Left wingers? You mean Jewish people, right? The ones who expressed concern after seeing a copy of the script, and who asked to be invited to a screening, like the right wingers, but who were refused admission? The ones who in every column took great pains to say that they were not in favor of banning the movie, but who just wanted to make their concerns known.
Yeah, just like that.
There was a left-wing effort to get The Passion of the Christ banned from theaters???
Damn, I must’a missed the memo for that one. Didn’t even hear a word about that at all. You wouldn’t happen to have a cite sitting around somewhere, would you?
What does “did everything possible” mean and where is your cite? I don’t remember a letter-writing/phone calling campaign to keep the movie out of the theaters. Maybe there was one, and I didn’t hear about it.
In any case, the very real fears of some Jews, before or after seeing it, that the movie would incite anti-Semitic violence is very different from the very real fears of some right-wingers that Moore’s movie might cause people to think hard about the man currently holding the highest office in the land.
FWIW, I didn’t think The Passion was anti-Semitic, but after seeing it I could understand the fears.
If they had done that, it would be just as bad.
Did you think that somehow makes the same action by the right-winger’s OK?
I liked michael moore on TV nation. “Crackers, the corporate crime fighting chicken” was good stuff. It educated and entertained in a provocative manner but still allowed room for responsible decision makers to resolve it. These days, I think Michael Moore is looking for any reason to grind an axe. He’s the guy that doesn’t offer a solution of his own - but just looks at the person in charge and find any number of ways to villify them by harrassment, ambush tv, or segmented news to create his own story line. It doesn’t have to be accurate, because it’s perception and people in the opinion business are more characters themselves than they are substantive sources of information, slanting their facts and misrepresenting their context and calling it “truth.”
I have a handle on the world’s problems and come Moore is convinced that exhuming the mistakes of leaders today and of yesteryear and exploring relationships/friendships with leaders that duped the U.S. is a reason that we should swallow our lumps like we made our bed now lie in it. That is enlightenment? While he exploits a conference to congregrate about investing in the restructure of Iraq with the president as a guest speaker to motivate the crowd of entrepreneurs and portray corporate greed as cause for a war is lunacy. He gets to criticize this and make a truckload of money, under the guise of enlightening me. (gee how different are his tactics from the ones that he is indighting Bush?) Am I critical of Donald Rumsfeld and the administration - YOU BET.
Yet this requires leadership, not JUST criticism. Michael Moore enjoys the benefit of monday night quarterbacking and bitching from the bench without the responsibility of having to secure the nation when two planes slammed in to new york and one in his own backyard. He asserts Bush is the reason for it - nevermind the history trip he takes me on - completely skips AL-Qaeda’s attacks during eight years when there was no BUSH in the presidency. It is slanted and it is propoganda. I don’t need Michael Moore to push more of my buttons - to make me lose even more faith, because it is dramatic. If this administration has made mistakes worthy of my attention and you want to go on about them - fine. That’s great - I feel like crap after watching your movie now what? Oh you’re not a politician or a leader, so you’re not responsible. Not your problem, you’re just a filmmaker. How flaccid is that? I’m not deceived by it.
This requires leadership, not a middle-aged man with a reject complex looking for reasons to buck authority and weaken our resolve by feeling sorry for an organization that is out to kill us because of a relationship we were not privy to and were deceived by - no matter how much we empathize, they want us dead.
Oh the woes of teenage angst and anti-authority; especially when you’re 50.
Just because Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn’t propose any solutions doesn’t necessarily mean Moore won’t give you a few if you ask.
The purpose of his movie is to convince viewers that Bush is unfit to be President of the United States; proposed (post-Bush) solutions to the screwups in Iraq and Afghanistan might be considered “beyond the scope” of his film.
Welcome to SMDB, Hrd2hndl. You might want to join a more recent thread that is discussing Moore’s movie – one with others who have actually seen the film.
I would say that Moore has done something very responsible. He made a film about some of his concerns – things he thought that more people might want to think about before the next election. But his action didn’t end with the film. On the Monday night following the opening, groups of people all over the country met for the purpose of trying to find find ways to restore our country.
Responsibility for what happens now rests with all of us.
I will respond further if I run across comments from you in another thread.
Good post!
As I general rule, I’ve learned that sentences beginning with “Just because” come from people that have a dire need for you to overlook whatever flaw they are about to announce or they are just THAT gullible to ignore the obvious or like being in denial but whatever statement follows:
case in point:
Just because I smoke cigarettes, doesn’t mean I’m addicted, I can quit any time I want.
