Michael Moore Following the Controversy- now disney exec under fire

[acidrock]

Have you guys heard that Disney was going to block Micahel Moore's new fillm? It was because of it's political contro of the Bush Admin before and after the 9/11 attacks. Now it seems something's backfired:

see different articles at

google news (http://news.google.com/news/en/us/entertainment.html)

Freedom to filmPublished: May 7 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: May 7 2004 5:00

Michael Eisner must envy the self-promotion skills of Michael Moore. The chief executive of Walt Disney is under fire from shareholders over his stewardship of the company. Now he is suffering from an adept piece of guerrilla marketing by the leftwing documentary maker, who claims Disney is blocking distribution of his new documentary film, Fahrenheit 911.
Advertisement

The row has conveniently hit the press a few days before Mr Moore's film - which is heavily critical of George W. Bush - is shown at the Cannes Film Festival, where he has been nominated for a Palme D'Or award. Mr Moore, a constant fixture on cinema and television screens and bestseller lists, says "those in charge" are once again trying to silence him. If so, the establishment has clearly lost its touch.

story (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1083180337245)

[tveric]

I'm having a hard time understanding the title you chose for the thread. Apparently, it is true that Disney will not allow Moore's film to be distributed under the Miramax label. So why does this mean Moore is "following the controversy"? It's not like he picked Disney out of a hat, they ARE the company that's refusing to distribute his movie!

The real story isn't Michael Moore's promotional skills - we're all aware of those, and after all, a lot of people would never have seen a Michael Moore movie if not for those skills. Better to let the movie speak for itself - everyone has the choice of seeing it or not, and if they see it, can decide for themselves if it's any good. In a free society, that beats the alternative - that a few big companies can decide FOR you if you should see his movie or not. That's the story here - Disney saying "it did not want to be associated with a political polemic in a presidential election year," so that makes it okay to attempt to block his movie? I think that's certainly not in the interest of free public debate.

[Counterfit]

*gasp* Michael Moore heavily criticizing Dubya? :eek:

It could never happen :p

[BrianKonarsMac]

michael moore is the best thing to happen to america since smores :D.

[MongoTheGeek]

In a free society, that beats the alternative - that a few big companies can decide FOR you if you should see his movie or not. That's the story here - Disney saying "it did not want to be associated with a political polemic in a presidential election year," so that makes it okay to attempt to block his movie? I think that's certainly not in the interest of free public debate.

Since when is refusal to help blocking? They aren't preventing the distribution, they just won't do it. It could be because they don't want to touch such a hot potato. it could be they fear legal issues. It could be they lost money on Bowling for Columbine and don't want to repeat the mistake. It could be that the movie sucks. Micheal Moore was told months ago that he would have to go elsewhere to distribute it.

[27407]

Since when is refusal to help blocking?

They are specifically blocking Miramax, a Disney subsidiary, from distributing the film. Since Miramax provided most of the financing for the film, it would be financially detrimental for them to have to go out and find another distibutor for north america.

It could be because they don't want to touch such a hot potato. it could be they fear legal issues.

What legal issues are you referring to? Someone will sue them for distributing a documentary that contains opinions that differ with their own?

It could be they lost money on Bowling for Columbine and don't want to repeat the mistake.

Bowling for Columbine was financed and distributed by United Artists, and earned 22 million dollars for them.

It could be that the movie sucks.

Yes, because we all know that Disney is the hallmark of art, with standards that other studios could only dream of having.

Micheal Moore was told months ago that he would have to go elsewhere to distribute it.

What does it matter when he was told? The fact remains that large, multinational corporations have too much power over what is, and what isn't, seen in the mainstream media.

[Mr. Anderson]

It could be because they don't want to touch such a hot potato. it could be they fear legal issues.

for lack of a better word..... duh!

This is going to be a very controversial film. Not many companies would want to take a stand behind it. It will be seen, cause all sorts of discussion and feed fires (some where they aren't needed).

Personally, I don't think pointing blame at this point is the right approach regarding 911. And Michael Moore likes to show off and gain recognition for pushing the envelope - he's on his own personal quest, but he's using these events, Columbine, 911 for personal gain. To me that's just not right and I don't like his style.

D

[the future]

Personally, I don't think pointing blame at this point is the right approach regarding 911. And Michael Moore likes to show off and gain recognition for pushing the envelope - he's on his own personal quest, but he's using these events, Columbine, 911 for personal gain.

Unlike George W. Bush who in no way used 911 to justify his personal quest vs. Saddam... :rolleyes:

[Savage Henry]

...he's on his own personal quest, but he's using these events, Columbine, 911 for personal gain. To me that's just not right and I don't like his style.

D

He is at least generating discussion about delicate subjects. Just because those subjects sensitive doesn't mean we shouldn't ask questions about them. Surely one of the first things that went through your mind on hearing about the Columbine and 911 events was "Why?" So if there is anything that help explain that then surely that's a good thing.

[Juventuz]

I don't get how anyone call call his films a documentary. There are SO many fabrications in his movies they ought to be classified as fiction.

[FriarTuck]

Moore has now admitted (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901) the whole thing was a stunt, hinging on a big lie, thus prompting the inescapable conclusion that the man is more concerned with money than truth. He has gone from being a burr under the saddle of the powerful to being the @$$ itself.

[27407]

I don't get how anyone call call his films a documentary. There are SO many fabrications in his movies they ought to be classified as fiction.

Care to provide any examples, sources, etc. or is this just mindless trolling?

[MongoTheGeek]

They are specifically blocking Miramax, a Disney subsidiary, from distributing the film. Since Miramax provided most of the financing for the film, it would be financially detrimental for them to have to go out and find another distibutor for north america.

Miramax == Disney
Its not like Miramax is the only distributor. Its not like Disney is blocking distributors it doesn't own from distributing it.


What legal issues are you referring to? Someone will sue them for distributing a documentary that contains opinions that differ with their own?

There were some segments of Bowling for Columbine that were dramatized and not real. If in the new movie there are segments which are defamatory and untrue they could be held liable for libel. I am certain that Michael Moore would gleefully admit to feeling malice :)

Bowling for Columbine was financed and distributed by United Artists, and earned 22 million dollars for them.

Good for them. I bet they would be glad to distribute this then. I gave it as a supposition.

What does it matter when he was told? The fact remains that large, multinational corporations have too much power over what is, and what isn't, seen in the mainstream media.

There is a difference between dropping support a few days before the premiere and saying months before hand "No we won't help." Each of the media conglomerates do have substantial power but there are a few of them. Even if the big boys won't play there are other avenues. Mel Gibson got no major studio support and got a movie in the top 7 grossing ever.

Who really cares about the mainstream media? Fox has gotten to rabid for my tastes and most the rest are too liberal. We truly live in an era that embraces samizdat. Matt Drudge went from a studio apartment in West Hollywood to being a South Beach multimillionaire.

[Juventuz]

Care to provide any examples, sources, etc. or is this just mindless trolling?

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20021208
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712328
http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56524,00.html

There's lots more out there.

[socokid]

Mainstream media (corporate led media) is far more sensationalistic than liberal or even conservative. It's all fear mongering crap and it's getting worse. Corporate, inherently agenda driven news, is good for two things: Sports and weather. Nothing else. Well, unless you want to get GW's latest propaganda sound bite of BS, find out who Brittney is dating, or if the hotdog you just ate is going to KILL YOU! that is.

You may call NPR or even the BBC liberal if allowing discussion that may bring to the table negative views about our representatives and their actions as being liberal, but I would much rather at least ACT as if we live in a true democracy and have ALL of the information available to me and then decide for myself, thank you very much! I pick out the BS by being informed, not be shielding myself from the stuff I don't want to hear. That would be counterproductive if your true intention is discovery. To label and discard is simply a means to perpetuate a narrow world view that is simply more comfortable. That is not good.

Mr. Moore's Bowling for Columbine broke several records for a documentary. And this year's Cannes accepted his latest work as only the second documentary to be considered at Cannes. Bowling for C was the first. It was the highest grossing documentary of all time, etc... so to say Disney's decision was political may be a tad on target.

Good luck.

[Mr. Anderson]

Unlike George W. Bush who in no way used 911 to justify his personal quest vs. Saddam... :rolleyes:

uh, I wasn't talking about the subject matter in that way. I just think sensationalizing the whole thing is the wrong approach and Moore is just out to do that so that it makes his wallet heavier.

W will eventually answer for all of this, but the problem in Iraq is so much more now than just W and Saddam.

As for opening this all up to discussion - we've been doing that since 9/11. Sure things could have been handled much better from the very start - but that's all in the past. People need to move on from finger pointing and sensationalizing and start working out the issues. It might be a bit idealistic, but unless we want to see a continuing cycle of violence and stupidity on everyone's part, change needs to be made now.

Moore's film is just going to fan fires that need to be put out, as far as I'm concerned.

D

[djkny]

Michael Moore, the boho, pro-grassroots documentary filmmaker? Yeah, right. Of course he needs distribution. How else can he pay for his co-op fees and baby gap dresses for his daughter on the Upper East Side?

I mean, grassroots --- really. He's so poor that he likes to demand university program boards $8000 for a 30 minute lecture and agree to speak only with properly reserved brunches at the 4 seasons...

There's a reason why ghetto is always ghetto. Once he's got money, he blows up.

[GeeYouEye]

Michael Moore is an arrogant ***hole. Not that he doesn't have the right to be, although it's worth pointing out that his accusations about Disney could be considered libel if written, or at the very least, slander. I hope he gets his head handed to him in court if Disney goes after him.

[Raid]

It's amazing how often people will attack semantics an word police, completely dancing around the real issue and avoiding the real arguement. I've looked at these sites that claim Mr. Moore is lying or staging scenes and they continualy fail to convice me that there counter argument is material. Moore does have a responsibility to be truthfull, and yes he should practice what he preaches... but shouldn't we all? :eek:

It's funny to see people who value their freedom tell others how to run their lives. :rolleyes:

Bottom line is, if Moore was lying then it's up to these companies / people to sue him (I'm certain the current judicial system in the States has seen weaker cases come to trial).

I think we should be asking ourselves how we feel about the issues he brings forward, and if you agree / disagree, then ask yourself why. If there is questionable material presented in the argument, yes we should highlighted to others, but we need to back it with concrete evidence! However in this era of 'pre-emptive strikes' the burden of proof seems to be a dying concept.

