Moore film a Brit hit

MICHAEL Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 broke the British box office record for a documentary in its opening weekend by taking �1.3 million ($3.35 million), the film's British distributor said today.

The film - a vitriolic assault on President George W Bush over the September 11 attacks and the Iraq war - opened Friday on 132 British screens and has received standing ovations from audiences.
news.com.au...

Well there's a 'sample' poll of Blair' popularity
Sanc'.

I believe polls back the fact - overwhelmingly - that most British people profoundly disagree with Tony Blair's decision to back GW Bush in the Iraqi war, like most western europeans, hell most europeans full stop.

To be fair this is possibly at least as much because we don't like GW Bush as much as we were/are against the idea.

Like most europeans we believe Bush to have stolen the 2000 election with the help of family and friends. We cannot respect him on these grounds alone never mind the guy having other obvious serious 'short-comings'.

Equally the 'with us or against us' ethic was one we heard 60yrs ago from central europe, we rejected it then and we sure as hell aren't happy hearing 'our friends' talk like that now.

Someone needs to explain to the US 'right' that they are not 'America' either. We don't like them but we like America.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Liberal brainwashing has made it's way across the pond!? I'm assuming you folks actually believe this film to be a factual representation of historical events... a real documentary??? If so, that is just simply sad.

I find it so amazing that so many Europeans actually believe some of the tripe that dribbles from the mouths of our entertainers... like Bush stealing the election, or that Bush and Blair doctored intelligence to go to war etc... especially in the absence of REAL tangible evidence to support any of it. In fact, literally thousands upon thousands of pages of documents generated by independent inquiries and committees have found exactly the opposite, yet the liberal mindset pervades. Very sad indeed.

Since we "Americans" are so evil and hell-bent on war, I'd love for someone to lay out a cogent and intelligent plan for ending terrorism and the global threat that it represets to the WHOLE WORLD in lieu of war... Anyone?

kozmo.........your hilarious! You just made the sarcastic remark that "Since we "Americans" are so evil and hell-bent on war", and then under your name you have a map of an exploding Middle East.....hmmmm

....and you wonder why they think we are hell-bent on war!

Originally posted by Jazzerman
kozmo.........your hilarious! You just made the sarcastic remark that "Since we "Americans" are so evil and hell-bent on war", and then under your name you have a map of an exploding Middle East.....hmmmm

....and you wonder why they think we are hell-bent on war!

Displaying an avatar that makes a political statement is a great deal different than the act itself. Secondly, I support the war on terror whole-heartedly. In fact, I think that we should be doing a great deal more than we are doing already.

My contention is that if someone thinks that they have a better plan that doesn't involve war, I'd love to hear it. So far all I hear from these sniveling liberals is that the war is bad but no alternatives to address the problem. The ostrich approach doesn't work... just ask Clinton. After 8 years with our heads in the sand, we lost 3,000 Americans to the bloodiest attack on American soil, EVER. So, come on libs, lay out that spectacular plan of yours to end terrorism. I can't wait to hear it.

....and you think war is the way to do it? To be completely honest, neither side really cares about it, just so long as there is a profit to be made in one way or the other. Both Democrats and Republicans have failed us, and if you still believe they haven't then perhaps you have not been alive in the last 20 years or more. Lets face it, the govt. could care less about the common man/woman...

...personally I have no idea on how to get us out of our situation, but WAR is certainly not the way! I stand by what I say as well.

I'm mopping what you're spilling! I don't believe that the government gives a hoot about the average American... Repub or Dem. However, terrorists will stop at NOTHING to destroy us... PERIOD. There is no discussion here. We are at war. We did not declare it upon them, but they upon us. If we do not take it to them, then they will certainly bring it to us. This faction of Islam, although compared to the shoot of a tree ir really more like a weed. You can cut it down but it grows back. This weed MUST BE PULLED FROM THE GROUND... roots and all. Anything less and we are simply kidding ourselves.

