OP/ED: More Moore, Less Movie

It seems as if Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 have been lighting fires across America. Reviews sprouting up everywhere from every position on the film fill newspapers, discussion boards, chat rooms, and water cooler conversation. But it�s impossible to take an unbiased look at the wildfire surrounding the film unless, of course, you haven't seen it.

You've heard all of the opinions about the film and you probably have some of your own. And I don't think it's too much to say that most of America has heard enough. They hate him, the love him. Those left in the gray areas are forgotten and it seems that the ones with the most enthusiasm and fiery language are recognized, while the critics who stay as unbiased as one can be and report mere facts are left in the dust. Though this happens often in the media and reporting, this case stands alone. The film is, reportedly, so blunt, matter of fact, and, according to some sources, biased, it is definitely a documentary meant to stir up emotion. While many books, movies, or other forms of reporting do this in a more subtle and subconscious way, one can tell simply by the commercials that Fahrenheit was made for one purpose- pulling at heartstrings and bringing up old memories to get an emotional response. It is expected that such uproar over the movie, correct? True, but it appears that most of the uproar gives little credit to the movie at all, but more to Moore himself.

It seems as if the critics didn�t even bother to see the movie. Anyone, even someone who didn�t see Fahrenheit, could have written the reviews. They either praise Moore on his courage to reveal the �truth� about America and the executive office, or criticize Moore for making a film that lacks hard evidence and with the sole purpose of �bashing� the President. If Moore truly wants to expose the government and bring truth to American citizens, he was stopped short of his goal. Why? Because a bunch of writers wasted $7 on a movie ticket and barely even mentioned the movie.

True, I haven�t seen the movie, so everything I�ve said can be thrown out as a superfluous critique. But then again, I�m not claiming to write a review on the movie. In order for anyone to learn from this monumental film, the critics and the public must learn to control their emotions and discuss the film through factual information. Debating whether Michael Moore is a genius or a moron defeats the supposed purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11, and does nothing more than put you out $7.


[Edited on 6-30-04 by Scat]

[Edited on 6-30-04 by Scat]

[edit on 6-30-2004 by Valhall]

"True, I haven�t seen the movie, so everything I�ve said can be thrown out as a superfluous critique. But then again, I�m not claiming to write a review on the movie. In order for anyone to learn from this monumental film, the critics and the public must learn to control their emotions and discuss the film through factual information. "

Right, let us do just that. If you didn't see it, WHY did you do this?

I wrote this because its on opinion/editorial on the reviews of the movie, not the movie itself. Basically, if critics are simply going to complain about the director, whats the point of the movie? I thought we got over Michael Moore when Bowling for Columbine. If the movie is hoping to bring any awareness, the only awareness it bought was about Michael Moore.

Well intrepid, Ive learned something usefull....youdont have to tell the readers EVERYTHING eh? kinda makes your argument less convincing.

But now I cant take that line out because everyone will know Im just trying to save my ash!

[Edited on 6-30-04 by Scat]

There is a fine line between a movie/documentary and propaganda.

Had this movie came out a year ago or a year after the election it would have been more worthy of praise... But I think the political side of this movie should not be ignored.

This is America.. and like it or not.. This movie has every right to be shown to anyone willing to see it.

Could it change the outcome of the election?

Only time and investigation will tell.

Gazz

I agree Gazz, but I do think moore opened this up quite stratigically. In earlier posts i wasnt quite sure, but now that i think about it more...if he would have opened it closer to elections people would have said it was pure propoganda and would not have respected it as much. but thats just my guess.

Scat,

I'm going to review your review of the reviewers, who may or may not
have pre-viewed the skewed but shrewd movie. s'alright?

I think a lot of them were critiqueing, the mans methods, and the fact that in
earlier times, Moore could have been seen as a traitor.
A lot of people believe that he really hates America, and that it
was in poor taste to release this thing at this time.
But, he knew that in this polarized environment, at least 1/3 of the nation
would probably pay full ticket price. "suckers"

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Scat,

I'm going to review your review of the reviewers, who may or may not
have pre-viewed the skewed but shrewd movie. s'alright?

ive reviewed your review of my reviewer review of fahrenheit 911. and i agree. based on the hype around bowling for columbine (which i DID see:lol moore has already been bludgeoned or adored to death. i guess i was in false hopes in thinking that people would get over him and on topic.

did you see the movie? based on the "skewed but shrewed" im assuming you did. why do you think it is so?

Scat,
No, Haven't seen it.
I went to see it over the weekend, but my wife got sick, and we had to come home.
I talked to an entertainment writer who saw it, as well as a few people
from work who are pretty big fans of his. I've got a pretty big group of "liberal Minded folks" that I work with. we antagonize each other fairly often, mostly
in good humour, mostly..LOL

Even some of them were willing to admit the smell of propaganda floating around the Theater.
I was surprised to hear that from them, considering how much Bush bashing normally goes on where I work..

It's usually more like this:
When Reagan died, us "right wingers" had to quietly console each other,
just so we wouldn't have to duck the smart-alec remarks being flung over the
cubicles.