Personaly I'm sick of all these books and movies telling me what's wrong with the world (side note: Does anybody thing the world is 'okey dokey'?), yet I keep reading them. Why? Well I hope we will all eventually sit down and figure out how to fix them, and make the solution work for everybody.

[socokid]

Moore's film is just going to fan fires that need to be put out, as far as I'm concerned.

I'd rather people be held accountable for their actions, but that's just me. Especially when the "people" in question are the freaking leaders of the free world.

[acidrock]

I'm having a hard time understanding the title you chose for the thread.


I choose the title, "Following the Controversy" to show that it was a developing story. They announced a few days ago that Disney would block the production of the film, within a few days it turned into the Disney exec being underfire.

I can see why some of you think Moore took advantage about Columbine and now 9/11, but first of all, I think Columbine (the movie) was more about violance in america. It just happened that Columbine inspired Moore to do the movie. I think the same will be true for the new movie.

[bitfactory]

Moore knew in May 2003 that Disney wasn't going to distribute this film... everyone thinks Disney just blocked it, which simply isn't true. they told them OVER A YEAR AGO.

gotta hand it to Moore, he is a master at manipulating the media for promotion. Moore is a hypocrite who cashes in on the suffering of others.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

[socokid]

"The bank scen was staged!"

Um, no it certainly was not. There's even an outtake video proving the above is a lie via a link found here (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/). But, it's one of the many lies being told about this film. Agenda driven? They just like to lie? Who knows, but please read this (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/). It shows most of those Columbine claims are just plain WRONG.

I too have read some of these site's claims, and many of those sites themselves not only have perpetuated literal lies, but point out what amount to be fairly minor instances compared to the true story and questions this film invokes.

And about his new film. If controversy from inept marketing tacticts outweighs it's content and discussion thereof, then we are truly a sad bunch of sheep. I, for one, feel I am capable of watching the film and making up my own mind. Trolling lies doesn't help. Please see my link above.

Good luck.

[Xacttech]

Michael more is a history revisionist, I thought everyone new this, his fans or his haters. It's fact. In order to get his points across he sensationalizes fact, or exagerates excessively, on one side. A documentary shouldn't be edited in ways that cut statements or piece together out of context information.

I honestly have no idea how Moore has a fan base. He hasn't done anything to benefit anyone but himself. Him hating bush, or the way the NRA operates doesn't change anything, won't change anything, and just upsets people of both sides.

He can't debate plain and simple. He doesn't have the resources to back his views.

Sean Hannity would eat him for breakfast, as would ANY educated debator, left or right wing.

[SlyHunter]

FYI two threads are discussing this same topic simultaneously http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=70902

[IJ Reilly]

Michael more is a history revisionist, I thought everyone new this, his fans or his haters. It's fact.

Really? Got any other "facts" for us while you're at it? In fact, Moore is a film editorialist. It's misnomer to call him a documentary film maker, but it's also completely counterfactual to claim that he can't back up his views. He does back them up -- you just don't like what he says.

[Xacttech]

I have mostly ignored this silliness. But a few weeks ago, this lunatic crap hit the mainstream fan. CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.


Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.


CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control–has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's funny... see... it's okay for him to take things out of context and not inform the viewers of everything, but when it happens to him, everyone should know.

His career was built on the above scenario, and it's bit him in the ass, but I doubt it stung.

[Chip NoVaMac]

uh, I wasn't talking about the subject matter in that way. I just think sensationalizing the whole thing is the wrong approach and Moore is just out to do that so that it makes his wallet heavier.

W will eventually answer for all of this, but the problem in Iraq is so much more now than just W and Saddam.

As for opening this all up to discussion - we've been doing that since 9/11. Sure things could have been handled much better from the very start - but that's all in the past. People need to move on from finger pointing and sensationalizing and start working out the issues. It might be a bit idealistic, but unless we want to see a continuing cycle of violence and stupidity on everyone's part, change needs to be made now.

Moore's film is just going to fan fires that need to be put out, as far as I'm concerned.

D

Andits OK for the RNC to fatten their wallets over the same issue?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Really? Got any other "facts" for us while you're at it? In fact, Moore is a film editorialist. It's misnomer to call him a documentary film maker, but it's also completely counterfactual to claim that he can't back up his views. He does back them up -- you just don't like what he says.

Maybe we need to discredit Rush L. then?

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe we need to discredit Rush L. then?

Hmm? No, I think Rush does a really good job of that all by himself.

[Xacttech]

Really? Got any other "facts" for us while you're at it? In fact, Moore is a film editorialist. It's misnomer to call him a documentary film maker, but it's also completely counterfactual to claim that he can't back up his views. He does back them up -- you just don't like what he says.

I don't have to back you up with any more facts, there are many websites listed above that do that for me. If you can discredit what they say, I will gladly stand corrected.

Furthermore, how can you/people support Moore, when he is unwilling to stand up for his views outside of print media, and documentary? (ie in debate)

He does not, and will not go head to head with ANYONE in a live debate period! If he went on Hannity and Colmes he wouldn't be able to prove any points, and Colmes wouldn't be on his side either, because he knows that he hasn't got backing information for his facts well atleast facts taken in context.

[zimv20]

fwiw, mr. moore does not call himself a documentary film maker, but says his films are works of fiction based on facts.

if that means that we can learn nothing from his films, because fiction is used to illustrate fact, i guess i better put down my copy of Animal Farm.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't have to back you up with any more facts, there are many websites listed above that do that for me. If you can discredit what they say, I will gladly stand corrected.

Furthermore, how can you/people support Moore, when he is unwilling to stand up for his views outside of print media, and documentary? (ie in debate)

He does not, and will not go head to head with ANYONE in a live debate period! If he went on Hannity and Colmes he wouldn't be able to prove any points, and Colmes wouldn't be on his side either, because he knows that he hasn't got backing information for his facts well atleast facts taken in context.

Posts that include the phrase "you people" always raise the suspicion in me that somebody thinks they're arguing with a type, not an individual. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not "supporting" Moore. I like some of what he does, and not other things. I am merely pointing out that Moore is an editorialist, and like all editorialists, he selects which facts he prefers to use and which he prefers to omit to build the argument he wishes to make. You or anyone else are entitled to offer contrary arguments, but that doesn't automatically make you right and the other person wrong, or vice-versa.

As for Hannity and Colmes, I'd personally have less respect for Moore if he went on that worthless program.

[Sayhey]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's funny... see... it's okay for him to take things out of context and not inform the viewers of everything, but when it happens to him, everyone should know.

His career was built on the above scenario, and it's bit him in the ass, but I doubt it stung.

Did you bother to read the rest of Moore's response? Sounds to me like his portrayal of the scene was very accurate.

[socokid]

As for Hannity and Colmes, I'd personally have less respect for Moore if he went on that worthless program.

I couldn't agree more. Hannity is the king of sensationalistic hot air and fear mongering. In other words, he also knows what sells.

We have shown that most of the Columbine sites are literally making up lies (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/) about the film, and we have shown that the FINAL word from Disney, the company that continued to fund the making of the film, came May 4th that they wouldn't distribute it. We can speculate till the cows come home about wether Mr. Moore simply rode the insanity of this hype to get his movie in the papers, but it seems to completely pale in comparison to what his attackers are doing, which is literally making up lies about him and the contents of his last film. Now they are crying "hoax!" and "stunt!" simply because he didn't assume Disney would hold out due to the fact that they were still funding him? How petty and hypocritical is that?

And, just because he chooses to stay within the realm of things most aren't aware of doesn't mean he is deliberately shying away from the others. Why doesn't anyone argue the real facts that he does present? The startling conclusions that no one argues? The ones that we should be discussing?

I wonder...

[pseudobrit]

The "'Bowling for Cloumbine' is full of lies and was totally faked and edited way out of context" argument has been around for awhile and has not stood the test of time. I followed this nonsense when it first appeared and haven't found the accusations substantial.

Moore uses footage, sometimes in a very crafty fashion, to cause a response. More often than not, it's merely to encourage the viewer to think for himself and expand his thought process, to consider things from a point of view he would not usually have.

Bowling for Columbine wasn't an anti-gun movie, but most people who hate it (many of whom haven't even seen it) hate it because they think it's an anti-gun movie.

These people are stupid, simple- and single-minded twits.

Any intelligent, informed viewer can take something away from his films.

[pseudobrit]

Moore is an editorialist, and like all editorialists, he selects which facts he prefers to use and which he prefers to omit to build the argument he wishes to make.

He's also not that smart. I can tell pretty quickly when someone has a lesser intelligence than mine, and he's obviously not as smart as I am. His books are entertaining and full of interesting opinions and facts but make for very light reading.

I've seen him in spontaneous moments and it's awkward because he's not as coy or quick on his feet as you'd think he'd be.

The thing is, there are nuclear physicists who can't spell, linguists who speak 25 languages fluently but can't do trignometry and intensely stupid millionaires who can effortlessly do things to six ounces of frozen rubber with a stick that most of us couldn't duplicate in a million years.

Many times you'll have a hard time finding the genius in someone. When I see a Moore film, I understand precisely where his genius lies; he's an artist whose medium is film.

[IJ Reilly]

He's also not that smart. I can tell pretty quickly when someone has a lesser intelligence than mine, and he's obviously not as smart as I am. His books are entertaining and full of interesting opinions and facts but make for very light reading.

I've seen him in spontaneous moments and it's awkward because he's not as coy or quick on his feet as you'd think he'd be.

The thing is, there are nuclear physicists who can't spell, linguists who speak 25 languages fluently but can't do trignometry and intensely stupid millionaires who can effortlessly do things to six ounces of frozen rubber with a stick that most of us couldn't duplicate in a million years.

Many times you'll have a hard time finding the genius in someone. When I see a Moore film, I understand precisely where his genius lies; he's an artist whose medium is film.

A genius who isn't very smart. Now there's a novel concept!

I think I understand what you mean -- there's a bit of the idiot savant in all of us. Or should I say, I would understand if only I was smarter. ;)

[LethalWolfe]

fwiw, mr. moore does not call himself a documentary film maker, but says his films are works of fiction based on facts.

if that means that we can learn nothing from his films, because fiction is used to illustrate fact, i guess i better put down my copy of Animal Farm.


For someone who isn't a documentary film maker he sure submits his work to festivals/awards considerations under the "documentary" catagory a whole lot.