Thats alright.......I dont need a cleanup crew

So, would you stand up against your fellow human terrorist groups that reside in the US of A (ie Militia groups, neo-Nazi's, KKK, etc.)? I know what your getting at, but fundamentalist groups in any religion or culture are dangerous. I consider our current president to be a fundamentalist Christian....so does that mean because he is an AMERICAN we are not allowed to tell him what he is doing is wrong. The real problem is that neither side has an ounce of brains in them, just weapons in the hands of madmen.

EDIT: NM, forgot the UK was tiny compared to the US

[edit on 7-22-2004 by Esoterica]

Originally posted by kozmo
Liberal brainwashing has made it's way across the pond!? I'm assuming you folks actually believe this film to be a factual representation of historical events... a real documentary??? If so, that is just simply sad.

- who said anything about the film being 100% factual representation? *HINT* It's a film. We know it's Moores' view. It's Moore's film. So what? It also encapsulates a lot of truth even if it isn't the absolute 100% truth.....we get the point that it is his view and therefore that 'colours' things. Duuuuuh! Do you not understand this?

I find it so amazing that so many Europeans actually believe some of the tripe that dribbles from the mouths of our entertainers... like Bush stealing the election,

- This is as funny as your brainwashing idea.

yeah, well without going through the whole thing all over again we sat and watch Bush lose a 2 horse race by over 500 000 votes and in the key state where his brother and mates run things there were irregularities that wouldn't have been tolerated in the 3rd world.

You call it as you like we know what we saw.....not to mention the whole business of the electoral role scam, the lot of it was a shameful disgrace.

or that Bush and Blair doctored intelligence to go to war etc... especially in the absence of REAL tangible evidence to support any of it.

- No, we now know that, without any justification, Bush demanded that Iraq be linked to 9/11 immeadiately after 9/11 happened. That is a fact.

In fact, literally thousands upon thousands of pages of documents generated by independent inquiries and committees have found exactly the opposite, yet the liberal mindset pervades. Very sad indeed.

- yet for all this ton of paper-work and your passionate conviction certainty not one verifiable credible meaningful link between Al Qauda and Iraq, Iraq and 9/11. How sad is that!?

Since we "Americans" are so evil and hell-bent on war, I'd love for someone to lay out a cogent and intelligent plan for ending terrorism and the global threat that it represets to the WHOLE WORLD in lieu of war... Anyone?

- No, now you see you're just doing that US right = America thing here. Which is garbage and far from the truth. Neither the war fans nor the US right are America, only a small part of her.

What are you also saying? When options seem difficult to think of war is the default answer?

.....and there's not one of you's with the sense to see the futility and nonsense of the situation to able to answer the challenge of how one goes to war with a noun for goodness sake!

This kind of terrorism is based on the horror of life in an entire region where people are so poor and have been for generations. Where western foreign powers have used these people when expedient and discarded them when the need was over. Where western foreign powers have backed and sustained the most cruel and blood-thirsty dictators. This is rooted in an economic system that is designed to allow the 'west' to consume such a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth and couldn't care less as these people subsist the mean existance.

....and unfortunately for us 'western' means USA and to a lesser extent Europe.

But you don't want to hear that kind of thing do you, you want to talk about 'evil', people like 'animals' and 'religious nuts' and sit wondering how people could come to be so hard and ruthless.

Originally posted by kozmo
Since we "Americans" are so evil and hell-bent on war, I'd love for someone to lay out a cogent and intelligent plan for ending terrorism and the global threat that it represets to the WHOLE WORLD in lieu of war... Anyone?

Build a time machine. Go back in time. Give Hinkley a bigger gun.

First of all... ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Learn something about it. For more information you may want to visit the Federal Election Commission. There you can learn all about how the voting system in America works and the LAW in certifying elections. This may aid you in denying ignorance and becoming informed about the truth.

