Fahrenheit 9/11 - now, the heat, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 7-6-2004 @ 07:43 PM by justdave
Pretty much all the Bowling for Columbine questions posted in here regarding it's credibility (ie he made stuff up etc) are answered by him on his website at www.michaelmoore.com...

Plus, his 'Dude Where's my Country' book has loads of stuff in it about the Bush/Bin Ladens relationship. I'm well aware that I sound like an advert but they're worth having a look at if you're 'unsure' about Moore and have only seen Bowling for Columbine, which is the case for the vast majority I think. It's easy to dismiss him because of the way he carries out his 'journalism' by mocking people a lot of the time, but his points are always valid if you have a similar political position to his, and I do pretty much. He's a bit of a dick at times, almost cringworthy on occasions, but on the whole he's alright and he never makes it up.

d.



reply posted on 8-6-2004 @ 10:49 AM by dom
I think it's pretty clear that most right wingers just plain don't like Michael Moore. Hence the cries of "not factual" about BFC and other of his works. The truth is that practically everything he releases is based on official figures, but because people don't want to think about the content of his work, they revert to character assassination.

I took a really in depth look at BFC myself and catalogued all the "factual inaccuracies". Turns out that one or two have some basis, and MM hasn't adequately answered some of them (particularly the tight edit of "48 hours after blahblah") that gives the viewer the idea that Heston visited Flint within 48 hours of a murder committed by a young child at school. This isn't the case, he went there 8 months later, although some of the residents were still pretty pissed off about it.

Actually, 48 hours after the murder Heston did try to say that the shooting by the young child didn't warrant extra gun controls, so this may not have been deliberately deceptive. Anyway, full dicussion is available here...

www.orangeminds.com...

So overall I think MM is probably just a sensational leftist orientated commentator. The right are worried about that, because usually the leftist guys aren't particularly interested in power or the media (Chomsky for example). Also, some hardcore leftists aren't so happy about having a commentator who is so bold and media-friendly. Well, that's their opinion and that's ok. I do think his work is entertaining though, and as the poster above points out, he encourages debate about topics that are generally buried in the mostly right-wing mainstream media.


reply posted on 16-6-2004 @ 09:42 PM by MaskedAvatar
I found a nice place to view Fahrenheit 911 with my loved one shortly.

An atmospheric and romantic place to share a most unromantic film at its premiere at a Festival in a more peaceful part of the world than the US...

Here’s the Festival copy:

Can a movie change the world? Michael Moore is giving it his best shot, carrying his all-out assault on George W. Bush into the Cannes Film Festival on a wave of anti-corporate hype – Disney won’t distribute it – and carrying it back home with the ultimate in Film Festival trophies: the Palme d’Or.

European audiences like nothing better than and American criticizing America, but the real question is: now that they’ve heard about it, how will the people of heartland America respond to it?

….. will have their first chance to assess the power of Moore’s impassioned attempt to preach to the unconverted and send them fuming to the polls. “It was strident, passionate, sometimes outrageously manipulative and often bafflingly selective in its material, but Fahrenheit 911 was a barnstorming anti-war anti-Bush polemic tossed like an incendiary device into the crowded Cannes festival… This was an exhilarating and even refreshing film, especially coming at a time when political commentators on either side of the Atlantic – progressives and ex-progressives alike – are apparently too worldly and sophisticated to be angry about the war” – Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian.

“Moore takes the same hairpin turn the country has over the past 14 months and crash-lands into the gripping story that is unfolding in real time right now… No-one would ever accuse Michael Moore of having a beautiful mind. Subtleties and fine distinctions are not his thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell” – Frank Rich, NY Times

(Or you could take the “fair and balanced” approach, a la Fox – this straight from the house of sin: “It’s so outrageously false, it’s not even worth comment” – Dan Bartlett, White House communications director. No rebuttal required? What a dimwit!)

BTW, has anyone seen the series of 11 shorts that goes by the name “11-09-01” where each short is exactly 11 minutes and 9 seconds and 1 frame long? I finished watching it last night… the Iranian and Burkina Faso contributions were best, the Japanese human snake was the weirdest. Well worth seeing these dramatized and artistic accounts of the precursor to war, a different experience to the bombardment of the reality of what the Bush disaster has done by Moore’s crew.

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^