I still plan on seeing it, I may even pay..we'll see..

Well that's amazing, seeing a liberal speak of the propoganda. Everyone I know whom saw the moviecame out and were so madly in love with it and saying "YOU HAVE TO SEE IT!" constantly and couldnt stop talking about how stupid Bush is, how wonderful Michael Moore is, and how stupid people can be when they instantly believe anything the government tells them.

This made me think....they're stupid for believing the government, and what does that make you?

They instantly believe anything MOORE says is pure fact. Kinda hypocritical in my view.

Neither one of Moore's last two movies/books have truth in them. He is playing around with Americans' emotions at this point in time, mixing some "made up Moore truth"(fantasies) with some facts, and at times making up entire fantasies and stating they are truth. Have I seen Fahrenheit 9/11? No, why? I am not going to make any more money to the man that called cowards those victims of 9/11, or that insulted every American, among other reasons. I am not that eager to praise a man, calling him a "saviour" for insulting me and other fellow Americans, calling us idiots, pricks, conmen or any of the other names Moore seems to give to every American, including the "working class."

Richard Clarke himself has stated that one of the main premises in the latest movie is a complete lie, he says its a mistake....but its a lie. Moore says that Bush allowed prominet Saudis to fly out the the US, but Clarke states that it was him alone who made the decision to let these people leave, including the Bin Ladens that were in the US at the time.

The film, just like Bowling for Columbine, is such a controversy because there are a lot of people against the war, or Bush himself because of misconceptions many Americans have.

The "blind support" that many Americans, and other nationals, are giving to the film and Moore, without even knowing the lack of facts and the fallacies which seem to be constant on Moore's films and works as of late, show that lately people will blindly follow any person that blames the government, no matter what else they say, including lies and insults which if anyone else had done or implied without bashing the president, would have been an outrage.

By Holly Yeager Peter Thal Larsen
Published: July 1 2004 18:00 | Last Updated: July 1 2004 18:00

Walt Disney, which refused to distribute Michael Moore's controversial Fahrenheit 9/11, is using the Fourth of July holiday to launch a feelgood feature film about the American people.

news.ft.com.../StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373408634

As I recall Disney refused to release moores film because it did not want to get political, yet they contrive this flick which paints things "as all sugar and spice and everything nice" just in time for the conventions. I am sure Disney will deny, but it is obvious what is being done. While I have no problem with Disney releasing films as it chooses, this is pathetic.

Is "mickey mouse" a bush republican? Say it ain't so mickey.
.

Originally posted by df1
I am sure Disney will deny, but it is obvious what is being done. While I have no problem with Disney releasing films as it chooses, this is pathetic.

Is "mickey mouse" a bush republican? Say it ain't so mickey.
.

Does Moore only bashes Bush on any of his films?.....I would say Disney is a trying to bring some sense back to the American people of who we are, and what keeps us together. What is pathetic is Moore's contemp for Americans in general, and the "blind American followers" he has, willing to be insulted because he also bashes Bush.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Neither one of Moore's last two movies/books have truth in them. He is
Richard Clarke himself has stated that one of the main premises in the latest movie is a complete lie, he says its a mistake....but its a lie. Moore says that Bush allowed prominet Saudis to fly out the the US, but Clarke states that it was him alone who made the decision to let these people leave, including the Bin Ladens that were in the US at the time.

That's not what he said at all. You're wrong. Clarke, who headed the counter terrorism security group of the National Security Council, said he does not now recall who initiated the request for approval. He said it was probably either the FBI or the State Department, both of which have denied playing any such role. No one really knows. Nice attempt to spread yet another false rumor, though.

[edit on 19-7-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned
Nice attempt to spread yet another false rumor, though.

Before you slander someone please make sure you can back up
what you say, thanks.

Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.

But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.

Excerpted from.
When Bush-Bashers Collide? Moore's Film at Odds with Clarke Remarks

[edit on 19-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Yes, but Moore didn't say it. In fact, he had Clarke in the movie claiming that no one knew. Did you watch the movie?

Moore says that Bush allowed prominet Saudis to fly out the the US, but Clarke states that it was him alone who made the decision to let these people leave, including the Bin Ladens that were in the US at the time.

I'll check again, but I don't recall Moore specifically blaming Bush for this, at all. Why would he when Clarke is in the movie stating that he doesn't even know who allowed them to leave? If anyone lied, apparently it was Clarke. I was talking about the actual movie. You were talking about something else?

[edit on 19-7-2004 by Damned]

For anyone who doesn't think Fahrenheit 9/11 contains any facts, Michael Moore has produced several pages of documentation on his website to back up all the claims and assertions he has made in the film... a film bibliography, if you will:

www.michaelmoore.com...

I have seen the movie, and think it is definitely worth watching. Unlike many, however, I did take the time to read the above site and see for myself where his statements have come from, and what other media organizations and various sources he used. Very interesting, whatever your own political leanings may be, and certainly pertinent to a factual discussion of the movie.