Secondly, I never said that war was the default answer, but I believe it is here. Were you going to lay out the liberal plan for ending terrorism that avoids war? I'm still waiting for this stellar plan.

Originally posted by kozmo
First of all... ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Learn something about it. For more information you may want to visit the Federal Election Commission. There you can learn all about how the voting system in America works and the LAW in certifying elections. This may aid you in denying ignorance and becoming informed about the truth.

- Yes, I know about the electoral college (Jayzus, after the 2000 vote fiasco how could anyone elsewhere in the developed world not have a fair idea of the US system!?).

That still doesn't explain the electoral registers/roles. Katherine Harris - in a blatently partisan political move - had people removed from the lists on the basis of bogus criminal convictions - by the tens of thousand. Robbing legitimate voters of their vote - by the thousand.

Bush scrapped Florida when daddy's friends at the Supreme Court said stop counting the votes (....and even there they were votes which on later examination show Gore won in Florida anyway).

The reason I raised the 500 000 vote margin Gore had nationally and IMO it's significance was that the Supreme Court could and should have taken account of this in the light of the, then, wafer-thin margins in Florida when reaching their decisions. But, they preferred to split and stick to party lines.

Anyway you cut it Bush stole the 2000 election......and everyone but the republican/Bush zealot knows it the world over, and the truth of this is plain to see in his reception the world over. Even in the USA he moves like a dictator in some God-aweful hell-hole under secrecy and guard unknown before his time (and yes I'm talking before 9/11 too).

Secondly, I never said that war was the default answer, but I believe it is here. Were you going to lay out the liberal plan for ending terrorism that avoids war? I'm still waiting for this stellar plan.

- One thing you can be pretty sure of 'the plan' will be a series of incremental steps aimed at removing the causes of the hate and we need to pray that we do enough before the next outrage. What else is there? After the war all that's left is politics - unless you're persuaded to attempt genocide?

What's all this 'liberal plan' crap anyway? Is the 'conservative plan' war? Try not to get too silly about this.

People in the ME are not born evil. Islam is no more a blood-thirsty religion than Christianity and nor is it uniform - just as Christianity has it's 'versions'.

Things cause them to develop their hatred and it's not all learnt through anything more than a grinding horrible life. I wonder just how civillised we would be with a harsh life of nothing watching our families suffer and die in the cruel horror of some of these places. It is also undeniabler that the west has helped create some of the very monsters that have come back to bite us.

Reagan and Ollie North instructed, equipped and funded Osama bin Laden and his group originally. However expedient it seemed at the time 'we' shouldn't be doing that stuff cos if the intention is to use and discard these people they are hardly going to thank us are they?

The balance is missing in the world. The west consumes too much and that has to be adjusted to enable others a livable life.

....otherwise we might just keep on encountering people who feel they have nothing left to lose by attacking us, even if it means their lives.

If that's too 'liberal' for you I suggest you open your eyes some more.

sminkeypinkey.......well said!

Some (errr...most:@@ conservatives dont want anyone to change their minds. Liberals are that way to an extend, but liberals are famous for being more open minded than right wing conservative fundamentalists. I guess no one wants to be told they are wrong, its just human nature, and Im sure kozmo is thinking this right now.

Originally posted by Jazzerman
sminkeypinkey.......well said!

Some (errr...most:@@

conservatives dont want anyone to change their minds. Liberals are that way to an extend, but liberals are famous for being more open minded than right wing conservative fundamentalists. I guess no one wants to be told they are wrong, its just human nature, and Im sure kozmo is thinking this right now.

- thank you Jazzerman, that was nice of you to say so. I must say I enjoy your posts too.

Cheers.

I do appreciate being told when I am incorrect, however, how can one be incorrect with things such as personal opinions?

