Indeedie-doo:Carlyle press release about it
Wow. Thanks, Annie.
I saw the movie yesterday and, yes it is preaching to the choir. If you need evidence, my 89 yo grandmother who is very fragile and hates to travel was willing to drive 5 hours to the nearest theater showing this movie. I have to say, it was a blast seeing this with her. And, the showing was punctuated by synchronized uh-huh’s from the audience.
One thing Moore touched on was the overwhelming contributions of the poor and minorities to the war effort. And also the “systematic” elimination of minority (and presumably Democratic) votes in 2000. Unfortunately, I don’t think Moore’s going to hit his target audience with those assertions. I saw the movie in a poor, African-American neighborhood. The theater was only about 1/4 full, while most of the other shows (i.e.- White Chicks, for Og’s sake! :smack: ) were sold out.
Overall, I think Moore did a great job of making an entertaining, attention-grabbing movie out of a subject that could have worn very thin.
As far as the classroom scene goes, I don’t think there was any implication that he was leading the classroom in the excercise. Moore is putting words in his brain as far as his rhetorical questions go, but what I do see there is a man who knows the shit just hit the fan and is aware he is on camera. You can pretty much see the gears turning in his head – a very pained expression as he struggles to figure out what to do. Finally, you can almost see him think, “better do something” so he picks up the book everyone is reading and makes a pass at following along. It’s not a great moment of leadership.
Uh, you obviously haven’t seen the movie. Bush clearly isn’t reading that scene. It does seem that some critics have said that Bush was reading to the class, when what they meant is that he was reading with the class, as in he was following along with his own copy of the book. (Appropriate, since his language skills are at an elementary-school level.) Michael Moore’s critics keep focusing on minute details, accusing him of distorting facts. Here, the viewer simply sees what Bush did and can judge for themselves. Some critics use of the wrong preposition does not make MM a liar. And anyway, what difference could that distinction possibly make? If anything, it’s more damning that he couldn’t find a way to excuse himself when all he was doing was sitting there listening.
Not to pile on here, Askia, but how long did it take most people to figure out there was some serious shit going on? My girlfriend was on her way to work, listening to the radio and didn’t make it out of the development before making a u-turn, coming back home and turning on CNN. I’ll never forget her coming through the door and saying “Something really bad is happening in the world.” A minute later, my mom called. So most civilians dropped absolutely anything they were doing & tried to get more info about what was going on. I just think it’s reasonable to expect the same from the PotUS.
Are there more than one version out?
It might seem like a really stupid question, but I’ve read references to State troopers in Oregon (or some such) and klids in Iraq playing before the war. The version I downloaded did not contain any such scenes. Also, the scene from the trailer, with Moore driving around in an ice cream van was also missing. In fact, there was nothing about the patriot act at all.
I Have Not Yet Seen The Movie
Yes, The Gaspode, all of those bits are in the actual feature film.
This may seem like a stupider question, but did you ever think about plunking down six bucks for the matinee and finding out for yourself?
Sorry, hit enter by mistake. To continue:
I HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE MOVIE, so what follows is more a reaction to the reactions than to the film itself.
It seems to me, having seen all of Moore’s other films, that the label “polemicist,” and even “propagandist,” are valid. But I don’t have a problem with that.
What gets people steamed is Moore’s winking approach: he is explicitly–well, maybe not explicitly; there seems to be a little pomo subtlety involved–he is using Bush, et al.'s, own tools against them.
Yes, his approach is an emotional one. But the soundbites and bumpersticker-thinking he’s attacking are shamelessy emotional, too. Moore is a product of the Reagan era, in that his style is an indignant reaction to the sugarcoated lies that have become the standard political style since then. And no one has benefited more from the post-Reagan political style than George W. Bush, the personification of the American Dream: Style Over Substance.
You might not have noticed my location, but it opens here Aug. 27th. And while I’ll be paying something like $10 to see it at that time, and probably buy the DVD, I just couldn’t wait. Spider-Man opens at the same time in most countries, but we have to wait for this.
I saw the movie on Saturday. I was very impressed. It is easily his best movie–surpassing Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine. A big question I had going in was, “Did it deserve the Palm d’Or on its merits, or was it a political thing?” My conclusion, upon a day and a half’s reflection, is that it probably did deserve the award. Now, I haven’t seen most of the movies it was up against at Cannes, so take that statement with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, it is one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen. It is a very, very good movie.