Moore, Rush... two sides of the same coin. Spin masters that sell their opinion as reality. Unless you agree w/what they are saying I don't understand how one extremist POV is accepted while the other is always blasted.


Lethal

[carbonmotion]

To say that Moore is a real journalist is somewhat of a stretch. Moore is a left-winged media gureilla waging war with the ultra-conservative religious right-wing. He serves his purpose by dispelling right-wing propaganda with left-wing anti-propapaganda propaganda. I admit the point that he tries to make in his movies are worthy notations, but they definately are not presented in even a remotely unbiased sense. As a liberal, I look at Moore with the same sense of headaching dread I look at Jerry Fallwell. The two characters are the ying and the yang, both promoting different view points with the same tactics. If you want a more accurate take on a situation, read a hundred page research paper or law review written by a PhD in a reputed university or a by a respected UN specialist or NGO offical... Michael Moore is just as bad for democracy as the people he tries to blame for the problems in the world. Instead of letting people choose on well founded educated arguments, he presents a circus where each of his argument are mostly unfounded on facts or supported by severly contorted facts in an blatant appemt to brain wash more weed smoking collegers in to hippie era liberals.

[skunk]

intensely stupid millionaires who can effortlessly do things to six ounces of frozen rubber with a stick that most of us couldn't duplicate in a million years
WTF?? I think this must be a local cultural reference. Please explain... :confused:

[IJ Reilly]

To say that Moore is a real journalist is somewhat of a stretch. Moore is a left-winged media gureilla waging war with the ultra-conservative religious right-wing. He serves his purpose by dispelling right-wing propaganda with left-wing anti-propapaganda propaganda. I admit the point that he tries to make in his movies are worthy notations, but they definately are not presented in even a remotely unbiased sense. As a liberal, I look at Moore with the same sense of headaching dread I look at Jerry Fallwell. The two characters are the ying and the yang, both promoting different view points with the same tactics. If you want a more accurate take on a situation, read a hundred page research paper or law review written by a PhD in a reputed university or a by a respected UN specialist or NGO offical... Michael Moore is just as bad for democracy as the people he tries to blame for the problems in the world. Instead of letting people choose on well founded educated arguments, he presents a circus where each of his argument are mostly unfounded on facts or supported by severly contorted facts in an blatant appemt to brain wash more weed smoking collegers in to hippie era liberals.

Oh, I don't know. How many conservatives do we see agonizing over Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or anyone else of their ilk, when they baldly lie to their audiences? Hardly any at all. Moore might be an editorialist, not a "documentarian," but that doesn't necessarily put him in the same class you've described. I for one do not see editorializing as being "bad for democracy." What I think is really bad for democracy is opinion masquerading as news.

Say what you will about Moore, but I don't hear him hiding the fact that his films are his opinions. What I'm hearing from the left these days is a sense of embarrassment with a man who expresses a liberal opinion without making excuses for himself. If this keeps on, I'm afraid we're doomed to live with the right wing running the entire government forever, because they have never been afraid to express their opinions in public, even when some of those opinions are pretty darned scary.

[carbonmotion]

Oh, I don't know. How many conservatives do we see agonizing over Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or anyone else of their ilk, when they baldly lie to their audiences? Hardly any at all. Moore might be an editorialist, not a "documentarian," but that doesn't necessarily put him in the same class you've described. I for one do not see editorializing as being "bad for democracy." What I think is really bad for democracy is opinion masquerading as news.

Say what you will about Moore, but I don't hear him hiding the fact that his films are his opinions. What I'm hearing from the left these days is a sense of embarrassment with a man who expresses a liberal opinion without making excuses for himself. If this keeps on, I'm afraid we're doomed to live with the right wing running the entire government forever, because they have never been afraid to express their opinions in public, even when some of those opinions are pretty darned scary.

Well as a political science student, I have to say that while i do agree with what you are saying, however I also want to add this: I think popular opinion would be alot more informed if people sought out more reputable sources then Moore.

[IJ Reilly]

Well as a political science student, I have to say that while i do agree with what you are saying, however I also want to add this: I think popular opinion would be alot more informed if people sought out more reputable sources then Moore.

Well sure, it would be nice if everyone read a good newspaper or watched a credible news program, instead of ingesting a fatty diet of talk radio and cable, but few do. And why is that, I wonder? Could it have anything to do with the right's relentless attack on the media over the last two decades?

I wonder how closely Moore's film will follow the text of Kevin Phillip's recent book on the Bush family's multigenerational ties with Middle Eastern oil interests.

[IJ Reilly]

Along these lines, here's an interesting quote from an interview with Moore that ran in yesterday's LA Times:

One of the ironies of Michael Moore's position, not lost on the man himself, is that though he's one of the nation's preeminent left-wing voices, his personality has earned him as much criticism, if not more, from liberals than conservatives.

"My way of looking at the world comes from a Midwestern populism and a working-class sensibility, and that's always felt uncomfortable to otherwise good liberals who think, 'I wish we had someone more cultured. Why him?' " Moore says about the issue. "What is their problem? Why do they always want to be on the losing end of things? I'm trying to bring the vast majority of Americans along with me.

"People like me have to save liberals from themselves. This is not a job I went looking for; it wasn't in the career guidance I received in high school. I may come off as abrasive, but what am I supposed to do, wait around for the next Tom Daschle to lead us?"

Moore pauses and his eye falls on a magazine with his picture on the cover. "Really, how sad is it that it's left up to this guy with a high school education," he says. "Let this guy go back to Flint and everyone else start doing their job."

http://www.calendarlive.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=cl-et-kenny18may18&section=%2Fmovies

[professor]

Most of the folks I know here in Germany feel that Moore is a nice counterbalance to those millions an millions of your tax dollars used for public opinion control plus all the political pressure the Bush people are applying to sway those of the less-mentally-gifted folks in the U.S. towards acceptance of a world-wide policy of state-sanctioned violence and bloodshed.

[carbonmotion]

Most of the folks I know here in Germany feel that Moore is a nice counterbalance to those millions an millions of your tax dollars used for public opinion control plus all the political pressure the Bush people are applying to sway those of the less-mentally-gifted folks in the U.S. towards acceptance of a world-wide policy of state-sanctioned violence and bloodshed. A liberal who filters down the intellectual mumble jumbo for the common man... yes I see you point and agree--albeit reluctantly. It would be better if people had the capacity to proccess the info themselves.

[pseudobrit]

WTF?? I think this must be a local cultural reference. Please explain... :confused:

It's sacred in one of your dominions. One of the cold ones (http://www.nhl.com).

[zimv20]

I think popular opinion would be alot more informed if people sought out more reputable sources then Moore.
are moore's facts inaccurate?

[carbonmotion]

are moore's facts inaccurate? Um, not so much inaccurate as much as at time he manipulates data to better present his point... as well as not providing reference data as a baseline for the data that he uses.

[zimv20]

Um, not so much inaccurate as much as at time he manipulates data to better present his point... as well as not providing reference data as a baseline for the data that he uses.
and does this manipulation make people uninformed?

[carbonmotion]

and does this manipulation make people uninformed?I would think so.

[zimv20]

I would think so.
i'm not sure i'm following your line of reasoning. i know several documentary filmmakers (and have worked on documentaries, including being a subject), and they're not simply a presentation of facts. the films are always informed by what the filmmaker wants to say. sometimes the filmmaker knows from the start what that message is, sometimes it's shaped by the process.

documentary filmmakers will talk about developing characters and story arcs, much like is done in a work of fiction. i'm not sure at what point the viewer, being presented w/ truth as seen by the filmmaker, becomes uninformed, especially if the facts and footage are genuine.

[IJ Reilly]

I would think so.

I was thinking about what you've been saying, so I decided to sit down with Bowling for Columbine, which I own on DVD. I actually hadn't watched the special features on the back side of the disc yet, so that's what I did. I just finished. One of these features is Moore speaking to a large audience in Denver in February 2003, where he explains some of what moved him to make the film. Whether you agree with him or not, I think it's impossible to walk away from this without seeing the passionate concern he's got for the issues that trouble America today. His mission is to get people thinking, not to be passive. If you can get your hands on a copy of the DVD, I'd suggest you watch this feature. If you did, I think you'd be less inclined to critique Moore for not presenting statistics like he's making movies for Consumer Reports.

[skunk]

Whether you agree with him or not, I think it's impossible to walk away from this without seeing the passionate concern he's got for the issues that trouble America today. His mission is to get people thinking, not to be passive.
Given the huge reality shift required to get people to abandon their cosy, jingoistic views, I'm certainly glad someone with his passion and irrepressibility is taking on the job.

[carbonmotion]

I was thinking about what you've been saying, so I decided to sit down with Bowling for Columbine, which I own on DVD. I actually hadn't watched the special features on the back side of the disc yet, so that's what I did. I just finished. One of these features is Moore speaking to a large audience in Denver in February 2003, where he explains some of what moved him to make the film. Whether you agree with him or not, I think it's impossible to walk away from this without seeing the passionate concern he's got for the issues that trouble America today. His mission is to get people thinking, not to be passive. If you can get your hands on a copy of the DVD, I'd suggest you watch this feature. If you did, I think you'd be less inclined to critique Moore for not presenting statistics like he's making movies for Consumer Reports. Yeah I watched it BFC DVD 5-6 weeks ago. Basically one of the strongest negative impressions that I got was a stretching of the facts as well as a strong super imposition of his own radical left ideology. Better documentarys would be the ones done by PBS's Frontline programs. Um, I'm not sure if I can do a side by side comparision given that I'm kinda busy nowadays ...however I strongly recommend you check one out and make your own judgements.

[carbonmotion]

i'm not sure i'm following your line of reasoning. i know several documentary filmmakers (and have worked on documentaries, including being a subject), and they're not simply a presentation of facts. the films are always informed by what the filmmaker wants to say. sometimes the filmmaker knows from the start what that message is, sometimes it's shaped by the process.

documentary filmmakers will talk about developing characters and story arcs, much like is done in a work of fiction. i'm not sure at what point the viewer, being presented w/ truth as seen by the filmmaker, becomes uninformed, especially if the facts and footage are genuine. Propaganda isnt uninforming, its twisting facts to suit the agenda of the producer. Granted to some extent every media publication is a bit biased, but Moore's documdramas does takes this misinformation to the next level. Watching his interview reminds me of watching Jerry Fallwell speak... Different ideology, but same deamonr toward masking certain parts of the truth and focusing more on emotion than fact. Right now I know my argument is not substantive, so I might watch BFC again tonight and write some points of contention down... maybe

[zimv20]

Better documentarys would be the ones done by PBS's Frontline programs.
it may seem like i'm splitting hairs, but i don't see Frontline as a documentary program, it's a news program.

