I saw it today and I was really moved by it. Parts were very painful, and it doesn’t help that my son’s name is Michael… I can’t wait for it to open overseas. I think this film will do a lot to dispell the idea that Americans are behind Bush, 100%, and it gives a lot of perspective as to how people decide to join the military and why some Americans believe the Iraq war is part of the “War on Terror”.
I loved the music choices, particularly “Believe it or not, I’m walking on air” during the “Mission Accomplished clip.” Isn’t one of the lines they played something like “It wasn’t supposed to be me?” Brilliant.
The St. Louis audience got a good laugh out of the coverage of John Ashcroft, and they even laughed at the tired joke about how he lost to a dead guy.
And here’s a bit of trivia: I took AP US Government with Porter Goss’ son. I’ve even met the guy - he came and talked to our class. His son doesn’t agree with his politics, and neither do I. (And of course, if you don’t, there’s that nice phone number Moore provided where you can call and let him know how you feel, BEFORE he becomes the head of the CIA.)
IIRC the aid was food for a famine in Afghanistan, distributed by the UN. Also, the Taliban visited Unocal during the Clinton administration didn’t it? Ah, yes it did. What happened to that Clinton directive? And why can’t this author get a simple timeline straight?
I thought it was a good movie and I’d go see it again. (And I had to pay $9.25.) That link is interesting and makes some good points, but a lot of it is excessively nit-pickey, and parts of it are nearly as twisty as the film itself. (A lot of it is just stupid common sense. “Moore exploits the grief of Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq. She denounces Bush and the War. But there are many mothers and relatives of US soldiers, alive and dead, who served there who don’t agree with her.” Duh - REALLY?!?! That one woman doesn’t represent all the soldiers mothers in the US? How DECEITFUL!!!) I’d like to see a similar film about Clinton, or Kerry, or for that matter anyone running for/in office. I appreciate the way this type of film brings about information and discussion before, during and after it.
Yeah, I’ve saved it to slog through, but even in a quick browse of the first ten, I came up with 2 “deceits” that aren’t even close - and this in less than a mnute of review! Let’s see, one (Deceit #7) is that Moore was deceitful by the way he showed footage of Sept.11 (…the hell?). And Deceit #8 is “proven” because the school principal at the elementary school praised Bush’s actions in the classroom. Well…alrighty then - that’s some rock-hard proof there.
To be fair, though, I will read through it all in its entirety…I won’t be surprised if there are some good, and fair points in it…unless it’s all more of what I just posted.
Dave Kopel’s “expose” (and Snakespirit’s favorite read of the week) is already getting deconstructed in the BBQ Pit starting here.
I expect Kopel’s article will get more exposure in the mainstream media soon; the anti-Moore folks have been champing at the bit all week for something to use against the movie.
I caught a Sunday matinee with a surprisingly large percentage of senior citizens. The guy sitting next to me stormed out when Moore began talking about the invasion of Iraq, and I feel certain this “half of the story” complaint is the reason why.
Moore shows everyday images of Baghdad–children flying kites and riding ferris wheels, diners in outdoor cafes, people walking and smiling on city streets–and then the bombing commences. Afterward there are a lot of dead children and other civilians; many families and homes are destroyed. Moore’s voiceover talks about the US invading Iraq, a nation that had never threatened or attacked the US. I could sense the guy in the next seat’s objection: “But Iraq was an evil dictatorship, not a children’s garden of delights! Moore is twisting the truth!” The truth is, both views are accurate. We’ve all heard about Hussein’s “rape rooms,” but have heard very little about the “other” Iraq and the lives of its regular people, many of whom enjoyed stability. It was something of a revelation for me to see Moore’s images when I previously had seen only pictures of charred corpses and bombed-out buildings–images that convey the impression that Iraq’s natural state is that of a war zone. Moore didn’t need to show both sides of the story because one of the sides has already been thoroughly covered by the American media. His goal was to point out another perspective, one that raises the important point that most of what we destroyed over there was not “rape rooms.”
The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive, but apparently Moore’s detractors don’t do nuance. In the trailer for the forthcoming documentary ‘Michael Moore Hates America,’ for example, the filmmaker shows minorities with entrepreneurial success stories as though that disproves the “negative” depictions of prejudice and lack of opportunity Moore has shown in the past, when obviously all of the above coexist. Focusing on a specific aspect–or highlighting a certain theme–may not tell the whole story, but it’s not distortion.
Saw it on the morning of the Fourth in a mostly full theatre in Salem. The crowd was surprisingly diverse along age-lines with at least half of the people being sixty or more.
As most everyone else has said, the movie was preaching to the choir and is thoroughly propagandistic but I found it very powerful and moving nonetheless. I teared up a few times during it, especially the scenes of the Flint, MI woman who lost her son, and was ready to punch something a number of times too.
I was disappointed with Fahrenheit 9/11. I really felt that Moore really didn’t go as far as he could have. If you’re going to make a really sharp dagger to attack with, you have to stick it all the way into your opponent’s heart and twist. Not just make polite little pokey-pokey gestures all around which is what I feel this movie does.
The film could have used some better focus. It was like Moore was trying to serve up everything he could think of and the result feels rather scattershot. The audience could use some more in-depth background on certain subjects.
And he really should know better by now than to not play so fast and loose with certain things like timelines and in-jokes. That people really will hold this movie to a higher standard than they would other forms of infotainment.
