The Lies of Michael Moore.

The BBQ Pit
21

I find it interesting that this word “propaganda” comes up so often in reference to Moore’s film, not to mention the comparisons to Hitler’s propagandists (a nice tie in with the current Bush website campaign). From what I can tell, not having seen the movie but knowing the type and hearing the hype, Moore is a pedestrian partisan that has produced a pollemic against Bush with all the usual trappings that set people like spinsanity aflame with irritation: simplistic gotchas that leave out key elements of events and thus misrepresent in order to make a political attack. Some controversial points and provoking stuff, but overall not where anyone should be taking as a source for their information about any of the topics covered.

But this propaganda stuff, this Nazi propagandist comparison: it doesn’t seem to pop up all that often or all that consistently in reference to the bajillions of other examples of partisan attack media. You might hear Rush described as a propagandist by a leftist searching around for a word, but it isn’t the consistent angle of criticism. O’Reilly is a “blowhard,” but he basically does the same stuff. Coulter, Hannity: all these attack books that basically do the same thing, but don’t get the same word so finely targeted. We’ve seen political attack movies many times before, but I can’t recall “propaganda” coming up. Yet, on Moore, the “propaganda” meme pops up almost like a paid product placement, along with the Gore-coy Nazi references. And Moore isn’t even a nation state (the usual context for the propaganda concept).

This isn’t actually a comment on your use of it, because frankly, I think it’s there because that’s the word that’s been out there. I’m just sort of interested how it got out there in the first place: why now, why for this movie in specific, given all the hordes of partisan pollemic materials in entertainment and op-ed form (and, to be fair, Moore does characterize the film as being like a filmic op-ed, not as unbiased journalism)

22

I think the word became associated with him simply because he keeps the juicy stuff, discards the bad stuff, and then holds that up as the very pinnacle of integrity. This is where the comparison to Riefenstahl applies. Sure, she showed the Nuremburg rallies, the might and wonderfulness of Germany, but she studiously avoided anything negative to the commissioned point-of-view, ie. the concentration camps, ghettos, Jew-baiting, etc. Moore eerily mimicked that style with BFC, and whether he did it on his own hook or someone put him up to it (which I’m certain didn’t happen), he became a shill for left-wing politics and completely lost any possibility of objectivity while simultaneously holding his work up as a brilliant expose rather than an excellent exercise in editing.

He’s a hell of a filmmaker, he’s just a dishonest fuck. If he made shoot 'em up flicks he’d be universally loved. Instead he makes movies that piss off at least half the people in the country and shame the other half.

23

AFD

Well, I don’t know about all that. I do think he’s kind of a knob. In fact, I have no major disagreement with your opinion on him. He is all those things, and I am untroubled because he doesn’t speak for me. And if Mike Moore doesn’t speak for me, you can damn sure betcha that Christopher Hitchens don’t!

And no, actually, I didn’t inquire as to your opinion on MM. I just meant, in general, your opinion is of more interest than Mr. Hitchens. Hitchens beats out Eminem, but just by a hair. So I wouldn’t make too much of that.

I think where you get off track is in thinking of “the left” as something more tangible, more monolithic than it is, or ever has been. (Indeed, the unity engendered by opposition to GeeDubya is remarkable, and, most likely, temporary). The satire rendered in Life of Brian is dead on the target, bullseye. Or, as Will Rogers said, “I don’t belong to an organized political party, I’m a Democrat.”

Focusing “the Left’s” attention on any issue is like herding cats. GeeDubya has supplied such an issue, but it ain’t a blessing! I would much rather put up with the internecine bickering than be united because of the horrible and scary mess we are in.

24

Whoa, hold on there, big horse! Easy! Both Mike Moore and Leni Reifenstahl used cameras, and that’s about it! LR’s movies are the genuine article, 100% genuine propaganda. (A lesser known example is The Eternal Jew of approximately the same time. Unspeakable.) Best categorized as “monster movies”, in that they were movies made by monsters.

By no stretch of the imagination does Moores work come anywhere close to this level! Sure, he’s a self-righteous knob with far too high an opinion of himself, but, good God, man…Leni Reifenstahl? Get a grip.

25

I happen to think that it’s not the content of the films that makes them sinilar, because as we all know, there is no reasonable comparison to Nazism. It’s the style of filmmaking. One need not have an object of unspeakable evil to prop up for it to be propaganda. All one needs is an agenda and a good sense for editing. Michael Moore has both. Fahrenheit 9/11 is as much propaganda for the DNC as The Day After Tomorrow was for the environmentalists, Birth of a Nation was for the KKK, and Triumph of the Will was for the Nazis.

26

Apparently Airman Doors is so desperate for anything to stem the flood of praise for Fahrenheit 9/11 that he will clutch at any straw within reach to make a cackling point (love the cackle, by the way – very Boris Karloff). Unfortunately, Hitchens has already received a resounding bitchslap for his shoddy analysis and distortion of the movie.

