Thoughts on Farenheit 911...(m)

Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thoughts on Farenheit 911...(m)
100
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 10:58am
From those who actually SAW it...This is my critique from the Politics board.

Just got back from the theater....A very good documentary or what ever you want to consider it. I laughed ALOT which actually in itself is kind of sad. I also cried a little. Did I walk away angry? maybe a little. What did I learn that I didn't know before? The extent of the Bush family and their ties to the Bin Ladens and Saudi Arabia. If we don't question this as citizens of this country then we live with the consequences. If what Michael Moore says is untrue than why don't they sue him??? I have heard nothing from them at all. After seeing this movie I was surprised that the best argument that I have seen that this movie is made up is the part about the senator and his son being in the military. With so much to work with and that is the BIG LIE you all come up with??? Have I missed something while being on vacation??? To many funny parts to go into but one of my favorites was the scene with Ashcroft running aganist the Dead Guy in Missouri and losing. As a proud Missourian I can tell you that was sooooo true and everyone in the theater clapped at that part. But do not fear Republicans I think the hype is pretty much over, the theater was half empty. Also I will add that Michael Moore did not let the

democrats off easy either. He made it perfectly clear that they took it up the back side on the 2000 election. I understand that their hands were tied with what happened in Florida and this country could not afford to be without a Government while they fought the injustices that were done but it still painful to watch. For anyone reading this who is still not sure who to vote for, go see this movie and when you walk out think about why the Bush family is not defending themselves aganist this so call "Fictional" movie.

Let me ad that I am NOT a Michael Moore fan and have never seen his work before. The fact is that News Footage does not lie, paper trails don't lie the actual words spoken by this President don't lie...Any time the Bush family wants to discredit what was said.....I'll be waiting....


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 6:04pm
Whew! Well I finally saw the film but felt that with 700 plus posts in the other thread (mainly from people who hadn't seen the movie and don't plan to) I was wanting another place to post my opinions and frankly, I'm not interested in hearing from people who haven't seen the movie. I've read critiques and reviews from both sides so I don't need people who didn't see the movie to be posting those same links here. What I really want are personal impressions and perhaps a little debate on the many many parts that haven't gotten too much attention but were none the less incredibly thought provoking.

Most of what was raised I had heard and read about before so there were very few surprises but there were a couple of bombshells I will mention later. I already knew a lot of the allegations made regarding the Saudi's, Bush (and families) past business dealings (and subsequent parachuting of friends and business partners into high positions of influence) are a few of the things that were widely known before the film came out. The fact that only one congressman has a child serving in Iraq was also known....easy to vote for something that doesn't effect you and yours. A lot of the war footage showing injuries in Iraq I'd also seen before. Reading a number of reviews I understand this shocked a lot of people so perhaps this footage was shown on Canadian television (or the BBC?) I can't remember for sure.

I went to the movie with a number of expectations, some of which came true and some of which did not.

Expectation #1

Cheaps shots were going to be made against Bush (and gang) and he was going to end up looking like a fool. That came true however, that was probably the easiest task Moore had in making the film. Bush is perfectly capable of making a fool of himself with nobody helping. The difficulty would have been in cutting down on this rich source of material as to not make the film too long.

Expectation #2

That Moore's somewhat irritating presense and stridant delivery would end up taking over the film (and getting in the way of the message). This did not happen. In fact, his presense was hardly there. He let the footage, interviews and articles available in the public record take center stage.

Expectation #3

It would be biased. Moore admitted as much so no surprise there. However, I was surprised at the number of different issues the film raised (that aren't being discussed) even though it showed pretty much one side of each issue. In many cases, it was a side that needed to be shown (the grief of the Iraqis at losing loved ones, the ugliness of war injuries....the disillusionment of the soldier who said every time you take a life, a part of you dies as well, the poor elements of society who end up being the targets of sophisticated military recruiters and end up dying to protect a way of life that they never experienced in the first place, the grief of a proud American mother at the loss of her son, the number and nature of the injuries face by American soldiers and how they will effect their lives going forward....people really only talk about the numbers of dead, etc...etc....)

Expectation #4

That it would endorse the Democratic party. Big surprise there. It was critical of the Democrats, pointing out how weak they were and it was also critical of the media as well.

This film raise many many issues that did not have anything personally to do with Bush and are things that ALL people should think about and discuss whatever side they support. Those who choose not to see the film cannot comment on these things. A couple of things I did not know and came across somewhat as bombshells.

Bombshell #1

A great many Members of Congress actually do not read a lot of the bills that they pass. Most voted for the Partiot Act without having read it....HELLO!!??

Bombshell #2

The degree of sophisiticaton that army rcruiters use in signing up people to join. The fact that they specifically target depressed areas zeroing in on vulnerable looking subjects, getting to know their interests, gaining their trust and then trying to rope them into coming down THAT DAY to sign...something like a sleezy used car salesman. (I found the footage showing how they made idle chitchat about the kids' interests then saying "You can have a career in sports and music if you join the military....have you ever heard of Shaggy?")

There are a couple more but for now I'll stop and see if anyone has anything else to add.





Edited 7/6/2004 8:07 pm ET ET by suemox

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 6:09pm
<>

Ok, to use your comparison....