Now that some of you conservatives have heard an arch-lib like myself criticize this movie maybe you will go and see it for yourselves. Because despite its many flaws it IS an important film and even though I was quite frustrated with it in places I still think it is basically truthful and that all voting Americans should see it. I will be seeing it again.
I saw the movie on July 4th in a packed theater. The audience was generally older, and definatly Democrat. Lots of laughs, but I also noticed long stretches of silence. I only assume that everyone was absorbed in what they were watching (like me). The biggest laugh came during the revelation of the Congressmans private office number. Has anyone tried calling it? I have a terrible memory for numbers, otherwise I would.
As we were leaving, someone said “That fucker should be impeached. Clinton got impeached, and all he did was get a blow job!”. Another patron yelled as the credits rolled “Kerry for President. Anyone But Bush!” Other than laughs, gasps, and various exclamations the crowd was pretty quit during the movie though.
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, and upon exiting I told my wife that I enjoyed it more than BfC. While I enjoyed F911, I worry that the future will whitewash it as a political farce whereas BfC stands on its own VERY well not to mention Roger and Me.
I look forward to getting the DVD. Hopefully the comentary tracks will be VERY informative.
I know that feeling – while watching the first hour, I kept wanting to yell, “But you forgot to mention ______!” My only guess might be that Moore wanted to limit himself to the more supportable,“mainstream” issues.
Actually, I thought it was much better focused than Bowling for Columbine, which IMO wandered all over the place. Aside from a brief digression into the Afghanistan gas pipeline, I didn’t find a bit in the movie that I thought was meandering.
I have to see the movie again before I can be extra specific, but there were some things that jumped out at me. For example there were a few occasions where there was clearly a chronology being followed, then Moore throws in an interview or footage that (IIRC) happened weeks or months later, which perpetrates that the whole thing happened at once. This is exactly same sort of nitpick that people dismiss Bowling for (re: Heston’s “cold dead hands” speech) and I’d hoped he’d learned something from that.
Another thing that bothered me was while discussing Bush’s “military service”, we hear the riff from “Cocaine”. I feel that if you are going to advance the idea that Bush used to be a cokehead - which, let’s be perfectly clear, I believe is far, far more possible than not - one should at least support it just a little, even with just the existing circumstantial evidence. Otherwise there’s an appearance of wallowing in unsupported innuendo. That is an example of scattershot-ness and in-joke-iness that should have been left out. (The Afghan pipeline/UNOCAL story I feel is totally appropriate as background information; then again, I’m the guy who got slammed on this very board for bringing it up, so soon after 9/11.)
There was so much in this movie that must have been brand new when Moore must have been just trying to finish the movie, like the testimonies of Rice and Clarke. So those parts felt to me like they were shoehorned in any which way. I understand that Moore had to get to Cannes etc. and ultimately the schedule probably calls for getting the movie out on DVD before the election - which I hope happens - but there’s still a hurried feel to the flow.
I have to go now rjung but those are some of my thoughts. Again, I’ll be seeing the movie a second time, so maybe I can be more specific at a later date.
Sorry for the massive snip, but I wanted to highlight this point.
Beyond all the nit-picks, and Moore’s bias, it’s just one of the most important things about this movie. If, from the start (9/11), the media had asked different questions, looked at things a different way, presented the point of view that there were differences of opinion in Iraq, etc. we could have all had seriously different opinions about the invasion.
Looking back, can you believe regular citizens were buying the office-building parachute, boxes to open their mail, duct tape and plastic sheeting, safe rooms?
As with BFC, both of the movies present, as a major theme, how Americans’ opinions can be manipulated by the government and the media, primarily through fear. They both present our general unrealistic assessment of our own risk of death by gangs/terrorists/what have you. That’s the kind of thing Moore is getting at in interviews – we have an unreasonable fear of terrorism as compared to something like car accidents. Recall the interview with Heston inside his gated community.
What BFC lacked, I thought, was ample motivation for the media and government “promoting” fear. F9-11 was much clearer in that regard, and that made it a better movie.
Marcel Ophuls is a liar. When he made the documentary The Sorrow and the Pity, about the French citizens who collaborated with the Nazis, he didn’t give fair and equal screen time to the French citizens who were *not * collaborators.
Jacques Cousteau is a liar. When he made The Silent World in 1956, a documentary about life beneath the ocean, he didn’t give equal screen time to life on land.
Michael Moore is a liar. When he made Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary about the false steps that George W. Bush and his administration made before and after, he didn’t give equal screen time to the things they did right.
A documentary is exactly the same thing as journalism, and should not have a point of view. For a director to make a persuasive argument for his interpretation of a set of facts, backed up by thoroughly researched and vetted facts, is wrong, and unAmerican, and traitorous. The audience is too stupid to give the facts their own interpretation, or to seek out other sources of information, so we should indulge that stupidity and not give them any information that will lead to them looking something up.
Unless Moore was claiming those events were happening in sequence, this is just a stylistic effect. If I mention a battle that occurred during the Civil War, then mentioned a battle that occurred during the Vietnam War, that doesn’t mean I’m claiming they happened one after the other.
Shrug It’s his idea of a joke. I didn’t even catch the reference at all, having never heard “Cocaine” before. It’s certainly irrelevant to his main thesis.