want to go home and research issues touched on the movie: the Florida elections, oil connections, big business profit on 9/11, the lack of information substantiating a connection between Iraq and 9/11, the mishandling of Afghanistan, Bush cutting the benefits of military families as he sends their loved ones into war, etc. And I hope that many people experience a similar response. I think/hope that Moore would prefer that his audiences leave the movie with the resolve to learn about what they’ve heard, and decide for themselves, rather than blindly follow what he has put forth. That, at least, is my hope.
My audience clapped for that, too, yesterday afternoon, and there was something that I found really abhorrent about that. I’m a lefty, and always have been, but I just hated that the clapping seemed really self-serving, like “yep, this guy ruined his life, but at least he came over to our side.” Too bad it took permanent nerve damage to do so.
I don’t know. Perhaps I’m overreacting, but that really bothered me, even when I think back on the movie today.
I, too, found that part extremely sad.
Here’s an editorial denouncing Moore for “Unfairhenheit 9/11:” http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Regarding the classroom scene (just after the 2nd plane hit), I am not upset that Dubya didn’t react. It appeared that he was taken aback, quite shocked by what his aide tells him. Perhaps he thought it prudent to not jump out of his chair in front of a classroom full of 7 year olds.
Yabbut Moore intends to make an honest film. That’s the important part.
Anyone expecting even-handedness from Moore’s movie would be disappointed, but if you go in expecting no more neutrality than you’d get from tuning in Hannity and Colmes, he’s got a hell of a movie. He’s good at what he does, and although most of the points had been made before (and I’d heard them made before) it’s a damn good, almost comprehensive summing-up.
The most disturbing segment for me was the soldier telling about the theme music they play when they go in to firebomb civilian Baghdad, followed by the playing of the actual track he had described (“we don’t need no water, let it burn, motherfucker”). Disturbing emotionally, not intellectually (I’m not horrified or astonished that people need to get psyched up to go out and do soldiering).
I was particularly disturbed by people using a song from The Bloodhound Gang for war. You guys do realize that song is meant to be ironically funny, right?
Documentaries are not, and are not supposed to be unbiased, “fair and balanced” looks at any given issue. Every documentary is an editorial on its subject.
I tried to go to the only theatre in the Triad showing the movie today (on one screen) for the 4:40 screening. (To compare, Garfield: The Movie is on two screens and White Chicks and Dodgeball are on five screens each in Greensboro alone.)
The 4:40 was sold out, as was the 7:00 and the 9:20, and a couple of tomorrow’s showings.
I did snag a ticket for the 11:40 showing tonight. I’ll post a full report.
Saw it last night in Brooklyn. Don’t know about elsewhere in the country but in NYC it drew quite a crowd; the theatre I saw it in (after it sold out elsewhere) had a line that went down the block, around the corner, and down the block some more. They needed 3 theatres to accommodate the late show crowd.
Anyway, I am trying not to jerk my knee too much and I will be looking forward to hearing the various issues raised in movie addressed by the right. But I found the movie simply horrifying. Regardless of whether Moore’s Orwellian thesis is indeed well-supported by the facts, there was some compelling footage of Bush’s (and others in the administration) utter incompetence, the scene on 9/11 in the classroom being one of the best examples. I loved Bush’s awkward response to the journalists questioning him about whether he is taking too much vacation time and what he’ll be doing later in the day after golf (note: pre 9/11); “well I’ll be meeting with (someone) and we’ll be gettin’ some things done, ::stutter, awkwardness, smirks:: I’ll be making some important decisions…” or something to that effect. And the footage of the military recruiters was pretty effective too.
The Flint woman’s story reminded me very much of Ron Kovic and Vietnam; a gung-ho, US pro-military, love-it-or-leave-it type who experienced extreme tradgedy and was transformed into a passionate protestor against the war.
I’ve heard from one who did - or at least, has an opinion on it anyway. Since he was good enough to post his views in a public forum, I feel no qualms about quoting him:
I don’t think it would make any difference if every Bush supporter watched the film. They’d still vote for him.