<cr@ppy the outside of your house is just because your neighbor says it is. How can I be sure if I have never seen it for myself???>>


I never commented on the house (movie), I only posted an article in regards to the house (movie) from my neighbor(author) who has seen it. I never stated my opinion of the house (movie). Just because I have never seen the house (movie), doesn't mean I cannot post an article about how cr@ppy it might or might not be? Got it?



iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 6:19pm

The degree of sophisiticaton that army rcruiters use in signing up people to join. The fact that they specifically target depressed areas zeroing in on vulnerable looking subjects, getting to know their interests, gaining their trust and then trying to rope them into coming down THAT DAY to sign


This reminds me of M.A.S.H when they convince a drunk

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2003
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 6:24pm
<>

Just wondering why all those who are "against" this movie insist it's full of lies, etc. when they haven't seen it themselves? How can you be sure? I haven't seen it myself, so I can't say anything about it one way or another, even by reading someone else's opinion who *has* seen it. Please don't get offended- I'm only commenting on something I've observed in reading many of the posts regarding this film.

Disclaimer- *please do not flame or attack, call me a "Bush-hater", "unsupportive of our troops", "left-winger", etc.* Thanks! :-)

"Without music, life is a journey through the desert"...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 8:24pm
A line from the film:

"The majority of US troops come from the poorest areas of the country. It is ironic that those who have the least opportunities and the hardest lot in life would be the first to rise up to defend us and our freedom. All that they ask in return is that we do not put them in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary."

I was wondering if people can comment on this and try to keep partisan politics out of it.

Avatar for jc1202
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 9:57pm
<<"The majority of US troops come from the poorest areas of the country. It is ironic that those who have the least opportunities and the hardest lot in life would be the first to rise up to defend us and our freedom. All that they ask in return is that we do not put them in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary.">>

I remember that part very well and it absolutely sent chills down my spine. I don't always love Moore's tactics, but he is so right about this. The Bush administration's base is indeed "the have's and the have-more's" as he said in some footage in the film, and the army that is so important to him recruits the "have-not's" b/c they KNOW those kids won't complain about it. And then what benefits are those kids getting from the war? It's not making them any safer. *If* they come home from Iraq at all, they're not going to be in a better economic situation than they were before. It's as though Bush is ruining lives for sport - because he can.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2004
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 10:30pm
My son is a marine and did a stint as a recruiter for 6 weeks in NJ. It was hard scene to watch because all I could think of was my son . They give incentives to recruiters to get at many people as possible to just come in and talk, and if they sign up even better. When my son signed up he took any test he could so he could qualify for speciality training rather than just go in as a grunt. My feeling is that my son signed up to serve his country, not the political interests of a few in the white house. Afghanistan was one thing, iraq a totally different ball game.

alfreda



Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 11:26pm
Plain and simple...I stated in the OP I wanted to hear from those who saw the movie. To most everyone else that was clear. I guess your need to post outweighed your qualifications. Sorry but that's how I see this.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 12:41am
I can comment on what I've seen of my son's unit. Before the war started, one poster on the "Hot Topic: War on Iraq" board was incensed because she felt that African Americans paid a disproportionately large share of the war's toll. I wrote back that the makeup of the Army wasn't a function of race primarily but of socioeconomics which COULD appear to be racial because there has been a strong link in the past between race and socioeconomic level. There are many Latinos and African Americans in DS's unit.

Lila Lipscomb was right that the U.S. military is nondiscriminatory as regards race and has long been one of the most fair-minded and integrated institutions in the United States. I went to kindergarten and first grade in Japan in the very early 60's in fully integrated DOD (Department of Defense) schools and it was completely normal, no big deal. I later went to high school (DOD again) in Okinawa and though there were some racial tensions, they were nothing compared to the turmoil in the States during the same time frame of late 60's, early 70's.

Moore captured the essence of Lila's quandary. She knew that military service could be a springboard to advancement and education but she also lost a son in the fiasco of Iraq.

I have noted that Bush and his coterie have no familial ties to current military service. The fury I feel when I compare National Guard service today to the very diluted effort of Dubya during Vietnam is almost beyond telling. If Bush practiced what he preached, he would have carried a great deal more weight with military mamas like me. As it is, he has never been in harm's way, nor have any family members but he has no apparent qualms sending over 850 service men and women to their deaths.

I know, Suemox, that you asked for a response that went beyond partisan politics and maybe my post sounds partisan. But I consider myself to be an independent. It wasn't the Republican Party I objected to but the actions of the man who currently serves as its most visible leader. Since the party identifies itself with and through his misdeeds, it will not get my vote for any of its candidates.

I would like to add one more piece of insight about the military and its political culture (which I've given before but it bears repeating). Traditionally, the military has been conservative but there's a kind of unspoken rule that military personnel do NOT broadcast their political convictions and they do not lightly question their leaders in the chain of command. The president of the U.S. is commander-in-chief. So, in essence, the CIC leads an unquestioning military based on faith and trust in the political process. And if the conservatives/Republicans had their way, there would be no dialogue about the justification (or hideous lack thereof) for this war and the military would go dumbly and numbly out to be slaughtered ala the Charge of the Light Brigade, just as you noted earlier this year. Wow, that riles me!

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 8:19am
ITA!

alfreda

Pages