Not that I expect this to change Doors’ mind – but then, I expect nothing short of several tons of dynamite will…

27

Gee, sounds like, oh, just about everyone involved in politics. Don’t think this really flies.

Yet, somehow, it finds a way to come up, again and again, pretty consistently and exclusively.

28

Pretty thin soup. LR’s movie is largely “non-verbal”, all symbolism, music, spectacle and hokum. MM’s movie is, from what I’ve heard, very verbal, very much structured as an argument, whereas LR’s movie is all about vast sweeps of emotion. One is questionable, the other reprehensible.

About the only thing they have in common is the expression of a definite view. Indeed, LR always claimed that they weren’t even her views, she excuses herself on the grounds that she was doing a professional job. I don’t know anyone who claims that MM doesn’t believe what he’s saying, if anything, way too much.

If that’s all it takes to fit, well, ok, I guess so. Myself, I need a bit more than that, but tomato, tomato.

29

So you’ve seen F9/11, eh? Or are you still letting others do your thinking for you?

Oh well. As I said before, every time some idiot tries to stir shit up about F9/11, Moore can be heard chuckling all the way to bank.

“Bwahahaha!” – indeed…

30

I don’t really find that defense of Moore all that helpful either. If you aren’t going to bother to make clear the distinction between sending 43m in aid and 43m to the Taliban, why bother calling yourself a corrector of facts?

31

I addressed this in another Fahrenheit thread, but I will ask again here.

Hitchens said in his critique that Moore claims that Saddam never threatened any American. And Hitchens goes on to prove that Saddam did threaten Americans. I contend that Moore said that Saddam never threatened America. That’s a big difference.

I saw the movie on opening day and I certainly could have misunderstood what Moore said. I would appreciate feedback on this point from others who have seen the film.

BTW, I’ve been a genuine “leftist” for over forty years. Hitchens has never been a “leading spokensman” even for liberals. Teddy Kennedy – yes. Christopher What’s-his-name – no.

Airman, I also noticed the reference to Eisenstein or Riefenstahl and thought of your post. I’m not familiar with Eisenstein’s propaganda. But it is important to keep in mind that Riefenstahl’s work was promoting the viewpoint of the people in control of the government and the military. They were well-funded and safe to make (although I cannot deny Riefenstahl’s artistry).

Moore is a less artistic film maker although entertaining. His purpose is not devious and sinister. It is to inform – not mindwash. He had to fight to get this movie released and he is aware that he will be vilified by many. For the most part, those people featured in the film speak for themselves.

I found Hitchens’s review generally murky. HIs objections, except the one I mentioned, seem vague. Maybe I need to reread and I will.

32

FWIW, Moore himself has been saying for years that liberals don’t like him and that he doesn’t like them. He expresses himself quite strongly on the subject in this 2000 interview with The Onion AV Club. I don’t follow Moore’s every word the way many of his opponents do so for all I know he’s since developed warmer feelings towards liberals, but it’s certainly nothing new for liberals to criticize Moore.

33

Which is a point beyond dispute. But allow me to note that a documentary is supposed to document, not show bias. As soon as bias comes out it becomes propaganda.

The comparison to Riefenstahl comes up over and over again, That she is inextricably associated with Nazism does not diminish the fact that she was first and foremost a propagandist, as is Michael Moore. The particular subect matter is irrelevant to the form of movie making, and they share the same form. The inference that I am calling Moore a Nazi is your own.

No more so than rjung, with his linked refutation, which of course is somehow more valid than what I linked to. I have absolutely zero intention of watching the movie. I will not enrich the man with my money. And that renders my informed opinion invalid, how? Of course, some of you will contend that it is actually an uninformed opinion, and thus we turn this into another thread discussing the relative merits of Michael Moore, a topic done to death, whereas I was looking for some challenges to the contentions made in the article, those made by someone who has in fact seen the movie and was disgusted by it.

Incidentally, I did a Google search on Hutchens, and on the topic of Mother Teresa he had some reasonable points that bear investigation, and he has been accused by others of being a Bush apologist, NeoCon, etc. on the basis if his opinions on the war. Interestingly enough, that is the only point of attack on the man that I have seen. He is a self-proclaimed former socialist turned libertarian who declares himself a political opponent of Bush on numerous occasions and said in one case that Bush is doing a good job only because everyone expected him to be a bozo and he has only slightly exceeded that expectation. I don’t see anything that would lead me to believe that he has gone right or become a Bush apologist. I think that label was hung on him due to his failure to oppose the war and worse yet, his outright support of it.

It seems to me that his vilification is unwarranted. Of course, that’s just me. Some of you will say the same about Michael Moore. So I guess we’re gonna have to disagree.