yawn
I disagree. If is gripe is that this war is bogus and not necessary - then I want to know what his solution is. People forget that our country is a mulit-tier system. We employ law, legislation, executive order, diplomacy, economic sanctioning, peace-keeping troop enforcement and when necessary WAR to protect and perserve our national interests. National intrests here are being portrayed like it’s a greedy thing - that only the elite benefit. No more than the rest of us if our leadership fails and turn our back to an organization that is being programmed to hate us. Not for the substantive research that Michael Moore has done, rather because they hate our lifestyle. Let’s consider for five minutes that they really just want us to understand their frustration, after viewing his film. Do you think they will back off - saying they just want to be heard? No, More’s film indighting the president isn’t any more enlightening than it is to scream all day long that we get we deserve because we screwed up by employing the same strategy of mutually assured destruction as a deturance in the mideast at a ballastic level; like the one we were locked up as a super-power against the then Soviet Union on a nuclear level level. We tried a civilized cease fire in the first gulf war - where GEORGE SR. was the only DISSENTING voice among the allies that would not allow Sadam to be removed from power. We would contain him and allow him to disarm by weapon insepction. The rest of the world thought we have him now out of Kuwait - on to Baghdad. No. 12 years later - weapons inspections have stopped, and were halted while the US was in the middle of an impeachment of another president. You don’t think the rest of the world pays attention to to our dissention and make a move? No but those terrorist think we are that gullible. We cannot handle carnage and are vain - and what an immediate solution. At that time Europe was dependent upon IRaq for oil production and its bs food for oil program that Sadaam Violated and they continued to let him do business through Syria and left the rest of Iraq dependent on a handout of rotten fruit and this is supposed to be sophisticated. That is where michael moore gets an F on his research. It is a slated view, but that is what he does. There are enough assholes in the world that want to run amuck and justify their position based on what - the history of the bush family? no. Based on what - that they have economic sanctions that crippled their infrastructure and blamed not the dictator that failed to comply, but the organization that adhered to sanctions and turned a blind eye to the dictator. “We cannot tell him how to rule.” (translation - we need his oil; that is Europe, not the US). Maybe France, Russia and Germany can sleep at night with that answer, while the masses in the mideast really believe it is the US fault. Perhaps, we weren’t strong enough to stomach removing him in the first gulf war and really believed he would comply peacefully (suckers aren’t we). Again Michael Moore gets an F. Skipped all of that.
Anyone and I mean ANY ONE can bitch from the bench. One of the very reasons I love this bloody land - as dysfunctional as we appear - we actually have that freedom to criticize and do so willfully - some would like to make my decisions and think for me. If I sat around looking for reasons to criticize what other people do all damn day and call it art or think that when the radar is then turned on me - I call myself a victim, I’m just a miserable person that needs an axe to grind. Guess what though - I will never have to know the pressure of being respsonsible for taking action or making a decision. Michael Moore will tell you outright; “I’m just a filmmaker.” Much like I liked Al Franken’s first book “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat Idiot and other observations” until he started hiding behind the “I’m just a satirist” schtick. They have that freedom to criticize what others only do. It’s entertaining until they really start taking themselves seriously - because I don’t need to go to bed at night afraid and unsettled at night because he can cash in on another list of reasons to do so. I don’t see him lobbying on the hill about this stuff - no, more lucrative to make a movie and edit to his liking.
I am well aware of what sensationalism is. I am aware that leadership requires decision, right or wrong - they learn we are still learning from our mistakes - trumping them up every time to make me doubt my leaders only enables those that want us dead to keep terrorizing. David Horroritz, organized the first anti-war protest against Vietnam in Berkley even concedes that it is our dissention that foreign enemies incite and count on to win their battles for them. Every North Vietnamese General we interviewed said they could never beat the U.S. on any battlefied, they counted our dissention to win it for them. So you have people in the pursuit of social justice getting manipulated by nations, organizations that are flat out anti-american. So we pulled out of nam and what happened? Saigon? The north came in and slaughtered the south, just like they said they would not.
I need a lot more than a repeat of history with a sardonic undertone to move me from a rational base of problem solving. It’s like you can only laugh at your drunk uncle for so long while he thinks he is that interesting and that funny - the rest find him a nuisance.
I’ll end this with the same way this response was posted with an excuse:
Just because it takes me 5 paragraphs of run-on sentences to post a response; doesn’t mean I’m long-winded (heh heh).
That’s the Loyalty Oath for the House and the Senate. Are military personnel required to swear a similar oath? If so, then would a member of the military or the House or Senate (or any other Official position) who actively tried to surpress Michael Moore’s film (or any other film, publication, etc.) be guilty of violating his oath to protect the Constitution?
Yes, the oath officers take is very similar. The enlisted oath includes the line “and will obey the officers appointed over me”, but in substance it’s the same.
That depends upon whether or not you would consider Moore’s stuff to be treason, treason being defined as “Giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. Toss it up in the air and let it fall where it may.
Well, it’s pretty obvious that any alleged attempt to silence Moore has failed. It’s making money, hand over fist.
I’m still not conviced that Moore himself didn’t start the “Stop Moore” campaign. If he did, it was fucking brilliant.
Surely you agree that only an ignorant piece of shit would equate criticism of the President with treason, don’t you?
Beat me to it, DtC.
Of course, the argument in defence will be, “Hey, i never said that. I just said ‘let it fall where it may.’”
The SDMB webserver isn’t big enough to hold the number of rolleyes smileys that this would require.
So, do you? Defining speech as “aid and comfort” is a novel interpretation of treason under the constitution. Did you make this up, or do you have any precedents for this?