Let's begin with the vote fiasco, since it has come up. Nowhere, in any recount, did Gore win Florida. Secondly, felons are not permitted to vote in Federal elections, they lose this right with their conviction. Thirdly the Articles of the Constitution define VERY CLEARLY the manner and time-frame within which a Federal Election is to be certified and by whom. Said Articles were ignored twice by the continued recount of only selected Democratic strongholds. In it's decision, the Supreme Court is compelled to follow the Articles of the Constitution and therefore had to end the recount. The law is not perfect, but it will prevail.

Next, yes, more conservatives support the war on terrorism than do liberals. Here in the States it is the liberal politicians that are stirring up the anti-war groups, not the conservatives, so there is a division among party lines on this issue. My question still remains... If not war, then HOW do we put an end to terrorism peacefully. Please be detailed and succinct as I am fairly certain that many of the "Peaceful" methods have been tried and failed. Thanks.

Originally posted by kozmo
I do appreciate being told when I am incorrect, however, how can one be incorrect with things such as personal opinions?

- ones' opinions can be wrong. Don't worry it applies to us all.

Let's begin with the vote fiasco, since it has come up. Nowhere, in any recount, did Gore win Florida.

- of course this depends upon which count you 'use', in the official recounts things were stopped when Gore was within 50 or so votes. Subsequent examination of the votes show a clear Gore win.

Secondly, felons are not permitted to vote in Federal elections, they lose this right with their conviction.

- which again is true......tough if you were not a felon and had your vote taken away in error by Harris' pals trawling the lists though wasn't it? Like did happen to thousands.

Thirdly the Articles of the Constitution define VERY CLEARLY the manner and time-frame within which a Federal Election is to be certified and by whom. Said Articles were ignored twice by the continued recount of only selected Democratic strongholds. In it's decision, the Supreme Court is compelled to follow the Articles of the Constitution and therefore had to end the recount. The law is not perfect, but it will prevail.

- the law is the law, fair enough who say otherwise.....but which law is dumb enough to be inflexible in all circumstances? Clearly there was something very wrong with the 2000 election and the whole world except for the republicans and their zealot fans knew it too.

Next, yes, more conservatives support the war on terrorism than do liberals. Here in the States it is the liberal politicians that are stirring up the anti-war groups, not the conservatives, so there is a division among party lines on this issue.

- Aw come on; you're not serious with this 'stirring up' cop-out crap are you? The war isn't popular and the more folks learn about it the less popular it gets.

My question still remains... If not war, then HOW do we put an end to terrorism peacefully. Please be detailed and succinct as I am fairly certain that many of the "Peaceful" methods have been tried and failed. Thanks.

- Sorry, but the most obvious and powerful 'peaceful method' has never been tried.

We could try giving the 3rd world a fair shake instead of grossly exploiting them and their resources and using them in our power games for decades.

We could stop installing Saddams as 'strong men' to 'pacify' regions for our commercial benefit. Maybe then the regions would not end up as developmentally retarded as they are.

I'm not saying this is easy or quick stuff but removing the causes of the complaint seems at least as cost-effective a means of tackling the problems as wasting billions on munitions and hundreds and thousands of lives every decade or so.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- who said anything about the film being 100% factual representation? *HINT* It's a film. We know it's Moores' view. It's Moore's film. So what? It also encapsulates a lot of truth even if it isn't the absolute 100% truth.....we get the point that it is his view and therefore that 'colours' things. Duuuuuh! Do you not understand this?

Well, it's classified as a documentary and not your classical theatrical work of fiction. Last time I checked, documentaries were supposed to be 100% factual and free from the makers opinion.

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- who said anything about the film being 100% factual representation? *HINT* It's a film. We know it's Moores' view. It's Moore's film. So what? It also encapsulates a lot of truth even if it isn't the absolute 100% truth.....we get the point that it is his view and therefore that 'colours' things. Duuuuuh! Do you not understand this?

Well, it's classified as a documentary and not your classical theatrical work of fiction. Last time I checked, documentaries were supposed to be 100% factual and free from the makers opinion.

- Oh please. How old are you? You rely on the 'catagories' you're told about do you? LOL Wake up, tune in and grow up, man.

