“Bush Rose Garden”: George W. Bush’s full press briefing after 9/11 Commission appearance
I don’t want to get this post thrown into the Pit, but it is popular in certain right-leaning political circles to brand this movie as full of “lies” to encourage people not to see it. To counter that, Moore has a 6 part Factual Backup section on his web site.
I’d urge anyone who’s interested in the movie, or just the controversy, to check it out, look at the pages on Moore’s site, and judge for yourself.
I saw it at the theater and plan to go get it tomorrow. I know several people who were planning to wait until it came out on video, and I’ve already got a couple of viewings planned this week, requested by interested parties.
I was wondering if the video release would get any attention, and if the release would affect the polls or not. I figure most people who might be influenced by it have already seen it (my friends are already voting Dem), but maybe it will reach a few more undecideds.
(I remember the detractors saying it was a flash in the pan and that nobody would would want to see it. Box Office Mojo has it at $209 million worldwide. Not bad, eh? )
You know, I always figured that if Moore really wanted to affect the outcome of the election, he’d be making sure that this was shown on TV before November. I guess he decided to go for an Oscar instead.
I heard from a shocking amount of people who really wanted to see it but just never go to the theater. They’ll be renting or buying the DVD. They’re all liberals, but as you said Spree, it could reach a fair amount of undecideds.
RikWriter, I take it you haven’t seen it…?
No, he did pull it out of Oscar contention in the Documentary category so, if he can find a station to show it, it can be shown on TV. It’s still eligible for the other categories, such as Best Picture (no hope of that) or Best Director (possible) or Best Editing (likely).
Movies in the Documentary category can’t be shown on TV within 9 months of release. That doesn’t apply for the other categories.
Why is that, by the way? Seems like a stupid rule, especially since most documentary filmmakers aren’t anywhere near as wealthy or famous as Moore and could probably use the cash from a quick TV deal (if they could get one).
Actually, if you read the OP, I included a link to the 6-page Factual Backup section on Michael Moore’s web site. Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? I remember LOTS of facts, one or two half-truths and no wild theories I can think of (not to say there aren’t any, it has been months since I’ve seen it). The bulk of it is file footage and interviews.
Much of what Moore presented in the movie was new to a lot of people. Those who had been paying attention were already aware of most of the events. For instance, I read about the Saudi/Bush connection months before Moore even started making the movie (ok, I don’t have a timeline, but this isn’t Great Debates, and it was before the movie was made). It wasn’t new with Moore, and there have been plenty of other sources since to back up what Moore presented.
Just out of curiousity, what seemed staged and artificial? If I were answering that question, the two points where Moore gets “Moore-like” (reading the “Patriot” Act and trying to sign up congresscritter’s kids) are definitely staged and artificial, but I’m trying to think of what else.
Bingo for one of the most powerful aspects of the movie. Moore shows you things that the media never did.
(Paranoid about my post count now…)
“Staged” in that I had a distinct feeling that he was using actors, not “real people”. There were two scenes that rang my bs-meter: the two elderly women (apparently playing bridge at a senior center) – their lines were too clear and well-thought-out; and the soldier complaining about the relative pay he gets for driving a truck, vs a Halliburton employee. His uniform had a suspicious lack of insignia. In both cases, the sound was too good, too.
I had no disagreement with the points Moore/his characters were making; I just think he hired actors to make them.