[skunk]

a strong super imposition of his own radical left ideology.
Your "radical left" is my centre.

[carbonmotion]

it may seem like i'm splitting hairs, but i don't see Frontline as a documentary program, it's a news program.Well... they do call themselves documentary. But one thing that upsets me is I was radical left when I was in highschool, and I took the movie BFC for truth and fact. All it served was for me to get more pissed off at the government and society at large... I did not serve to provoke intellecutal though and analysis among myself and my peers. It wasn't until after a year of college and watching it again that I suddenly realized some very unsaveroy aspects of the video. I'm not saying it has a bad point, I'm just saying the method by which moore uses to prove his point is definately tactics of sensationalism and very biased. It's probably hard to proof what I'm saying with out specific examples, but I urge you to watch the DVD again and try to view it from a different light. After which compare your two experiences (before and after) and then make a decison as to whether the point of the DVD out weighs tactics used. For me it did not. Much like the legal concept of fruit from a bad tree, moore's documentary may make relavent points, but the method of obtainning those points make me extremely uncomfortable.

[carbonmotion]

Your "radical left" is my centre. Well, the most left in the US is the Communism Party... I doubt the CP is your center... if it is, then well... good for you. :(

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah I watched it BFC DVD 5-6 weeks ago. Basically one of the strongest negative impressions that I got was a stretching of the facts as well as a strong super imposition of his own radical left ideology. Better documentarys would be the ones done by PBS's Frontline programs. Um, I'm not sure if I can do a side by side comparision given that I'm kinda busy nowadays ...however I strongly recommend you check one out and make your own judgements.

I watch most of the Frontline documentaries. The point I keep making here is that Moore is not a documentary filmmaker. He's an editorial filmmaker. As for his "radical left ideology," I think you're going to have to be more specific in backing up a charge like that.

[carbonmotion]

I watch most of the Frontline documentaries. The point I keep making here is that Moore is not a documentary filmmaker. He's an editorial filmmaker. As for his "radical left ideology," I think you're going to have to be more specific in backing up a charge like that. Ok, ok, I take the radical left part back... even as an editorial maker, he still pulls to much antics and bends too much facts for my taste: example... when he tries to return the bullets to kmart hq and comes in unanounced and makes a stink --thats media senssationalism. A real professional would've made an appointment and held a press conference where kmart would gladly take back the bullets. What he did was catch people unprepared in hopes of transferring that view of unpreparedness on the part of kmart to his viewers as crassness or uncaring which clearly is not the case.

[IJ Reilly]

Ok, ok, I take the radical left part back... even as an editorial maker, he still pulls to much antics and bends too much facts for my taste: example... when he tries to return the bullets to kmart hq and comes in unanounced and makes a stink --thats media senssationalism. A real professional would've made an appointment and held a press conference where kmart would gladly take back the bullets. What he did was catch people unprepared in hopes of transferring that view of unpreparedness on the part of kmart to his viewers as crassness or uncaring which clearly is not the case.

It can't be called "media sensationalism" because he's not a member of the media. You may not like Moore's approach for whatever reason, but his tactic of marching into one corporate headquarters or another and asking to speak to someone in charge has been his modus operandi since day one. Perhaps you've never seen his first film, "Roger and Me." It was all about trying to get into see Roger Smith, who as CEO of General Motors was making decisions that were devastating Moore's home town of Flint. And yes it was also all about how little the people who ran GM cared about how their actions hurt regular people.

I hope you will also remember from the K-Mart segment of BfC, that as a result, K-Mart decided to stop selling handgun ammo. Moore put that on camera, too, and thanked the company profusely and sincerely for making what he thought was a responsible corporate decision. So what if it was a stunt? So what if he shamed them into it? What's so wrong in any of this?

[skunk]

I hope you will also remember from the K-Mart segment of BfC, that as a result, K-Mart decided to stop selling handgun ammo. Moore put that on camera, too, and thanked the company profusely and sincerely for making what he thought was a responsible corporate decision. So what if it was a stunt? So what if he shamed them into it? What's so wrong in any of this?
It sure beats hand-wringing. Corporations do their best to shield their executives from having to answer real questions. It's very refreshing to see someone cut through all that.

[carbonmotion]

It can't be called "media sensationalism" because he's not a member of the media. You may not like Moore's approach for whatever reason, but his tactic of marching into one corporate headquarters or another and asking to speak to someone in charge has been his modus operandi since day one. Perhaps you've never seen his first film, "Roger and Me." It was all about trying to get into see Roger Smith, who as CEO of General Motors was making decisions that were devastating Moore's home town of Flint. And yes it was also all about how little the people who ran GM cared about how their actions hurt regular people.

I hope you will also remember from the K-Mart segment of BfC, that as a result, K-Mart decided to stop selling handgun ammo. Moore put that on camera, too, and thanked the company profusely and sincerely for making what he thought was a responsible corporate decision. So what if it was a stunt? So what if he shamed them into it? What's so wrong in any of this? I did watch roger and me... I thought that was still problematic but not so much as BfC. You say so what? I say why? Why unnessaryly grip someone unnessaryly by the balls when you can simply make and appointment and have a joint press conference... why? because this way its more gurella, more sensational --it makes it seem like moore is some kind of verbal freedom fighter charging into corprate HQs and forcing them to do what we can't do. Which... it hardly the case --its just moore's preception of the case, a perception that he wants to imprint on his viewers. Michael Moore may suit some segments of the liberal population, but I definately belong to the school that wince when his name is mentioned.

[carbonmotion]

It sure beats hand-wringing. Corporations do their best to shield their executives from having to answer real questions. It's very refreshing to see someone cut through all that. You're having a random guy with cameras waltz in the the corprate HQ and ask people why they sell bullets and guns... well, the answer would be : because its profiable and convient. That is the while truth... they are hardly the root of the problem. As always moore uses his uncanny ability to point at the big guys and shout... that's it ... thats your source of problem.. in reality (from a sociological persecpives) its a lot more complicated that just that... and we just hurt the truth finding proccess if we finger point.

[skunk]

Why unnessaryly grip someone unnessaryly by the balls when you can simply make and appointment and have a joint press conference... why? because this way its more gurella, more sensational --it makes it seem like moore is some kind of verbal freedom fighter charging into corprate HQs and forcing them to do what we can't do.
It's not nearly as revealing to have a prepared statement read out at a press conference as to have a CEO answer a question directly. What it shows - when it gets positive results - is that you CAN (WE CAN) reach the human behind the corporate defences. It just takes a guerilla attack to do it.

I definately belong to the school that wince when his name is mentioned.
It shouldn't make you wince: the questions, uncomfortable as they may be, need answering. We should ALL be asking them.

[carbonmotion]

It's not nearly as revealing to have a prepared statement read out at a press conference as to have a CEO answer a question directly. What it shows - when it gets positive results - is that you CAN (WE CAN) reach the human behind the corporate defences. It just takes a guerilla attack to do it.


It shouldn't make you wince: the questions, uncomfortable as they may be, need answering. We should ALL be asking them. I don't see how reveling it is to see CEOs stumble in front of a camera save for michael to point and laugh and say... "see ! see ! I made these evil f--kers do that!" hardly much better then listening to a prepared statement.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't see how reveling it is to see CEOs stumble in front of a camera save for michael to point and laugh and say... "see ! see ! I made these evil f--kers do that!" hardly much better then listening to a prepared statement.

Does he point and laugh? I've never seen him point or laugh. I'm beginning to think that your real objection to Michael Moore is his effectiveness in making his case, not in the way he makes it. I should have known that the moment you accused him of having a "radical left ideology."

[zimv20]

Much like the legal concept of fruit from a bad tree, moore's documentary may make relavent points, but the method of obtainning those points make me extremely uncomfortable.
okay, your mileage has varied. and that's fine. i'm wondering if you're trying to hold mr. moore to a journalistic standard, but i'd say he's not a journalist. he uses his films to make a point -- largely, that the average american is suffering because of corporate greed. he assumes that at the start and sets out to prove it, which is very unjournalistic.

in that regard, i enjoy his films (and his TV efforts) and feel he not only has something important to say, but he's one of the few who can reach a wide audience. more power to him.

when i want news, i go elsewhere.

[carbonmotion]

okay, your mileage has varied. and that's fine. i'm wondering if you're trying to hold mr. moore to a journalistic standard, but i'd say he's not a journalist. he uses his films to make a point -- largely, that the average american is suffering because of corporate greed. he assumes that at the start and sets out to prove it, which is very unjournalistic.

in that regard, i enjoy his films (and his TV efforts) and feel he not only has something important to say, but he's one of the few who can reach a wide audience. more power to him.

when i want news, i go elsewhere. I will begruging agree with you on this point: when tom green speaks nothing he makes no point but everyone listens. When michael moore speaks, he makes a good point, but not many listen.

[pseudobrit]

okay, your mileage has varied. and that's fine. i'm wondering if you're trying to hold mr. moore to a journalistic standard, but i'd say he's not a journalist. he uses his films to make a point -- largely, that the average american is suffering because of corporate greed. he assumes that at the start and sets out to prove it, which is very unjournalistic.

I found that while Bowling for Columbine at first glance seemed like it was going to be about gun control, I was surprised and quite moved when the underlying and totally non-partisan vein and eventual thesis of the film was struck: why are we as a society, as Americans so violent?

The film didn't provide us with answers.
It made us think for ourselves.
It made us search our souls, individually and as a society.

To that end, I'd say Moore set out (or simply ended up) to make an apolitical film that puts a spotlight on us in places it has never been put on us and show us we're abnormal. If it was his intention to make an anti-gun movie he failed miserably.

Too many people became distracted by sensational individual scenes in the film and missed the thesis. Those are the people who complain irrationaly about the film's obvious political slant.

To the trained analytical viewer, the politics were mere footnotes.

