Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11 is slated for release this Friday. It is definitely not kind to the current government. What effect, if any, will it have on the re-election bid of GWB?
Unless we have a Doper with certified psychic powers, or a time-traveller who’s visiting us from 2005, I don’t think this question has a factual answer.
That said, I personally hope it helps torpedo’s Bush’s chances for a second term. Every little bit helps, and pissing off Moore’s detractors at the same time is a big bonus. 
From the reviews I’ve read, it pretty much just repeats and sums up all the anti-Bush/anti-War arguments from the past year. As such, I doubt it’ll have much effect. The Anti-Bushies will love the movie and hate Bush, and the Pro-Bushies will hate the movie and love Bush, as always.
I haven’t seen it and my first assumption of it is that it is probably very biased, takes cheap shots, and is creatively edited to push it’s point.
However, the buzz on it has been that it’s very straight forward and shows factual footage and not a whole lot of twisting of facts.
I think that it may reach a limited audience in it’s theatrical release. The liberal and die hard Moore fan will definately see it. And you will have those moderate fence sitters who are curious about it who veture to see it. However, there’s probably a large number of people who won’t pay their $8 to see a political documentary and would rather see Spiderman 2, even though they should see this film.
I think the film could have an effect if the buzz remained high and someone like Ted Turner purchased the film and showed it on TNT Monday thru Friday at 7p.m. every week until the elections.
I wonder if the majorty of the people who don’t see it are people who went out of their way to see PotC and vice-versa.
Funny you should mention that. I just saw the trailer for Farenheit 9/11 and thought to myself, “I might actually watch the Passion if I could somehow barter those hours in exchange for my mom watching this…”
Hmm.
Hypothetically, let’s say that without the release of the film, this years popular and electoral votes would be exactly the same as 2000s. It would require only a few people to change their vote to change the outcome. I don’t think that one film will change the outcome of this year’s election, but I think the effect could be measurable.
I’m still undecided on whether I’ll vote for Bush or Kerry or just say the hell with it and get roaring drunk instead. But I hate Michael Moore with a passion and wouldn’t see any of his movies if you paid me, so no, I can’t see it having any effect on me. If anything, the fact that someone like Moore hates Bush is almost enough of a reason to vote for him.
Okay, Max, I’ll bite: why do you hate Michael Moore so much, if you haven’t seen his films?
And if you don’t mind my saying it, I can’t quite conceive how anyone could be undecided about the coming election. Disillusioned Republican unwilling to switch sides, even though you feel the present administration has let you down?
Michael Moore is a Oscar wiiner for his doc on Columbine and a Cannes winner for this doc. There have to be substantial reasons to ignore him!
I watched his TV show back when he had one about 10 years ago. I’ve also seen him on talk shows more recently. I’ve also read numerous articles about him written by people who either agree or disagree with him. I remember reading one article about him in LA Weekly where the author listed all sorts of lies and half-truths from his books and movies. This is ironic because LA Weekly is probably one of the most left-wing publications in the world.
There have been plenty of Moore-bashing threads as well as “how could anyone possibly vote for Bush” threads in their appropriate forums. If you really want to discuss this go read those or start a new one. Maybe I’ll repond there, but this is General Questions and I don’t want to hijack the thread anyways.
Those awards are supposed to be given for artistic merit. Even if they were given for political reasons, it’s not like the Academy or the Cannes judging panel are political think tanks or anything. Why should I care about a bunch of hollywood type’s political opinions?
This movie review is from Faux news. And we all know which way faux news leans.
Since you haven’t seen the movies in question, how do you know the awards weren’t given for artistic merit? You seem to be prematurely drawing a conclusion (“Moore got the awards for his political views”) and then making assumptions about events to fit your premise.
Err… No, that’s pretty much the opposite of what I said. It was wisernow who made the false appeal to authority by suggesting that the fact that Moore’s films have won awards gave merit to the ideas expressed within. I pointed out that the awards are supposedly for artistic merit, not political content, and furthermore, even if the awards were given for political content, his argument would still be a false appeal to authority because the people who give the awards aren’t impartial experts.
