Hollywood abuzz about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Find a Conversation
Hollywood abuzz about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
| Sun, 06-13-2004 - 2:23pm |
"...and this country is really in the mood for somebody to tell ’em what they should think, what to do.â€
That's exactly what democrats want--to tell the American people what we should think and what we should do. Unbelievable, he just gave away their secret! I'm glad I can think for myself, thank you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5050832/
And how about the celebrity turnout for the premiere? Not a real shocker to see Martin Sheen, Demi Moore, Drew Barrymoore, et al excited to be there. And how about Camryn Manheim who was also there, quoted, "A lot of us look to Michael Moore to uncover the real truth." ROFL.
*sigh* These people...


Pages
Another word for that is "mispresentation", but most of us already recognize that.
~mark~
Too bad the film leaves out these facts, as it would destroy the direction that Moore is trying to point the viewer in.
I will eventually see the movie when it is on cable, and it is "free" and Moore will not profit directly from me seeing it.
This is not about defending Michael Moore, whether one agrees with him or not doesn't matter; my point has always been that he has the right as a creative filmmaker to make the type of film that he wants to make.
There is no one forcing you or anyone else to see this film and with its R rating, it will not be viewed by a broad audience - although after the success of 'The Passion' with an R rating - who knows.
So, I'll be seeing the film tomorrow and I'll get back to you with my review;-)
C
I'll let you know if I think that's the direction of the film’s main objective, after I've seen it.
C
Don't you mean expose the Bush Administration for what Moore believes and claims it to be? As has already been discussed here and elsewhere Moore is still up to his old tricks of misrepresentation, fabrication and lying when reality doesn't fit into his fraudulent world-view. He did it in BfC, and according to various articles on F-9/11 he's doing it with this one as well.
Tell me, since you saw BfC three times, how many lies and blatant examples of misrepresentation did you come across? With three views of it most of them should have been pretty obvious.
~mark~
Sorry, but it's not about that either, as nobody here has stated that Moore didn't have the right to make whatever type of film he wanted to make. Our problem is with calling them "documentaries" in the face of their included deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, manipulation of quotes out of context, and simple, run-of-the-mill lies.
Documentaries as a class of film have at least a certain degree or level of respect for objective facts and pertinent context. Moore has already demonstrated not only in BfC but F-9/11 that neither he nor his works have any such characteristic. Why you or anyone else would want to reward him for being a liar and manipulator of facts is beyond me.
~mark~
C
June 23, 2004
MOVIE REVIEW | 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11'
Unruly Scorn Leaves Room for Restraint, but Not a Lot
By A. O. SCOTT
Respect for the president is a longstanding American tradition and one that is still very much alive, as the weeklong national obsequies for Ronald Reagan recently proved. But there is also an opposing tradition of holding up our presidents, especially while they are in office, to ridicule and scorn.
Which is to say that while Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be properly debated on the basis of its factual claims and cinematic techniques, it should first of all be appreciated as a high-spirited and unruly exercise in democratic self-expression. Mixing sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery, Mr. Moore takes wholesale aim at the Bush administration, whose tenure has been distinguished, in his view, by unparalleled and unmitigated arrogance, mendacity and incompetence.
That Mr. Moore does not like Mr. Bush will hardly come as news. "Fahrenheit 9/11," which opens in Manhattan today and in the rest of the country on Friday, is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to the republic.
While his new film, awarded the top prize at the Cannes International Film Festival this year, has been likened to an op-ed column, it might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon. Mr. Moore uses archival video images, rapid-fire editing and playful musical cues to create an exaggerated, satirical likeness of his targets. The president and his team have obliged him by looking sinister and ridiculous on camera.
Paul D. Wolfowitz shares his icky hair-care secrets (a black plastic comb and a great deal of saliva); John Ashcroft raptly croons a patriotic ballad of his own composition; Mr. Bush, when he is not blundering through the thickets of his native tongue, projects an air of shallow self-confidence.
Through it all, Mr. Moore provides sardonic commentary, to which the soundtrack adds nudges and winks. As the camera pans across copies of Mr. Bush's records from the Texas Air National Guard, and Mr. Moore reads that the future president was suspended for missing a medical examination, we hear a familiar electric guitar riff; it takes you a moment to remember that it comes from a song called "Cocaine."
Not that Mr. Moore is kidding around. Perhaps because of the scale and gravity of the subject of "Fahrenheit 9/11," perhaps because his own celebrity has made the man-in-the-street pose harder to sustain, Mr. Moore's trademark pranks and interventions are not as much in evidence as in earlier films. He does commandeer an ice cream truck to drive around Washington, reading the U.S.A. Patriot Act through a loudspeaker (after learning that few of the lawmakers who voted for it had actually read it), and he does stand outside the Capitol trying to persuade members of Congress to enlist their children in the armed forces. (The contortion that one legislator performs to avoid shaking Mr. Moore's hand is an amusing moment of found slapstick.)
Mostly, though, he sifts through the public record, constructing a chronicle of misrule that stretches from the Florida recount to the events of this spring. His case is synthetic rather than comprehensive, and it is not always internally consistent. He dwells on the connections between the Bush family and the Saudi Arabian elite (including the bin Laden family), and while he creates a strong impression of unseemly coziness, his larger point is not altogether clear.
After you leave the theater, some questions are likely to linger about Mr. Moore's views on the war in Afghanistan, about whether he thinks the homeland security program has been too intrusive or not intrusive enough, and about how he thinks the government should have responded to the murderous jihadists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
At the same time, though, it may be that the confusions trailing Mr. Moore's narrative are what make "Fahrenheit 9/11" an authentic and indispensable document of its time. The film can be seen as an effort to wrest clarity from shock, anger and dismay, and if parts of it seem rash, overstated or muddled, well, so has the national mood.
If "Fahrenheit 9/11" consisted solely of talking heads and unflattering glimpses of public figures, it would be, depending on your politics, either a rousing call to arms or an irresponsible provocation, but it might not persuade you to re-examine your assumptions. But the movie is much more than "Dude, Where's My Country," carried out by other means. It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances.
Mr. Moore's populist instincts have never been sharper, and he is, as ever, at his best when he turns down the showmanship and listens to what people have to say. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is, along with everything else, an extraordinary collage of ordinary American voices: soldiers in the field, an Oregon state trooper patrolling the border, and, above all, citizens of Flint, Mich., Mr. Moore's hometown. The trauma that deindustrialization visited on that city was the subject of "Roger and Me," and that film remains fresh 15 years later, now that the volunteer army has replaced the automobile factory as the vehicle for upward mobility.
The most moving sections of "Fahrenheit 9/11" concern Lila Lipscomb, a cheerful state employee and former welfare recipient who wears a crucifix pendant and an American flag lapel pin. When we first meet her, she is proud of her family's military service — a daughter served in the Persian Gulf war and a son, Michael Pedersen, was a marine in Iraq — and grateful for the opportunities it has offered. Then Michael is killed in Karbala, and in sharing her grief with Mr. Moore, she also gives his film an eloquence that its most determined critics will find hard to dismiss. Mr. Bush is under no obligation to answer Mr. Moore's charges, but he will have to answer to Mrs. Lipscomb.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). It has graphic images of combat and its aftermath.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11
Written and directed by Michael Moore; director of photography, Mike Desjarlais; edited by Kurt Engfehr, Christopher Seward and T. Woody Richman; music by Jeff Gibbs; produced by Mr. Moore, Jim Czarnecki and Kathleen Glynn; released by Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group. Running time: 116 minutes. The film is rated R.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/movies/23FAHR.html
Pages