[zimv20]

why are we as a society, as Americans so violent?
it did take us to that answer: fear. mr. moore was able to identify and name the thing around which i had been dancing for some time.

we are a fearful nation. 9/11 did nothing except feed that fear. (my sister called me that morning, saying the apocolypse was upon us [my response: no, it's just a a terrorist attack]).

once one tunes into it, it's amazing to see how much people's motivations and the country's actions are caused by fear.

[LethalWolfe]

Warning, possible rambling ahead. ;)

It was brought up again that Moore isn't a "documentary" filmmaker, but an "editorial" filmmaker. And, I ask again, if Moore isn't a "documentary" filmmaker why does he market, and submit, his movies as documentaries? Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott, and Mel Gibson have all made editorial films motivated by actual events/people but I've never seen JFK, Black Hawk Down, or Braveheart labeled or marketed as a documentary.

Moore sells his movies as documentaries because he wants people to *believe* his movies not just go, "well, that's an interesting point of view that guy has." And this brings me to my real problem with Moore. It's not what he says, but how he says it. His gross manipulation and abuse of his viewers is obscene. As a fellow filmmaker Moore's lack of ethics is sickening and the black-eye he has given legit documentaries, and doc makers, is... Let's just say I'm very dissapointed in Moore in this regard. What Moore did in BFC is the cinematic equivalent of a cop planting evidence on, or beating a confession out of, someone he "knows" is guilty. As private citizens we trust that the powers that be will act in an ethical manor and as viewers we trust that those behind the camera will act in an ethical manor.

Yes documentaries, just like any other story, have story arcs and character development but there is a huge difference, and sometimes a fine line, between honing that arc and fabricating events to make the story "better." Obviously we are all human and cannot be completely objective but the goal of objectivity is still there when it comes to presenting reality. I've been there myself. You have the power to manipulate reality and control what people think. Theres a lot of power in that edit bay. Give me 3 hours and some footage of Mother Teresa and I'll make her look like the anti-christ. Heck, give me 5 minutes on Macrumors and I can show you how off-the-level IJ Reilly is. He said, and I quote, "I'd like to rape and murder the President of United States of America." Post #15 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=33674&highlight=rape);) One has to make the ethical decission not to "create" reality but to work w/in the confines of reality. You have to treat your subjects, and your viewers w/respect, and Moore did neither. Storytelling, especially thru TV/film, is my passion and to see the power of this medium abused in such a way, by Moore or anyone else, is very upseting and disapionting to me.

I am also getting tired of Moore's, "I'm just a blue-collar guy from a blue collar town w/a high school education getting beat on by the man" routine. Moore knows the rules, plays the game, and has made a nice living the past 15 years doing it. But, of course projecting a humble, innocent, working class image is very disarming and makes people less likely to question his words and his work.

Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, I find the basis for some of the support for Moore amusing. It tends to fall into two catagories. Those that say we need Moore's steaming pile of crap to counter Rush's steaming pile of crap, and those that blast Rush for his crap but, because they agree w/Moore, see his pile of crap as fertilizer<sp?>. In either case I think we need to just stop tolerating all the crap. All it does is polarize people. I think people like Rush and Moore are good examples of "too far." By that, I mean, I think if you agree alot w/either side you've strayed too far from the middle (and realistically achievible goals). Some things I agree w/Moore on, and somethings I agree w/Rush on, but, and this is odd, if I find myself agreeing w/either one them too much then I step back and re-evalute my position to make sure I'm not drifting too far away from reality. ;)

IJ Reilly, I hope there are no hard feelings. I picked you out of convience, not malice.


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

it did take us to that answer: fear. mr. moore was able to identify and name the thing around which i had been dancing for some time.

But Moore didn't put it in your lap so neatly, did he? He didn't quite get at why we're afraid. I guess my point should have been that Moore provided us with more questions than answers.

And I don't think anyone could possibly label anti-fearmongering as a liberal or conservative issue, so I fail to see where the people who attack Moore for his "liberal" message get their ideas. Maybe they listen to Rush or read a Boortz website to get a dose of What To Believe.

[carbonmotion]

Warning, possible rambling ahead. ;)

It was brought up again that Moore isn't a "documentary" filmmaker, but an "editorial" filmmaker. And, I ask again, if Moore isn't a "documentary" filmmaker why does he market, and submit, his movies as documentaries? Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott, and Mel Gibson have all made editorial films motivated by actual events/people but I've never seen JFK, Black Hawk Down, or Braveheart labeled or marketed as a documentary.

Moore sells his movies as documentaries because he wants people to *believe* his movies not just go, "well, that's an interesting point of view that guy has." And this brings me to my real problem with Moore. It's not what he says, but how he says it. His gross manipulation and abuse of his viewers is obscene. As a fellow filmmaker Moore's lack of ethics is sickening and the black-eye he has given legit documentaries, and doc makers, is... Let's just say I'm very dissapointed in Moore in this regard. What Moore did in BFC is the cinematic equivalent of a cop planting evidence on, or beating a confession out of, someone he "knows" is guilty. As private citizens we trust that the powers that be will act in an ethical manor and as viewers we trust that those behind the camera will act in an ethical manor.

Yes documentaries, just like any other story, have story arcs and character development but there is a huge difference, and sometimes a fine line, between honing that arc and fabricating events to make the story "better." Obviously we are all human and cannot be completely objective but the goal of objectivity is still there when it comes to presenting reality. I've been there myself. You have the power to manipulate reality and control what people think. Theres a lot of power in that edit bay. Give me 3 hours and some footage of Mother Teresa and I'll make her look like the anti-christ. Heck, give me 5 minutes on Macrumors and I can show you how off-the-level IJ Reilly is. He said, and I quote, "I'd like to rape and murder the President of United States of America." Post #15 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=33674&highlight=rape);) One has to make the ethical decission not to "create" reality but to work w/in the confines of reality. You have to treat your subjects, and your viewers w/respect, and Moore did neither. Storytelling, especially thru TV/film, is my passion and to see the power of this medium abused in such a way, by Moore or anyone else, is very upseting and disapionting to me.

I am also getting tired of Moore's, "I'm just a blue-collar guy from a blue collar town w/a high school education getting beat on by the man" routine. Moore knows the rules, plays the game, and has made a nice living the past 15 years doing it. But, of course projecting a humble, innocent, working class image is very disarming and makes people less likely to question his words and his work.

Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, I find the basis for some of the support for Moore amusing. It tends to fall into two catagories. Those that say we need Moore's steaming pile of crap to counter Rush's steaming pile of crap, and those that blast Rush for his crap but, because they agree w/Moore, see his pile of crap as fertilizer<sp?>. In either case I think we need to just stop tolerating all the crap. All it does is polarize people. I think people like Rush and Moore are good examples of "too far." By that, I mean, I think if you agree alot w/either side you've strayed too far from the middle (and realistically achievible goals). Some things I agree w/Moore on, and somethings I agree w/Rush on, but, and this is odd, if I find myself agreeing w/either one them too much then I step back and re-evalute my position to make sure I'm not drifting too far away from reality. ;)

IJ Reilly, I hope there are no hard feelings. I picked you out of convience, not malice.


Lethal so, pretty much what i said... except longer :) :cool: :D :eek: :p ;)

[zimv20]

He didn't quite get at why we're afraid. [...] Moore provided us with more questions than answers.

agreed

[zimv20]

It was brought up again that Moore isn't a "documentary" filmmaker, but an "editorial" filmmaker. And, I ask again, if Moore isn't a "documentary" filmmaker why does he market, and submit, his movies as documentaries?
i'm wondering why it's so important to categorize his films. they are what they are, maybe they're just simply unique.

people have tried for years to categorize andy kaufman, but in the end he was just andy kaufman, and he did what he did. some people liked it (i did), some people didn't.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ Reilly, I hope there are no hard feelings. I picked you out of convience, not malice.

None taken. But I too wonder why the categorization issue is so important to you. A movie without a script and actors is a documentary, according to the Academy, at least. They haven't got one for editorials. So what? It only goes to show how infrequently this kind of film is made, nothing more (pun intended).

Also, I notice in your lengthy characterization of Moore and why you don't like him personally, you have made not one single reference to something he might have said that was factually incorrect. I should think that would be the most basic predicate for concluding that his work is "a pile of crap."

[LethalWolfe]

i'm wondering why it's so important to categorize his films. they are what they are, maybe they're just simply unique.

people have tried for years to categorize andy kaufman, but in the end he was just andy kaufman, and he did what he did. some people liked it (i did), some people didn't.


I don't care if he, or anyone else (I'm not one who said he made "editorials") calls his films edidocumooredramedies. I just believe that he took too much creative license with reality and was, in a word, irrisponsible. Fiction, Non-fiction, and the line between them is what I care about. Like I said before I believe Moore abused his subjects and abused his audience. I dunno. Maybe I'm just too cautious. Too careful when I edit. To aware of the fact that I have absolute control over my audience and how my subjects will be percieved. To aware of the trust and inherent wanting to believe that lives in my audience.

But who knows. As Pseudobrit pointed out what lies beneath BfC's sensationalistic skin might be something different entirely. Maybe Moore is just kickin' back laughin' at everyone... those that have rallied behind his film as well as those that have railed against it.


Lethal

[Apmonia]

The French filmmaker Jean-Luc Goddard once wrote: "Don't make political films, make films political." Michael Moore must have read this somewhere when he decided to create movies because he is not a "documentary" or "editorialist" filmmaker, he is, simply, a filmmaker. The only difference between Mr. Moore and other filmmakers is that he tells us what his political views are. Unfortunately this leads to a misunderstanding of what his films are about.

In the first few minutes of Bowling for Columbine, we find out that Mr. Moore was himself an avid and skilled shooter so he isn't really asking the question about violence towards anyone but himself. The Columbine shootings are just a backdrop for him as a filmmaker. (I use the term filmmaker here in place of director. Directors have total control of their work: themes and ultimate conclusions are "directed" by them. Mr. Moore does not do this.) The shootings might have triggered him to reflect upon his own violent nature and why he does this, so he leaves the viewer information about this and then lets us decide our own outcome. If that outcome is not the same as his, then so be it, however, saying that he is trying to further his political agenda is way off base. Questions have nothing to do with political agenda, since they lie in the realm of truth.

Apmonia

[LethalWolfe]

None taken. But I too wonder why the categorization issue is so important to you. A movie without a script and actors is a documentary, according to the Academy, at least. They haven't got one for editorials. So what? It only goes to show how infrequently this kind of film is made, nothing more (pun intended).

