Come to think of it, those American Undercover documentaries that HBO air are highly suspect as well. Like the makers of Southern Comfort didn’t give any time to the people who believed that all the transgendered men and women at the convention were sinning freaks who should be condemned to hell, at the very least.
That’s it, I’m sending post-cards. They’re going to hear about this.
I’m with you, pepper. I’m going to send a postcard, too.
[/url=http://imdb.com/title/tt0312318/]Damn Frenchmen. How dare they tell the movie from the point of view of the firefighters! Next time they make a movie about a terrorist attack they’d better include the point of view of the police, the hot dog vendors, and the terrorists! They didn’t include everyone’s point of view! They deliberately withheld information that would make me sympathetic to the terrorists! They didn’t tell both sides of the story!
It’s just a satire, not a documentary! :mad:
Not at all. All documentary films present a point of view. You can’t even begin to approach filmmaking without defining a point of view, and it’s naive to suggest that it’s even possible to do so, much less a stringent requirement for documentary filmmaking. Triumph of the Will is a documentary film. Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator is a documentary film. You can’t just arbitrarily redefine the word “documentary” in such a way that excludes virtually every film previously categorized as “documentary” just because you disagree with the film’s point-of-view.
No previous documentary film has done that much box office, but F.9/11’s record will be broken, and soon. I can recall a time when science fiction films were considered box-office losers – because they didn’t have mass appeal. Then a little picture called Star Wars came along, and suddenly SF flicks became a whole lot easier to pitch. We’re going to be seeing a lot more documentaries being produced and distributed in the coming years, because now the money knows that they can put butts in seats – and they’re especially attractive since they have a much lower overhead.
I anxiously await your insights with regard to precisely why this film can be dismissed as “manipulative tripe.” Oh look! A ready-made GD thread.
Just to keep this very relevant for Cafe Society, but I think the definitive word of what does and does not constitute a documentary ought to come from a respected authority on cinema:
Personally, I remain perplexed why folks who dislike Fahrenheit 9/11 have to resort to a weak “it doesn’t fit the dictionary’s definition of ‘documentary’” argument. Aren’t there more substantive arguments to be made against the film?
Wow, personal attack - cool!
I clicked this thread to find out why the OP thought the box office numbers were important (duh). The other big thread on this subject gave me the impression that some of the die-hard Bush-bashers think that if the movie makes more than other documentaries, it means that there must be overwhelming support out there for Moore’s point of view.
That was not a personal attack, merely a question. Thank you for your answer.
As others have pointed out, there are several reason why it interesting that the movie did well.
When I saw it, and listened to the discussions afterwards, there seemed to be equal numbers of liberals who were seeing the movie for the second or third time, reveling in the innuendos, half-truths, and staged-for-laughs scenes, and conservatives who were seeing it so they could argue better with the liberals. Based on my experience (and I’m sure others had different ones), my contention is that the relative success of this little film can be attributed more to the media hype it got than support for Michael Moore’s views.
By the way, if it makes 20 million more this week, it might catch up to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, which has made $97,865,599 in 4 weeks. 
I heard that only $6 million of the box office gross actually came from people seeing the movie a single time. The rest came from thirteen guys who each saw it 684,000 times. :dubious:
You see, the argument will go like this: “Sure, the film made a lot of money, but it’s not really that * popular * a film 'cuz a huge part of the box office receipts came from repeat viewers, so not that many people actually saw the film.” I’m pretty sure someone (not me) will seriously try that argument sooner or later. That’s why it might be useful to have some idea of how many repeat viewers there have been.
My. Touchy, aren’t you?
Indeed. PBS’ long-running documentary series is titled POV: “Point of View.”
The fact that you can’t swallow a point of view that deviates at all from yours does not make F/911 less of a documentary, however fervently you wish it to be so. I won’t see the documentary in the theatre because I abhor monomaniacal pontificating, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is documenting reality, not fiction. Your average news broadcast, in particular the joke that is Fox, doesn’t meet the standards of non-fiction that you’re trying to impose on Moore’s film.
Money? Just wait till it’s released on DVD in September. Were I in control of it…I’d price it way low.
You know who I’m thinking of? Edward R. Murrow, granddaddy of American television documentary, who over-emphasized and over-legitimized his POV thusly:
Nah, it’s a lot better than that.
Though supposedly Moore has said publically that he doesn’t care if people download it off the internet and see it for free, so you might want to consider that venue.
OK. Serious question here. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Have you suddenly crawled out of a hole in the ground, hit your head on a tree branch or something, and proclaimed a whole lot of junk about documentary film making? I’m not asking this as someone with an interest in leftist politics - I know plenty of idiots I can go to if i want a marred view on liberalism. There’s no shortage of morons on our side of the spectrum. I’m simply asking as someone with a background in film. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
All documentaries put forth a point of view. There is absolutely no reason to think that the point of view a documentary puts forward has to be neutral. You’re deluding yourself if you do.
I don’t mean to offend you, and this is not a personal attack. But what you’ve said in your posts is ridiculous. Since this is a board devoted to fighting ignorance, I suggest you should stick to subject areas you actually know something about.
I realize now my thread title didn’t allow for expansion. Darn.
Fahrenheit 9/11 now stands at $103,356,000, and climbing.
Of course, it’ll make most of its money when it hits DVD/video in October.
I haven’t thought of that , but indeed the word “satire” is quite appropriate for this movie. Much more than “documentary”, IMO.
By the way, I didn’t intend to watch it, after reading the critics and some of the numerous threads on this board, but after having watched yet another interview of Moore, I decided to go. I just had to know what the fuss was all about. SO, I went to the next show, which was at 10 :30 pm on sunday night. I expected there wouldn’t be many people so late on a sunday, but to my surprise, the theater was nearly full. So, indeed it seems to be making big bucks in France too.
Oh! And though I wasn’t expecting much, I still was dissapointed.