Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore…speak up!

ShareShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on Reddit

I haven’t seen it yet, but I hope to soon. For the record, I think Michael Moore is intentionally deceptive and hopes his viewers won’t think about what they’re being exposed to. I’m sure he has some valid points, but I think he’s hurting his cause.

one of many articles, lots on both sides. Read it all.

This entry was posted in Old Blog and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore…speak up!

  1. Josh says:

    Don’t bother paying for it – just download it (http://www.moorewatch.com). Mikey’s given his blessing (http://slashdot.org/articles/04/07/04/140240.shtml?tid=188&tid=97) to all downloads (otherwise he’d have been ripped apart by the cries of “Hypocrite!”). I personally don’t want anything to do with the opportunistic spinster, but the strength of his convictions is impressive (even if the level of exhibitionism and depravity he sinks to in order to convey his convictions isn’t).

    And why can’t I use HTML tags!!! ๐Ÿ˜‰

  2. Derek Lidbom says:

    Because I didn’t want people cluttering up the comments including images, etc. I was lazy and refused all except a few. Sorry.

    BTW, I don’t use P2P software anymore…anyone want to get me in touch with a copy of this movie?

    Please?

    ๐Ÿ˜€

  3. sarah says:

    Main Entry: 1biยทas
    Pronunciation: ‘bI-&s
    an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment

    If I blatantly lie, and you call me on it, you are not biased, you are just revealing facts. The article was giving insight into the “techniques” Moore employs to decieve the audience. That’s unfair. No bias.

  4. Derek Lidbom says:

    I was saying there were many articles I’d found on both sides, not that this article had lots on both sides.

  5. Derek Lidbom says:

    I’m basing more of my opinions on the movie on what I know about Moore’s work in Bowling for Columbine than anything else. It’s not about lies so much as deceptive editing…I think some of his editing is reminiscient of that Bush (Sr.) mp3 that I heard in college. Deceptive editing can be worse than lying, in that it is based on and contains truth, but is presented in such a way that it conveys falsehoods.

  6. Bitsas says:

    Please see movie in question before making comments on said movie.

  7. Derek Lidbom says:

    Please have firsthand experience with something before you comment on it.

    That reduces most of all of our discussions of politics to next to nothing.

    I think it would be pretty interesting (for at least a short while) if everyone could/would do that.

  8. Derek Lidbom says:

    In theory…I do realize that not much would get done…but it would be interesting…I don’t think it’s the way to go (obviously).

  9. Derek Lidbom says:

    btw, I would like to take this time to point out my first sentence in the post:
    “I haven’t seen it yet, but I hope to soon.”
    That is all.

  10. sarah says:

    yeah, derek!!

  11. Jon says:

    Mr. Webster says that a documentary is:

    of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE (a documentary film of the war).
    He also says that propaganda is:
    the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

    Maybe in Michael Moore’s reality his movie is an objective documentary, but in Mr. Webster’s it is just more bias propaganda.

  12. Bitsas says:

    I did not mean to criticize derek for not seeing the movie yet. Thats cool. It would be a more interesting conversation if we could comment on our own first hand experience with the movie.

  13. sarah says:

    excerpt from a yahoo! article on the opening of this movie in france:

    Moore, in an interview with Liberation, said the movie “presents my own version of the facts.”

  14. Derek Lidbom says:

    Words I don’t know in that article:
    screed
    perfidy
    venal
    capering
    trope
    talisman

    An interesting article though.

  15. Frankie says:

    Hey Derek.
    Hey Sarah.
    Hey Jake!! Hey Jake, we kicked butt tonight!!

    Haven’t seen the movie either, which will probably surprise people who know me since i seem to represent the liberal wing of the Wandryk/Schaivone/Paine/McCoy/Molloy/Lidbom family. I’m sure i’ll get around to it, no doubt. I haven’t been in a major hurry to see it since, quite frankly, i’m assuming there’s not much in it i’m not already aware of. I was surprised that people were surprised at the now infamous 7 minutes that are depicted because i’d seen that video months ago. And while i have no doubt that the facts are presented by Moore in a pretty one sided/slanted manner, the underlying facts he uses are not really secrets in the age of the internet.

    If i may, i’d like to bring up 3 points that i feel comfortable in making in spite of not having yet seen it yet. 1)I think part of Michael Moore’s point is being made for him with the fine toothed comb (and oftentimes scathing) critiques that are being used in discussing his movie. They’re warranted, sure, i’ve got no problem with people calling him on his presentation. But if people went after the one sided presentation of facts in the lead up to war with the same vigor that they’re attacking Moore’s one sided presentation of facts, well, the movie probably wouldn’t even have been necessary. Moore’s frustration, i would guess, involves the fact that there was plenty of counter arguments that were well known prior to the war, but only seemed to get legs after the war started. Perfect case in point would be the “16 words” in the State of the Union. I’d read 2 weeks after the State of the Union about the dubious nature of the claim, but it seemed to only become an issue 3 months after the war started. And only then because Joe Wilson spoke out. There are other examples, but i’m getting a bit long winded here, so i’ll move on.