Also, I notice in your lengthy characterization of Moore and why you don't like him personally, you have made not one single reference to something he might have said that was factually incorrect. I should think that would be the most basic predicate for concluding that his work is "a pile of crap."


Your "quote" I used was factually correct. You can't deny you said those words. But facts are dangerous w/o context. Context is the difference between murder and self-defense. And all it takes is a little nip & tuck and I have IJ Reilly saying he wants to do bad, bad things to W. Factually correct? Yes. An accurate and fair representation of reality? Not really.

My biggest objection to BfC is Moore's manipulation. Like I said, give me some stock footage of Mother Teresa and in a few hours I have her looking like the anti-christ. All of the footage would be real. But would it be an accurate representation of reality?

The KKK/NRA cartoon, while amusing in parts, definitely leaves the disctinct impression that the NRA was founded by former Klan members and/or was a parallel organization to the Klan. There is also severe splicing done to one of Heston's speeches add to that specific news footage, and even a clip from a different Heston speech, the speech, as heard in BfC is completely different than the one that was acutally given (and because of the intercut news clips it has a completely different overtone). Basically Moore did to Heston what I did to you. Is it factually correct? Yes. Is it an accurate representation of reality? No. Remember the edited version of W's State of the Union address (I believe) Post 9/11 that was on the 'net? It doesn't take much complete change what was said. Take out a word here, add a word there, cut to the crowd to cover up the edit. Cut to a wide shot if the lips don't match the words you hear... It's easy, it's dangerous, and it's a slipperly slope.

It's those kinds of things that I'm talking about. I could probably go on but I need to re-watch BfC (it's been a while) but more importantly I need to sleep. ;)


Lethal

[skunk]

All of the footage would be real. But would it be an accurate representation of reality?
.....
There is also severe splicing done to one of Heston's speeches add to that specific news footage, and even a clip from a different Heston speech, the speech, as heard in BfC is completely different than the one that was acutally given (and because of the intercut news clips it has a completely different overtone). Basically Moore did to Heston what I did to you. Is it factually correct? Yes. Is it an accurate representation of reality? No.
.....
It's those kinds of things that I'm talking about. I could probably go on but I need to re-watch BfC (it's been a while) but more importantly I need to sleep. ;)

Lethal
Sounds a lot like the average news bulletin to me.

[IJ Reilly]

Questions have nothing to do with political agenda, since they lie in the realm of truth.

Thank you for getting it. I didn't find any answers in Bowling for Columbine. All I got out of it was one, very troubling question, which I am thinking about still. I have to conclude at this point that some people were sufficiently disturbed by the question Moore asked in the film to rail against the very fact that it was made. Perhaps they're even more disturbed by this question then are the people who admit to being affected by it.

[IJ Reilly]

Your "quote" I used was factually correct. You can't deny you said those words. But facts are dangerous w/o context. Context is the difference between murder and self-defense. And all it takes is a little nip & tuck and I have IJ Reilly saying he wants to do bad, bad things to W. Factually correct? Yes. An accurate and fair representation of reality? Not really.

My biggest objection to BfC is Moore's manipulation. Like I said, give me some stock footage of Mother Teresa and in a few hours I have her looking like the anti-christ. All of the footage would be real. But would it be an accurate representation of reality?

The KKK/NRA cartoon, while amusing in parts, definitely leaves the disctinct impression that the NRA was founded by former Klan members and/or was a parallel organization to the Klan. There is also severe splicing done to one of Heston's speeches add to that specific news footage, and even a clip from a different Heston speech, the speech, as heard in BfC is completely different than the one that was acutally given (and because of the intercut news clips it has a completely different overtone). Basically Moore did to Heston what I did to you. Is it factually correct? Yes. Is it an accurate representation of reality? No. Remember the edited version of W's State of the Union address (I believe) Post 9/11 that was on the 'net? It doesn't take much complete change what was said. Take out a word here, add a word there, cut to the crowd to cover up the edit. Cut to a wide shot if the lips don't match the words you hear... It's easy, it's dangerous, and it's a slipperly slope.

It's those kinds of things that I'm talking about. I could probably go on but I need to re-watch BfC (it's been a while) but more importantly I need to sleep.

Yeah, I think you need to watch it again, and perhaps look for something different this time. I didn't get what you did out of the cartoon segment. What I got out of it was a reference to the vector of violence and fear that, the filmmaker is arguing, runs through our society. Agree with this premise or not, that was the point, not the one you surmise. As for the Heston footage, I can't speak for the cutting, but I think the point was that the NRA thought it appropriate to hold rallies in the shadows of two violent tragedies involving firearms. This happened. Moore thinks it was kind of creepy and insensitive for them to do that, and possibly an indicator of the way we try to avoid making eye-contact with the problem of violence in our culture.

[Apmonia]

My biggest objection to BfC is Moore's manipulation. Like I said, give me some stock footage of Mother Teresa and in a few hours I have her looking like the anti-christ. All of the footage would be real. But would it be an accurate representation of reality?

The KKK/NRA cartoon, while amusing in parts, definitely leaves the disctinct impression that the NRA was founded by former Klan members and/or was a parallel organization to the Klan. There is also severe splicing done to one of Heston's speeches add to that specific news footage, and even a clip from a different Heston speech, the speech, as heard in BfC is completely different than the one that was acutally given (and because of the intercut news clips it has a completely different overtone). Basically Moore did to Heston what I did to you. Is it factually correct? Yes. Is it an accurate representation of reality? No. Remember the edited version of W's State of the Union address (I believe) Post 9/11 that was on the 'net? It doesn't take much complete change what was said. Take out a word here, add a word there, cut to the crowd to cover up the edit. Cut to a wide shot if the lips don't match the words you hear... It's easy, it's dangerous, and it's a slipperly slope.

It's those kinds of things that I'm talking about. I could probably go on but I need to re-watch BfC (it's been a while) but more importantly I need to sleep. ;)


Lethal

Lethal-
I agree with what you are saying about the editing process, things can easily be manipulated however, that is why we can make up our own minds. The main objection to Mr. Moore's new film thus far has been that he is not a good editor/filmmaker. I do not see it that way. He gives his viewers the chance to think, which is a lot more than some of the directors out there now (Michael Bay anyone?).
All forms of art have been lacking in the wake of 9/11, some stifled and others just plain scared. Perhaps his movie is about that, or something totally different, but I applaud him for having the courage to bring something like this the art world. And if the film isn't that good or just plain wrong, it might get others off their collective behinds to start creating again. That is why I don't believe that the "facts" have much to do with this argument, since all "facts" depend on the lens in which you view them. If walk into his film believing that President Bush did not have a hand in the attacks, then he won't change your mind. And he shouldn't. But maybe he will get you thinking about something altogether different. That should the hope for any good filmmaker.

Apmonia

[LethalWolfe]

Yeah, I think you need to watch it again, and perhaps look for something different this time. I didn't get what you did out of the cartoon segment. What I got out of it was a reference to the vector of violence and fear that, the filmmaker is arguing, runs through our society. Agree with this premise or not, that was the point, not the one you surmise. As for the Heston footage, I can't speak for the cutting, but I think the point was that the NRA thought it appropriate to hold rallies in the shadows of two violent tragedies involving firearms. This happened. Moore thinks it was kind of creepy and insensitive for them to do that, and possibly an indicator of the way we try to avoid making eye-contact with the problem of violence in our culture.


And on the flip side I don't see how you can watch the cartoon and not get that idea out of it.

What exactly was creepy and/or insensitive about the NRA meeting in Denver? Was it:
1. The fact that holding that years annual member meeting in Denver was years in the planning.
2. The fact that Heston cancelled all of the rallies, dinners, and other special events that typical NRA gatherings have in response to the shootings and only held the annual voters meeting.
3. The fact that the meeting in Denver was the annual members voting meeting and, by law, the NRA was not allowed to cancel it.
4. The fact that Heston made his "cold, dead hands" comment. Oh, wait, that's right. Heston never said that in Denver. That clip was taken from an NRA meeting in NC a year later.

Speech in BfC vs. Speech Heston actually gave. (http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html)

What exactly was creepy and/or insensitive about the NRA meeting in Flint, MI? Was it:
1. The fact there was no NRA meeting in Flint, MI after that shooting death.
2. The fact that footage of Heston was from a "get out the vote" rally in Flint that happend 8 months after the shooting.

Occasional jab/seething comment aside I think this site is well thought out and well documented. Link (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)


Apmonia,
How are you supposed to make up your own mind when you don't even know what really happened? Bay makes popcorn action flix and really bad WWII movies, but comparing him to Moore is unfair. It's apples and oranges. I don't think Bay could direct something of substance nor could Moore direct an action sequence. That said, I think I'd rather watch a Moore "marathon" on TV than a Bay marathon.

I think the hope of any good filmmaker, any good storyteller, is to tell an interesting tale and engage their audience on an emotional level. A well done, mindless summer blockbuster is as worth while as a well done, art house social commentary. Well all need to work and we all need to play (if you follow my meaning).


For a place that is so skeptical I'm always surprised how unskeptical people are when it comes news/events/people/opinions that are in-line with their beliefs (this is a unilateral comment direted at the whole P&W forum, not a single poster or single group of posters). Maybe if we all were a bit more skeptical of "our side" and a bit less skeptical of "their side" everyone would get along a bit better.

Not to cut and run but I think it's time to agree to disagree. I did the BfC back-and-forth years ago (as I'm sure others here did as well) and I really don't feel like doing it again. If something interesting or thought provoking is posted I'll be back. But if it's just the same-old-same-old I won't.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

I see, he balances Moore's editorial opinions with his own (much of his "debunking" is in fact, set in as carefully framed statements of his viewpoints as Moore's are on film). Which is fine. He's entitled. Perhaps the difference between what you and I believe is that I believe both people are entitled to express their opinions, without having to be labeled as "dishonest."

[skunk]

Michael Moore's film has just won the Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival, the first "documentary" to do so since 1956.

[trebblekicked]

lethal-
interesting page. the guy brings up some interesting points. looks like i'll have to spend some time watching the film again. how did you come across this page?

[Voltron]

Michael Moore's film has just won the Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival, the first "documentary" to do so since 1956.
Imagine that an anti-Bush film winning a prize in a French film festival.:rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Michael Moore's film has just won the Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival, the first "documentary" to do so since 1956.
yeah, i was just coming here to post that. electrons must go slower over the atlantic...