Guernica it ain’t, but it might be Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Both were pieces of political art that were very rooted in their times. The difference is that Guernica has lost none of its power over the years, while Uncle Tom’s Cabin is only read in college-level history classes. I don’t think Farenheit 9/11 will be widely viewed outside of film classes in 70 years–but it will be taught as a landmark documentary.
Although I’d already seen/heard/read about most of Moore’s assertions in the movie, it did seem like a succinct summary of those – all in one place with video and documentation to back up some of the more far-out facts.
I was wondering, in between crying jags (I found this movie very disturbing and could not laugh during most of the “funny” lines. It’s all too disgusting for me to find funny anymore.) why, exactly do conservatives call Moore a liar? I couldn’t get much past the first page in the “Michael Moore = Liar?” thread. Did anyone ever manage to definitively prove a lie? Taking things out of context, exaggerating, sure. I can see those claims. I’m looking for definitive proof that he lies – deliberately creates falsehoods to make his point.
I kept thinking, “Nobody who should see this movie is here.” Anyone who thinks Moore is full of beans should watch this movie and take notes. Then go to the library, get on the internet, do whatever to find all the facts that definitively disprove the assertions in this movie. Are there Saudi ties to the Bush family or not? Is that a conflict of interest or not? Prove your side. Then go register to vote and make sure you vote based on your research.
I’m betting that anyone who actually does so will end up voting ABB - Anybody But Bush.
But I believe blindy in propaganda. Hey, 49% of the country can’t go wrong!
Baaaaaa baaaa
[/sheep]
Because it’s easier than refuting the data he brings to the table.
I’ve been browsing the internet all weekend, trying to see what kind of counter-arguments people can make for Fahrenheit 9/11. The only one I’ve heard that wasn’t a name-calling cheap-shot was that then-governor Bush didn’t meet with the Taliban, as Moore claims in the movie. Though I’m trying to remember if Moore said the Taliban met with Bush while he was governor, or in the summer of 2001 (which did happen).
Moore’s got excerpts from email on his site from viewers; some folks mentioned taking Republican friends and family to the movie, and a fair number of them were convinced to vote Bush out in November.
OTOH, various local newspapers also talked to Republicans who’ve seen the movie and dismissed it, though they couldn’t offer any criticism more substantial than “Moore was only presenting half of the story.”
Thanks rjung.
That’s sort of what I thought. Yes, he’s a propagandist. I see that as anti-propaganda. As in fighting fire with fire… as if both sides haven’t used propaganda since 1787. :rolleyes:
As if there’s something wrong with that…
I guess I could go peruse one of Airman Doors’ threads. Surely an upstanding and thoughtful Doper like Airman Doors has found documented, verifiable proof that Moore is a liar and I should change sides.
This cracks me up.
No substantiation that his half of the story is untrue; only that it’s “half the story.” Darwin only told half the story because he didn’t cover the Big Bang. “Cinderella” is only half the story because it doesn’t focus on the prince.
What
EVER.
No one I can find actually disputes any of the facts behind Moore; they only object to his methods of presenting them.
Die-Hard Liberal Who Would Rather Poke Her Eyes Out Than Vote For Bush here…
Moore seemed to indicate that it was unusual for the Secret Service to be protecting the Saudi embassy. I’d have to see the movie again to see exactly what he says, so it might not be classified as a “lie,” but that’s certainly the impression I got.
In fact, protecting diplomatic missions is one of the Secret Service’s jobs.
From here, Protection, Uniformed Division :
Now, nobody better be goin’ around sayin’ that liberals won’t call out Moore when he deserves it.
IIRC, the exchange was more like–
Moore: “Does the Secret Service regularly protect foreign embassies?”
Agent: “Not really, it’s pretty must just the Saudis.”
Assuming my memory isn’t wrong here, then this is merely Moore repeating what he was told, from an authoritative source. I see the whole thing as similar to the whole “former Presidents can get classified CIA briefings if they want to” – most people won’t exercise that privilege, but a few will…
I hear ya. I’ve been rather disenchanted with Moore after hearing how he distorted some facts in his last two books, and have avoided buying them for that reason. The (so far) bulletproof fact-checking behind Fahrenheit 9/11 has redeemed him quite a bit IMO.
Although it may be part of their charter, it still might be possible that they don’t end up regularly protecting foreign embassies. There may be no need, perhaps from the embassies preferring their own security (I’m merely speculating, I have no idea if they do or not). The Agent may not have even been wrong.