Anyway, I’ll ask again: Does anyone who has seen the movie care to refute the points made in the article linked in the OP? Otherwise this is pointless.

34

I’ve reread the “movie review” by Christopher Hitchens that is titled The Lies of Michael Moore..

With the exception of the possible misunderstanding that I previously mentioned, I don’t see that the article addresses any lies.

Hitchens does say this:

That is his opinion and a good example of “black and white thinking.” I would say that Michael Moore’s film presents that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is strongly influenced by Saudi business ties and economic investments. That is far different from running U.S. policy.

Hitchens also says:

I see no contradiction there as Hitchens implies that there is. There are millions of us who think we shouldn’t have sent troops at all, but who also believe that once we did, we should have sent enough to do the job well.

Hitchens criticizes Moore for what was left out of the film about how well Afghanistan is doing and then he is guilty himself of failing to mention that Afghanistan not has its second largest poppy crop in history. (Bad news for drug wars.) Does that make Hitchens a liar? (No, no more than Moore’s failure to address Afghanistan’s progress makes him one.)

What is Hitchens point? Certainly he fails to point out a lie.

Hitchens criticizes Moore for failure to note that since the Cannes film festival, Richard Clarke has taken credit for arranging flights out for the bin Laden family.

Again, no lie involved.

Then this:

Refresh my memory. What was “the big lie”?

Is that a big misrepresentation? a falsehood?

I was a kid when Eisenhower was POTUS. But I can remember that he did get criticism for spending too much time on the golf course. But I don’t think he would ever have been so crass as to make the comment that Bush did on terrorism and then switch gears so casually.

Notice that he is now into speculation about what “the Michael Moore community” would do under certain circumstances that do not exist. Whatever happened to his discussion of Michael Moore’s lies? Whatever happened to “the leading spokesman for the liberals”?

The shots that I saw were at such a distance and were so quickly edited that I don’t know how anyone could identify Saddam palaces and military and police centers in that footage. But I will take the word of someone who has actually been there. But if anyone implies that there were no civilian death involved even in those strikes, I would beg to differ.

There was nothing to indicate that the people that were outraged were insurgents.

Then Hitchens again criticizes Moore for what he leaves out – criticism of the Bathists rule. But he later criticizes Moore for pointing out the obvious. I don’t think that he can have it both ways.

What Hitchens ultimately fails to do is to show us the lies that he claims that he will address in the title of his article.

35

Now, Airman, you should know that no true liberal puts sugar on his porridge.

36

I think Hitchens has been kidnapped by his brother.

37

Airman, to help the move along the debate (if you can call a pit thread that), why don’t you provide an example or two of the many lies in F911?

38

I don’t know about lies per se, but there is at least one intellectually dishonest theme that Moore loves to brag about. He tells paractically every talk show host and interviewer when he promotes his movie that almost immediately after September 11, the Bush administration (meaning in reality the State Department) made arrangements to fly certain members of the Bin Laden family home to Saudi Arabia. He delights in the supposed irony of people with the name “Bin Laden” receiving the protection of the US government. A more dishonest contextualization can hardly be imagined. Moore and his ilk apparently believe that a whole family should be held accountable for the sins of its black sheep, and that they should have been detained against their will in a country with a populace that was frothing at the mouth to attack Arabs, and especially those Arabs whose last names might be Bin Laden. He is a pure-tee prick for that alone. He also claims that his film is not about politics. For that, he is a prick up his own ass.

39

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read this.

40

OK. Two obvious ones, just right off the top.

  1. “President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations.”

This one should be obvious. The President NEVER gets a vacation, at least not as you and I would understand the term. He still has to conduct day-to-dfay business, he still has the dude with the Football nearby, and he’s still responsible for dealing with any immediate problems facing the US. Why is it that he gets schwacked for playing golf, or conducting his business in Crawford rather than Washington? Because he’s not in his putative office working he’s not doing anything? Right. That’s a blatant lie.

  1. “Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American.”

How about Desert Storm? How about the violations of the no-fly zones? I don’t even have to attempt to make the terrorist connections that Hitchens makes to shoot that one down. Now, that may not be the point Moore was trying to make, but nonetheless that assertion is factually incorrect. That’s if he merely forgot about Gulf War I. If not it was an outright lie and an insult to his viewers that he thinks that they won’t remember that either.

Other non-specific problems I have with this film: The “conspiracy” with the Bin Laden family, the Carlyle Group/Illuminati/Trilateral Commission/name your favorite One-World-Government/conspiracy theory of choice group that he uses to try to tie Bush in with Osama (which has been debunked), his harping on the racial/economic makeup of the miltary, conveniently ignoring the fact that since they’re all volunteers it isn’t exploitation, although he’d like you to think so.

There, that should get the ball rolling.