[skunk]

yeah, i was just coming here to post that. electrons must go slower over the atlantic...
They have to get fingerprinted at Immigration these days. You never know with those electrons. :rolleyes:

[numediaman]

Here's the story from the NYT web site:

May 22, 2004

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Top Award at Cannes
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CANNES, France (AP) -- American filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," a scathing indictment of White House actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, won the top prize Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" was the first documentary to win Cannes' prestigious Palme d'Or since Jacques Cousteau's "The Silent World" in 1956.

"What have you done? I'm completely overwhelmed by this. Merci," Moore said after getting a standing ovation from the Cannes crowd.

The grand prize, the festival's second-place honor, went to South Korean filmmaker Park Chan-wook's "Old Boy," a blood-soaked thriller about a man out for revenge after years of inexplicable imprisonment.

Moore was momentarily flabbergasted when he took the stage to accept the award, a big difference from his fiery speech against President Bush after winning the best-documentary Academy Award for 2002's "Bowling for Columbine."

"You have to understand, the last time I was on an awards stage, in Hollywood, all hell broke loose," Moore said.

The best-actress award went to Maggie Cheung for her role in "Clean" as a junkie trying to straighten out her life and regain custody of her young son after her rock-star boyfriend dies of a drug overdose.

Fourteen-year-old Yagira Yuuya was named best actor for the Japanese film "Nobody Knows," in which he plays the eldest of four sibling raised in isolation, who must take charge of the family when their mother leaves.

The directing and writing prizes went to French filmmakers. Tony Gatlif won the directing honor for "Exiles," his road-trip about a couple on a sensual journey from France to Algeria.

Agnes Jaoui and her romantic partner, Jean-Pierre Bacri, won the screenplay award for "Look at Me," their study in self-image centering on an overweight young woman who feels neglected by loved ones. Jaoui and Bacri also co-star.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top award from sharply divided Cannes moviegoers, who found a solid crop of good movies among the 19 entries in the festival's main competition but no great ones that rose to front-runner status.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002.

Some critics speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.

With Moore's customary blend of humor and horror, "Fahrenheit 9/11" accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans' support for the Iraq war.

Moore appears on-screen far less in "Fahrenheit 9/11" than in "Bowling for Columbine" or his other documentaries. The film relies largely on interviews, footage of U.S. soldiers and war victims in Iraq, and archival footage of Bush.

Just back in Cannes after his daughter's college graduation in the United States, Moore dedicated the award to "my daughter and to all the children in America and Iraq and throughout the world who suffered through our actions."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" made waves in the weeks leading up to Cannes after the Walt Disney Co. refused to let subsidiary Miramax release the film in the United States because of its political content. Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein are negotiating to buy back the film and find another distributor, with hopes of landing it in theaters by Fourth of July weekend.

[zimv20]

The best-actress award went to Maggie Cheung for her role in "Clean"
i love me some maggie cheung

[carbonmotion]

Is Farenheit 911 out?

[Flowbee]

Imagine that an anti-Bush film winning a prize in a French film festival.:rolleyes:

There was only one French person on the Jury that awarded the prizes. Four were American, including the head of the jury, Quentin Tarantino.

From the New York Times:

He also said that Mr. Tarantino had assured him that the political message of "Fahrenheit 9/11" did not influence the jury's decision. "On this jury we have different politics," he quoted Mr. Tarantino as saying. It is also a film financed by Miramax, which distributes Mr. Tarantino's movies.

Mr. Moore noted that four of the nine jurors were American: Mr. Tarantino, Kathleen Turner, the director Jerry Schatzberg, and the Haitian-born novelist Edwidge Danticat. "I fully expect the Fox News Channel and other right-wing media to portray this as an award from the French," Mr. Moore said. Only one juror, the actress Emanuelle Béart, is a French citizen.

"If you want to add Tilda," he said referring to the British actress Tilda Swinton, "then you could say that more than half came from the coalition of the willing." (The rest of the panel was made up of Benoit Poelvoode, a Belgian actor; Peter von Bagh, a Finnish critic; and the Hong Kong director Tsui Hark.)

[IJ Reilly]

There was only one French person on the Jury that awarded the prizes. Four were American, including the head of the jury, Quentin Tarantino.

It must be something in the water.

[Voltron]

I see, he balances Moore's editorial opinions with his own (much of his "debunking" is in fact, set in as carefully framed statements of his viewpoints as Moore's are on film). Which is fine. He's entitled. Perhaps the difference between what you and I believe is that I believe both people are entitled to express their opinions, without having to be labeled as "dishonest."
Even when they are being dishonest?


Pundit: Michael Moore faked interview
Fred Barnes says account in best-seller never happened
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38632

He stated his opinion with his own mouth on TV that he never had an interview with Moore. This is just one of the lies. True a small one but there are bigger ones that others have already posted.

[Sayhey]

Miramax has bought the rights back from Disney, so it looks good for a distribution this summer!

Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has moved a step closer to being released in US cinemas after the rights were bought by studio Miramax.

The company's founders, Harvey and Bob Weinstein, personally bought back the rights from parent company Disney, which had refused to distribute it.

The film alleges connections between US President George W Bush and top Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens.

Miramax had funded Moore's film, which won this year's Palme D'Or at Cannes.

The Weinsteins have said they will arrange for cinema and home video distribution of the film, which could be on screen by mid-summer.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3759723.stm)

[numediaman]

Time to go to the movies:

Trailer (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/)

[Flowbee]

Time to go to the movies:

Trailer (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/)

Arg! Can't get the Quicktime trailers to work. Had to watch to watch it in Windows Media.

[IJ Reilly]

Arg! Can't get the Quicktime trailers to work. Had to watch to watch it in Windows Media.

According to the site, the trailer is temporarily down "due to overwhelming demand."

[Waluigi]

Apple now has a quicktime version of the trailer for this movie on their web site (http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/).

--Waluigi

[Chip NoVaMac]

Apple now has a quicktime version of the trailer for this movie on their web site (http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/).

--Waluigi

Thanks, it really looks like a powerful movie. Blood pressures on both sides of the aisle will rise on this one.

[numediaman]

I can't wait for Slyhunter's review.

(VARIETY Photo) - Director Michael Moore's controversial anti-Iraq war film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' won a standing ovation on June 8, 2004, from an audience of film industry professionals attending its West Coast debut at Academy Award headquarters in Los Angeles. Moore is shown holding the Palme d'Or award for 'Fahrenheit 9/11' during a special red carpet arrival in his honor at the 57th Cannes Film Festival, May 23, 2004, in Cannes, France. Photo by Eric Gaillard/Reuters (Wed 09 Jun, 07:00 AM)

[IJ Reilly]

This is going to be interesting...

Film and Election Politics Cross in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

The marketing of a scathing movie about Bush resembles a race for the White House.

By Michael Finnegan
Times Staff Writer

June 11, 2004

There are movie campaigns and there are presidential campaigns, and usually you can tell the difference. One features a red carpet, the other a war room.

But "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's scathing new documentary about President Bush, has both.

Its release later this month appears to mark the first time that a film slamming a major presidential candidate has opened on screens across the nation in the final months of a campaign. At the same time, the movie is producing a global publicity extravaganza for Moore and Miramax Film founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who bought the film after Walt Disney Co. refused to let Miramax release it.

The scramble to bring the dark, often satirical film to U.S. movie screens is blending Hollywood and presidential politics in ways never seen in a race for the White House. While the filmmakers deny any overt effort to promote the candidacy of the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, their efforts fall clearly in sync with the campaign to unseat Bush.

To anticipate and fend off the criticism that already is brewing, Moore has set up a "war room" populated by former Clinton White House operatives plotting swift counterattacks on Bush supporters who question the film's credibility.

...

In the case of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the mounting publicity has followed a dream script. It grabbed the media spotlight last month with a New York Times story revealing that Disney was blocking its Miramax division from distributing Moore's film. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel (whose brother, an Illinois congressman, is another former Clinton White House operative), charged in that story that Disney was concerned that releasing the movie would imperil tax breaks for the company's ventures in Florida, where Bush's brother is governor. Disney denied it, and said it had informed Miramax a year ago that it would be barred from releasing the film because of its partisan nature.

The story broke just before the Cannes Film Festival, where the documentary was a media and critical darling. It went on to win the festival's top prize, the Palme d'Or, and several weeks later, the Weinsteins purchased the movie themselves and lined up new distributors.

...

How much influence the film might have is a matter of dispute. Bill Carrick, a Democratic campaign consultant, said its effect would be negligible. He likened it to the talk radio shows of Rush Limbaugh and other hosts whose listeners hold firm, unyielding opinions on Bush.

"I don't think it's a place where you're going to persuade anybody — a Michael Moore movie," Carrick said. "The audience is too small. It's a self-selecting group of people."

But in an election where turning out core constituencies could be crucial to both Kerry and Bush, others see the film as a potent tool for motivating Democrats — especially since Republicans are typically more reliable for showing up at the polls.

"Feeling motivated, to the extent you make that extra effort to vote on your way home from work — that matters," said Thomas Hollihan, a communications professor at USC's Annenberg School for Communication.

That potential is not lost on Moore, who plans to offer ticket discounts and prizes to newly registered voters who see the film or visit his Web site. "If it can encourage the people who belong to the largest political party in America, the non-voter party, to leave that party behind and do the very minimum of what every citizen should do on Nov. 2, then I hope that will be seen as a significant contribution to this country," he said.

A main target of the film is younger voters, who tend to turn out in low numbers. Studies have shown that younger voters increasingly get election information from non-traditional campaign media, such as late-night television comedy shows and the Internet.

"For younger people, who may or may not be all that interested in politics, these entertainment formats are a key way to bring them into the political discussion," said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at Mary Washington College in Virginia.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-et-moore11jun11,1,1854646.story

[numediaman]

Director Moore to focus on Blair

Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has said he intends to follow up his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 with a film about Tony Blair.

Director Moore wants to take a closer look at the British prime minister's role in backing the war in Iraq.

In a recent interview he said he holds Blair "more responsible for this war in Iraq than I do George W Bush".

"Blair knows better. Blair is not an idiot. What is he doing hanging around this guy?" Moore told Reuters . . .