I sincerely hope that the awards were given for artistic merit, since I prefer to assume that people have good intentions. But that’s not enough to make me go see the movies, given what I know about Moore.
Well Michael Moore has described the film as a “comedy”. (in fact, the Rolling Stone called it “Ferociously, cathartically funny.”) This would partly be due to the amusing footage of Bush and co (see the trailer). I haven’t seen it but according to some reviews it sounds like there is a lot more emphasis on it being a work of entertainment than it trying to be a serious scholarly expose.
Um, awards are given to recognize the merit of a work of art, not to “give merit” (whatever that means) to it. “Merit” means quality, or worth - obviously the worth of a piece of art has nothing to do with what awards it wins, but if awards are given fairly, they are given to the works that are worthy.
Earlier you mentioned that you haven’t seen his movies. You’ve seen him in brief interviews on talk shows, and can remember some article sometime that claimed he distorted the truth. I won’t make any extravagant claims as to the man’s accuracy, but I will venture the fact that you don’t appear to know much about Michael Moore. You’re assuming that an article you don’t appear to fully remember was more truthful that Mr. Moore, which is hardly a safe bet - either side can distort what the other side says, or draw up phony evidence to contradict them. So an editorial piece about Michael Moore isn’t a very safe source of unbiased information.
It really sounds like you’ve been the victim of propaganda here - enough of it to prevent you from even making up your own mind about Michael Moore, and enough of it to convince you that the two candidates are just about the same (since, if you can’t decide who to vote for, that’s probably your state of mind.) Essentially, then, you’re paralyzed when it comes to exercising your political power because (1) you believe both candidates to be the same and (2) you don’t have access to any information to convince you otherwise - since you’ve shown yourself to make judgments about the media without any knowledge of what you’re judging.
I’d just say - be careful. There are people who stand to benefit from the majority of the public who doesn’t exercise their franchise, and who stand to profit from the public’s ignorance. The more that these people can convince people that it doesn’t matter who they vote for, and the more people they can prevent from reading or watching or listening to sources that contradict their ideas, the more power they have, since the people they’ve convinced have given up theirs.
Remember, anyone who claims Michael Moore is lying likely has an agenda of their own to push. They are working from the other end of the political spectrum to convince you not to believe him. Likewise, when Al Franken accuses Anne Coulter of lying, he’s doing it with an unabashed political agenda. A lot fewer people are likely to call out the lies on their own side, so you’re not going to find unblemished truth to make your judgment with. But it’s pretty sad that you’ve been the victim of propaganda to the point that you’ve made a decision about someone without knowing the first thing about them.
Am I saying that Michael Moore is some controversial, subversive genius? Nope. I’m saying that you should familiarize yourself with as many sources of information as possible, and view them critically, so you don’t have to rely on other people’s opinions of whether or not they’re trustworthy. No one is without an agenda, no matter whether they’re a Pulitzer-winning journalist, a public speaker, or your best friend. Believing otherwise is how you allow propaganda to start controlling your actions. And you should vote, and make a reasoned decision. Because it matters a great deal whether or not people vote, and the entrenched powers that be stand to benefit from convincing you to give up your own power. Don’t believe the lies - the candidates are different, and anyone who says otherwise does so because they stand to benefit from your nonparticipation.
This is more of a debate than anything, so I’ll move this thread to GD.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Waitaminnit–so you’re saying that people who refuse to see this movie are somehow buying into a conspiracy by the PTB? People who genuinely dislike Moore are nevertheless not allowed to avoid the movie just because of that?
I don’t know if that attitude will sell a ton of tickets.
Nor do I believe that Moore minds the controversy at all. The only thing that bugs me about him is that he seems to think that, if you don’t go to his movie, you must believe the opposite of what he’s saying and being a sheep. I didn’t care to go see THE PASSION, doesn’t mean I’m a Satanist.
When did he say that?
Am I the only one that thought this meant Pirates of the Caribbean on first read? If it wasn’t for malkavia, I wouldn’t have figured it out! I know Bruckheimer produces films that aren’t especially thought provoking, but I thought Pirates was a fun movie. Anyway …