Since when did any documentary report not have an editorial aspect?

Maybe that's what's so obviously wrong with some of America's news audiences, it seems more than a few of you think your news, like your documentaries, are completely free of editorial influence, line or direction and are the 100% unvarnished actual complete truth.

Oh dear.

LMAO.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Oh please. How old are you? You rely on the 'catagories' you're told about do you? LOL Wake up, tune in and grow up, man.

Since when did any documentary report not have an editorial aspect?

Maybe that's what's so obviously wrong with some of America's news audiences, it seems more than a few of you think your news, like your documentaries, are completely free of editorial influence, line or direction and are the 100% unvarnished actual complete truth.

Oh dear.LMAO.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

From your two posts on this thread, it's obvious you are a harsh, angry person. Suggestion: Relax, take a deep breath and count to 10. You will feel much better, I promise.

First of all, what does my age have to do with it? Secondly I am 33. I was making a comment that you had said since when does the film have to be 100% factual representation. Well, that what the hell a documentary is. I am glad you got a laugh though.

Here are some film definitions of what a documentary should be:

Documentary is the creative treatment of actuality."
-- John Grierson, Cinema Quarterly 22.1, 8.

"Documentary defines not subject or style, but approach. ... Documentary approach to cinema differs from that of story-film not in its disregard for craftsmanship, but in the purpose to which that craftsmanship is put."
--Paul Rotha, Cinema Quarterly, 2.2, 78.

"A non-fiction text using 'actuality' footage, which may include the live recording of events and relevant research materials (i.e. interviews, statistics, etc.). This kind of text is uually informed by a particular point of view, and seeks to address a particular social issue which is related to and potentially affects the audience."
--Paul Wells, "The Documentary Form: Personal and Social 'Realities,'" An Introduction to Film Studies, 2nd ed., ed. Jill Nelmes, 212.

"[A]ny film practice that has as its subject persons, events, or situations that exist outside the film in the real world."
--Steve Blandford, Barry Keith Grant, and Jim Hillier, The Film Studies Dictionary, 73.

"A nonfiction film . Documentaries are usually shot on location, use actual persons rather than actors, and focus thematically on historical, scientific, social, or environmental subjects. Their principle purpose is to enlighten, inform, educate, persuade, and provide insight into the world in which we live."
--Frank Beaver, Dictionary of Film Terms, 119.

"A nonfiction film about real events and people, often avoiding traditional narrative structures."
--Timothy Corrigan, A Short Guide to Writing About Film, 4th ed., 206.

"Film of actual events; the events are documented with the real people involved, not with actors."
--Ralph S. Singleton and James A. Conrad, Filmmaker's Dictionary, 2nd ed., 94.

"A documentary film purports to present factual information about the world outside the film."
--David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, Film Art: An Introduction, 5th ed., 42.

"A film or video presentation of actual events using the real people involved and not actors."
--John W. Cones, Film Finance and Distribution, 154.

"A type of film marked by its interpretative handling of realistic subjects and backgrounds. Sometimes the term is applied widely to include films that appear more realistic than conventional commercial pictures; at other times, so narrowly that only films with a narration track and a background of real life are so categorized."
--Edmund F. Penney, Facts on File Film and Broadcast Terms, 73.

"A term with a wide latitude of meaning, basically used to refer to any film or program not wholly fictional in nature."
--James Monaco, The Dictionary of New Media, 94.

"A film that deals directly with fact and not fiction, that tries to convey reality as it is instead of some fictional version of reality. These films are concerned with actual people, places, events, or activities."
--Ira Konigsberg, The Complete Film Dictionary, 2nd ed., 103.

"Unlike most fiction films , documentaries deal with facts--real people, places, and events rather than invented ones. Documentarists believe that they're not creating a world so much as reporting on the one that already exists."
--Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies

[edit on 7-23-2004 by nyarlathotep]