    2)Listening to the criticisms of the movie, i get the feeling people are making more out of certain parts than they should. What do i mean by that? I suspect the movie isn’t necessarily as “conspiratorial” as people want to make it out to be. Moore is acting as a defense attorney would (or prosecutor, depending on your viewpoint). An expert witness may very well believe what he’s testifying to. But a cross examiner would be foolish not to have it pointed out that the expert witness is being paid to testify. Do the Saudi flights out of the country shortly after 9/11 prove that Bush would rather protect any possible Saudi business interests he or his family/friends might have rather than protect the country? No. But before that notion is entirely dismissed out of hand, well, people should probably know about those flights – just like they should know when a witness is being paid to testify. The same goes for the tape of Bush in the classroom when his persona is that of a decisive leader.

    OK, 3)(and i’ll shut up) In Moore’s defense, i said this on my blog and i’ll say it here. Take Michael Moore, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity….and yes even Ivins, Krugman & Al Franken – and i would hypothesize that if the last 3 years had transpired exactly as they have, only under a President Gore, the one person in that group who i give the best chance of having the same position as they do now is Michael Moore. So to that extent, i’d say he has as much, if not more, credibility than anyone out there.

    Alright, i’m done.

  16. Josh Creason says:

    We saw some folks standing at a major intersection with big flags and signs that said, “Thank you Michael Moore” “Get rid of Bush” “Go see Fahrenheit 911” etc. Weird.

  17. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 on the 4th of July in New York City. I wasn’t taking a stand or making some kind of statement, I just happened to be invited that afternoon. So I went.

    On September 11th, 2001, I was walking to the first class of my second week of college when I noticed a plane flying and sounding much lower than it should sound and fly. I rounded the corner, heard a distant bang, and went to class.

    So there I was, sitting in that dark, overcrowded, left theatre, watching as Michael Moore’s latest sermon fired up the choir. Everyone hooted and hollar’d at the parts that he made funny and made a great show of their disgust for the parts that they were supposed to disgust. It was like a tailgate party except that there were no flatbeds or bbq or beer or anything that they have at tailgate parties because all of those people are Republicans.

    I went straight home to think about it.

    The plane I just saw blew up the World Trade Center and the movie I just saw didn’t do shit. It was a movie and is incapable of exploding things or killing people. And it seems that lately, in my book of things that are just fine by me, anything that doesn’t blow up a building or kills up to and including zero people, is making it in.

    And that night, as I leaned against the railing of the Waterside promenade, I saw the most spectacular fireworks display that I have ever seen. I didn’t think for a moment about Michael Moore or 9/11, but just how lucky I was to be there at that very moment. And the space-time coordinates of ‘there’ and ‘that very moment’ happened to be smack-dab in the middle of these United States. And suddenly, as if out of nowhere, I was overcome with a great sense of patriotism.

  18. Ben says:

    Amanda and I went to go see Ferenheit last Thursday and were glad that we did. While Moore does exaggerate and some of his connections did seem a bit week, I think for the most part he was truthful, and more importantly the general theme for his documentary was right on. The Bush/Cheney presidency is too corrupt to *not* to bring this information to the public’s attention. I know several people personally who had always followed Bush blindly before, ignoring all the lies and deceit of the past four years, who have had their conception of the current administration rocked by this movie. Whatever side you are on, I would urge you to see this movie so that you can see things from muliple points of view.

    As for downloading it… I would think Moore would in fact be in support of downloading/watching for free. It seems to me that he is more interested in presenting his view than making a buck.

    signed,
    a jaded Republican

  19. Ben says:

    Um.. this article with “lots on both sides”?? Have you noticed its titled “Unfairenheit 9/11:
    The lies of Michael Moore”. Seems to me its not an unbiased article…. but i may be wrong.. ๐Ÿ˜›

  20. Ben says:

    “If I blatantly lie, and you call me on it, you are not biased, you are just revealing facts.”

    EXACTLY!! Thats all the movie is trying to do. ๐Ÿ™‚
    Thanks for the excellent point.

  21. Ben says:

    Well that is true.. this is a politically charged documentary if there ever was one. All I’m saying is that it should be checked out before being labled as nothing but “lies and slander”. Just because some article says “everything in this movie is a leftist, commie lie” doesnt mean that it is. Alternately, just because Michael Moore put something into a movie doesnt make it true either. However, you have to see it for yourself and do your own research to make such decisions, and not just believe what somebody told you. :-/

  22. Dwight Ball says:

    It’s fitting that the 20th anniversary edition of Mel Brook’s movie, Blazing Saddles was released this year. Like Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911, Blazing Saddles was a “Mocumentary.” It was such a distortion of reality that it has survived as one of Mel Brook’s funniest movies. Both of Michael Moore’s films should be on the shelf next to Blazing Saddles, filed under: Humor and Satire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *