Farenheit 9/11 put in perspective

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-26-2003
Farenheit 9/11 put in perspective
78
Mon, 06-28-2004 - 9:59am
Its a frickin film! You know...just like Armogeddon, The Day After Tomorrow, and Bowling For Columbine? No need to crap a farking brick over it. Its amazing how some people can get so worked up over another person's opinion. Its even more amazing that some people take HOLLYWOOD CREATIONS as truths! Yeah, I saw it. I laughed because I know that the film is skewed far left but he does make very good points. After I got out of the theater, two guys got into a brawl over it in the parking lot....over...a...frickin...MOVIE. And you wonder why some people have less and less faith in the American people? We're acting like morons over the most trivial stuff. No need to yell at other people to get out of the country, no need to proclaim the word of Michael Moore as truth. If you're so deadset on what you believe, then you can watch the film as entertainment and acknowledge its existence, right? Why do you get so offended by it? It always amuses me how people generally have the opinion of "Yeah I believe in freedom of speech as long as it conforms with what I believe in." In the words of my mother, "GROW UP!"

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 2:56pm
I agree about the artistic perspective, and I am open minded, except when it comes to someone selling a bunch of theories and lies as the truth. I am also against the film being billed as a documentary, and using both of your definitions, for the following reasons:

1) "designating or of a motion picture, television program, etc. that dramatically shows or analyzes news events, social conditions, etc., with little or no fictionalization "

I quote the words LITTLE or NO fictionalization. Moore's film has more than little or no fictionalization, as much of his movie is based on conspiracy theory.

2) "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."

I quote the WITHOUT editorializing or inserting FICTIONAL matter.

Moore takes facts, and twists them with both his editorializing and his use of fictional matter.

For examples on the fictional matter, I cite the following examples:

1) Moore's assertion that the US went to war with Afghanistan because Unical wanted to build a natural gas pipeline across the country. Where is his basis of proof. I know he likes to condemn the Carlysle Group for padding the pockets of the Bush family, but has no problem with the Carlysle Group with padding his pockets (they own the Lowe's cinema outlets, which are carrying his film nationwide).

2) Moore's claim that the bin Laden family and the Saudi nationals were permitted to fly out of the United States BEFORE the airspace was re-opened to commercial air traffic, which has been proven to be a totally false accusation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 3:03pm
Thank you for the definition, but if you look at the two properties of this definition, the second fits to the first.

Unlike many, I tend to take a more formal view of what a documentary is, and I do not follow the rantings of someone (such as Moore) with blind faith, and take what he says as the truth, but would rather look at the actual facts, (which Moore seems to avoid doing) and come to my own conclusions.

The assertion that Moore's film is based on documents may be true, but what about the truth behind those documents. There is some truth to the film, such as the US did allow the Saudi Nationals to leave the US, and we are at war with Iraq, and we did send troops to Afghanistan, and George W Bush is President of the United States, but other than that, I guess the remainder of the "truth" is in the artistic impression.

Moore's film is as much a true documentary as "Friday the 13th" is.

Those that blindly follow Moore and take his statements for gospel must also still believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 4:06pm
<<"Which is why I advocate keeping an open mind on this. Film is art and as art evolves it informs and challenges its viewers. Something Moore has certainly done with ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’. ">>.... My mind is so open there's a draft! ;) That doesn't mean I'll agree with MM's MO.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 5:10pm

The assertion that Moore's film is based on documents may be true, but what about the truth behind those documents. There is some truth to the film, such as the US did allow the Saudi Nationals to leave the US, and we are at war with Iraq, and we did send troops to Afghanistan, and George W Bush is President of the United States, but other than that, I guess the remainder of the "truth" is in the artistic impression.

Moore's film is as much a true documentary as "Friday the 13th" is.


That is simply not a true statement, while Moore's beliefs about WHY things happen (his editorialising) is certainly is based on his beliefs and view of the situation, what he is presenting is a series of facts and truths along with his reasoning as to how they all fit together.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 5:24pm

I'm not sure if the following article link was posted somewhere on this long thread, but I encourage you to read it anyway. It's long, but the guy makes some excellent points about the movie.


Here's one of my favorite parts of the article:


"So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer."


http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584


What do you think about it, James?


Edited to add link to article.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 5:27pm

<<"He never said that the film wasn't a political statement which is what YOU claimed he did say.">>...... FYI ....I didn't claim ánything in my post. I quoted MM.


My point was not that you were making this up, it was that you are misreading and mistating his quote because you are ignoring the context of the quote.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 5:44pm

I think it is a perfectly valid reason to decide to not like the quality of the film because you feel it should have been more objective.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2004
Tue, 06-29-2004 - 6:25pm
>>>Is it that they weren't mentioned because they lean way to the left then Fox and so you discredit Fox in their news briefs and information? Hmmm... <<<

Fox was taken to court over a claim that wasn't true. I don't know about cnn, but if you can find some info on them too, post it will ya! thanks!

>>>v\No actually it suited his point perfectly...he probably edited the part where the congressmand told him his children are actually in the war<<

I think it was clear the congressman had family in the military. Do you have evidence to support that the congressman also has children in iraq or afghanistan, if can you post it, thanks!

>>>Instead you got a confused face and the point then supports Moore's "shouldn't your children be fighting in Iraq?" <<

That is supposition on your part, personally I don't think moore made a good point considering the congressman has family in the military already. I would also like to add it isn't a fair argument by moore because joining the military is a decision a person makes, not the parent who happens to be a congressman/woman.

alfreda


Edited 6/29/2004 6:37 pm ET ET by alfreda_iv

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 06-30-2004 - 12:11am
Here is the URL for his sources for 'Fahrenheit 9/11':

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/

C

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 06-30-2004 - 12:12am
Here is the URL for his sources for 'Fahrenheit 9/11':

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/

C

Pages