I don’t care whether he insults the President. And I’m not saying he committed treason. I’m saying that that particular assessment has been made by others.
Here is the result of a Google search on the phrase “Michael Moore treason”. As you can see, it is a mixed bag. Regardless, the point I was making, which was of course ignored, was that within the oath is a statement to defend the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and if you believe that Moore is guilty of treason then you have no particular obligation to defend him.
I don’t think Moore is guilty of treason. I just think he’s a lying propagandist dirtbag. We’ll see if that changes down the road.
Really? Was that the point you were making. If so, then either you need to be clearer, or i need to improve my reading comprehension. I’m not discounting the latter as a possibility.
But you said:
Now, you would have us believe that, in saying this, your argument was that “if you believe that Moore is guilty of treason then you have no particular obligation to defend him.”
But let’s look at the question that you were responding to when you said it:
Now, it seems to me that the question of active suppression of Moore’s film, on the one hand, and not defending Moore on the other, are two quite different issues.
You can argue that no-one has any obligation to defend Moore, but that’s not the question that Johnny L.A. was asking. He wanted to know what would happen if a military person or politician “actively tried to surpress Michael Moore’s film.”
A rather different kettle of fish, IMHO.
precisely - I’m more convinced that he goes looking for an axe to grind and when people are not interested in mouthing back with him - he plays victim like he is being villified by the masses.
Michael Stigmata Moore
mind you - I’m not right nor left - but geeze, even the Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks did some serious spin behind the whole “I’m a mother schtick” and later; stripped off and put labels on their bodies like they were crucified under 1st ammendment. Truth was she was facing a hostile audience in Europe and was embarrassed or afraid, that was the truth. She appeased that audience by saying “we’re ashamed he’s from texas.” Whatever. I don’t care. So when your spin doesn’t work say “woe is me” and beat yourself up. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Were you in the bathroom when the USS Cole and embassy bombings were mentioned?
Woah. You think Moore wants us to feel sorry for al-Qaeda? Is that what that means? Is that what you think?
Reading my own OP, I have to laugh at myself. To think I was worried! Silly silly silly me. I love the right-wingers! The more they whine and gnash, the more publicity F9/11 gets.
Here’s the newest. It’s not worth a separate Pit thread. And in fact they don’t deserve to be pitted at all. Theater owners can play or not play what they want. It’s certainly their right. I present it merely for informational purposes. I find it funny because it ended up on Yahoo News. I’m sure Moore is paying this guy though, huh?
Well, it’s pretty obvious that any alleged attempt to silence Moore has failed. It’s making money, hand over fist.
As of July 1st (the most recent I could find) it had made 39 million. Nothing to sneeze at, of course, but “hand over fist?”
Hand over fist is The Passion, Harry Potter, LOTR, Spiderman 2, etc.
Moore could be better classified as “Doin’ OK.”
I know it really bums you out that this film is so successful, but you could at least refrain from being disingenuous.
Of course Moore’s movie is not making as much money as summer blockbusters like Spiderman 2. The simple fact is that documentary films, no matter how good or bad, just don’t make as much as large-budget feature films. Part of the problem, of course, is that fact that much of the larger movie-going audience prefers not to have to think when it steps inside a cinema.
But, judging Moore’s film against those in his own category (i.e., other documentaries), it is indeed making money “hand over fist.” In fact, Fahrenheit 9/11 became the highest-grossing documentary ever during its first weekend at the box office. And now, according to the boxofficemojo.com website, which tracks movie earninings, the film’s gross is over $44,000,000.
Actually, i should warn you that if you’re a rabid Moore-hater, you probably shouldn’t click on the link i provided in the previous paragraph. Because if you do, you’ll not only find that F 9/11 heads the list of highest-grossing documentaries of all time, but that Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine is in second place, and his first documentary, Roger and Me, comes in at number seven.
Furthemore, while F 9/11 might not have the box-office figures of some of the Hollywood blockbusters you mentioned, its gross as a percentage of production costs beats all of them except The Passion, and in a few more weeks of screenings it’s possible that even The Passion will be overhauled in this category.
F 9/11 had a budget of $6 million. It made almost four times that in its first weekend in the US, and has now made more than seven times its budget in gross theatre receipts. By comparison, LOTR: Return of the King cost $94m to make, and it only made 4x that amount in its whole run at the US box office. The latest Harry Potter film still hasn’t even doubled its production costs in gross US earnings. Spiderman 2’s figures aren’t available, but in order to make back production costs in its first weekend, it will need to do $200million worth of business. The Passion of the Christ earned just over 4x production costs in its first weekend, and went on to gross over 12x production costs in its US run. As the figures for Moore’s movie show, his performance as a ratio of production costs was simliar to The Passion for the first week, and has a chance of coming close in full-run figures.*
It was rather disingenuous of you to directly compare F 9/11 receipts to massive Hollywood blockbusters with 9-figure production costs. But, if you were being honest with yourself, you already knew that.
*all figures for the summer blockbusters come from imdb.com