. . . Moore told Reuters he took the decision to ignore Blair's involvement in the war on Iraq while making Fahrenheit 9/11, choosing instead to focus solely on President Bush.

"I struggled with it because, I think, what I decided is that I need to make a separate film about Blair. I need to do something about Blair and Britain."

The film-maker likened the relationship between staunch allies Blair and Bush, to that of an older sibling to his younger brother.

Meanwhile, Moore is preparing for the onslaught of public criticism that could greet Fahrenheit 9/11 when it is released in the US later this month.

Political advisers

He has hired Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani, two former political advisers to Bill Clinton and Al Gore, to respond to claims that Moore doctored the facts.

"You come at me with anything, we come back with the truth," said Moore.

Moore, who makes no secret of his anti-Bush stance, has said he hopes Americans see Fahrenheit 9/11 before they vote in this year's presidential election.

However, he has yet to give his support to presumed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, adding that if Kerry were elected "I'd keep my eye on him, too".


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/3800665.stm

[Voltron]

"I struggled with it because, I think, what I decided is that I need to make a separate film about Blair. I need to do something about Blair and Britain."

I didn't realize it was his job to save all of us from Blair and Bush.

[screener]

I didn't realize it was his job to save all of us from Blair and Bush.

Just doing his part, Thanks Mr. Moore.

[Flowbee]

From MichaelMoore.com (http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php):

Some news organizations are reporting that Michael is making a new film on Tony Blair. This is not true. Let us repeat - THIS IS NOT TRUE. Michael made a joke about his next film being about Tony Blair in an interview and, apparently, it was taken seriously.

[IJ Reilly]

Meanwhile, back at the funny farm, Bill O'Reilly analogized all of the celebrities who turned out for the premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11 as Nazis:

So who turns out for the screening of this movie last night? You ready? Now, here are the celebrities that turn out. Here are the people who would turn out to see Josef Goebbels convince you that Poland invaded the Third Reich. It's the same thing, by the way. Propaganda is propaganda. OK?
...
No, no, no, but I think it's more organized than ever before and I think they have more access to the media than ever before because the celebrity media, as I said, is so profitable and pervasive. So now it becomes a Leni Riefenstahl Third Reich propaganda proposition where what they say and do is put in everybody's face.

The man is becoming seriously unhinged.

[takao]

Meanwhile, back at the funny farm, Bill O'Reilly analogized all of the celebrities who turned out for the premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11 as Nazis:

The man is becoming seriously unhinged.

it is kinda ironic to use that comparisation since hitler stated from the beginning that the polish army attacked germany first,is a threat to germany and called it "police action" :rolleyes:

isn't that already ironic enough.....

[Sayhey]

Meanwhile, back at the funny farm, Bill O'Reilly analogized all of the celebrities who turned out for the premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11 as Nazis:



The man is becoming seriously unhinged.

It amazes me that O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh can go on and on about Moveon.org, blaming them for comparisons made of Bush and Hitler (not made by the organization and removed from their website immediately), but they think nothing is wrong with comparing Moore and anyone who would see his film with Nazis and accusing them of being dupes of Goebbels-like propaganda. All of this without any substantive criticism of the film. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

[IJ Reilly]

It amazes me that O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh can go on and on about Moveon.org, blaming them for comparisons made of Bush and Hitler (not made by the organization and removed from their website immediately), but they think nothing is wrong with comparing Moore and anyone who would see his film with Nazis and accusing them of being dupes of Goebbels-like propaganda. All of this without any substantive criticism of the film. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

They can't substantially criticize the film because that would at a minimum require actually seeing it. Character assassination is so much easier -- no heavy lifting at all -- and their fans just lap it up. Speaking of which, where are all the staunch O'Reilly fans now? Where are the people who've told us how fair and unbiassed the man is?

[numediaman]

I think Murdoch is going to fire this guy's ass ASAP:

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovation

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

By Roger Friedman, Fox News

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theater premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host/writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element.

But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

[numediaman]

Think I'll keep this thread up towards the top by mentioning another new film: Gunners Palace (http://www.gunnerpalace.com/)

Here are two links to the trailers (be warned, they tend to load slowly -- but not too bad on a high-speed connection):

Rap Trailer (http://movies06.archive.org/1/movies/GunnerPalace_rap/GunnerPalace_rap1.mov)
Star Spangled Banner Trailer (http://movies06.archive.org/1/movies/GunnerPalace/GunnerPalace2.mov)

[Thomas Veil]

Oh yeah, the conservative War Machine has mobilized against Moore's film. Last night, Scarborough Country on MS-NBC did a shameless hatchet job on "Fahrenheit 9/11", outright accusing Michael Moore of a lot of lies. (Although they supered it as "Moore lies?" with a question mark, to give the ersatz impression that they were being fair.) They pitted one guy in favor of Moore's film against three others (including Scarborough, who kept asking leading questions about Moore's supposed lack of integrity).

Anybody wanna tell me about the liberal media again? :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

A few days ago Scarborough referred to Moore as a "Canadian filmmaker." Apparently Michigan has seceded from the nation.

[skunk]

A few days ago Scarborough referred to Moore as a "Canadian filmmaker."
Ooted at last! ;)

[screener]

Ooted at last! ;)

Ooted? As a Canadian I'm insulted, ya know?

[Thomas Veil]

Ooted at last! ;)
:D

[Voltron]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.

"He didn't ask my permission," Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. "That's not his novel, that's not his title, so he shouldn't have done it."

"Fahrenheit 451" takes its title from the temperature at which books burn. Moore has called "Fahrenheit 9/11" the "temperature at which freedom burns."

Bradbury, who hadn't seen the movie, said he called Moore's company six months ago to protest and was promised Moore would call back.

He finally got that call last Saturday, Bradbury said, adding Moore told him he was "embarrassed."

"He suddenly realized he's let too much time go by," the author said by phone from his home in Los Angeles' Cheviot Hills section.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html

http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_ukliam2.gif

[Neserk]

I saw part of MM interview on NBC or ABC this morning. Interesting Man.

[Chip NoVaMac]

http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_ukliam2.gif

Not quite sure if he will succeed. Someone better versed on copy-write law might be better able to answer that.

Much like someone doing a movie named Forest Stumper.

[IJ Reilly]

Not quite sure if he will succeed. Someone better versed on copy-write law might be better able to answer that.

Much like someone doing a movie named Forest Stumper.

I presume you're talking about the Ray Bradbury thing. He's only asking for an apology, and I expect he'll get it. Probably the lawyers are trying figure out how Moore can do it without implying that he violated a copyright, which I very much doubt he did.

[LethalWolfe]

I presume you're talking about the Ray Bradbury thing. He's only asking for an apology, and I expect he'll get it. Probably the lawyers are trying figure out how Moore can do it without implying that he violated a copyright, which I very much doubt he did.

From what I've heard/read Bradbury wants an apology *and* Moore to stop using the title. I'm not exactly sure what the legalities are here. Parody and satire is one thing, but Moore's film is neither. On the other hand "Fahrenheit 9/11 the temperature at which freedom burns" is not the title of Bardbury's book, but it is an obvious rip off...er... homage to it. ;)

I think Moore is between a rock and a hard place. It's not a good idea to change the title of the film at this stage. And it's not a good idea to make enemies of people like Bradbury.

Legalities aside, the proper thing to do would have been to ask permission before hand. But Moore did not probably because he knew what the answer would be.

But as the saying 'round these parts goes. It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

From what I've heard/read Bradbury wants an apology *and* Moore to stop using the title.

I haven't read or heard that anywhere. I did read that they're working on a deal where Moore can symbolically "give him his book back."

The use of the phrase "the temperature where freedom burns" can't be a copyright violation because it's not part of the book title. In fact, if memory serves, it isn't even in the book.

[zimv20]

afaik, mr. bradbury has a legal case only if:
1. he can demonstrate that people confuse the two works, and
2. he can demonstrate damages because of it

[LethalWolfe]

I haven't read or heard that anywhere. I did read that they're working on a deal where Moore can symbolically "give him his book back."

The use of the phrase "the temperature where freedom burns" can't be a copyright violation because it's not part of the book title. In fact, if memory serves, it isn't even in the book.

"The temperature at which books burns" appears on the cover of some printings.

Obviously it's open to interuptitation but I think the symbolic giving back of the book is Moore stopping the use of the title (i.e. Moore stops using the title thus he "gives it back" to Bradbury). Otherwise I don't know why Bradbury would be threatening/contemplating legal action.


Lethal

[skunk]

interuptitation
Interesting word. Definition, please. :rolleyes:

[wwworry]

peoples fingers go the way they want sometimes.

I think Moore should promote the book at the end of the movie.

[IJ Reilly]

"The temperature at which books burns" appears on the cover of some printings.

Obviously it's open to interuptitation but I think the symbolic giving back of the book is Moore stopping the use of the title (i.e. Moore stops using the title thus he "gives it back" to Bradbury). Otherwise I don't know why Bradbury would be threatening/contemplating legal action.

It's not part of the book's title.

I haven't seen any references to Bradbury threatening legal action. He's asking for an apology.

Bradbury said he hopes "to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

The author of more than 30 books and 700 short stories said that could be done by holding a ceremony at which Moore would arrive with a "metaphorical copy of my book and give it back to me."


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bradbury19jun19,1,4239259.story

[skunk]

The author of more than 30 books and 700 short stories said that could be done by holding a ceremony at which Moore would arrive with a "metaphorical copy of my book and give it back to me."

Now THAT could be a gas. :) Metaphorically speaking.

[LethalWolfe]

It's not part of the book's title.

I haven't seen any references to Bradbury threatening legal action. He's asking for an apology.

Bradbury said he hopes "to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

The author of more than 30 books and 700 short stories said that could be done by holding a ceremony at which Moore would arrive with a "metaphorical copy of my book and give it back to me."


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bradbury19jun19,1,4239259.story

I didn't say it was part of the books title. You said you don't remember the phrase even appearing in the book and I was just pointing that it appears on the cover of some books. It's been a couple of years sense the last time I read it but, IIRC, the phrase appears in the book when we first learn about the firefighters. I could be wrong though. Like I said, it's been a few years sense I last read it.

On the local news I heard that Bradbury wants it renamed, and below are a couple of links. Also in these links, plus the one posted by Voltron a few posts up, it says that Bradbury hopes it doesn't come to legal action. I can't imagine Bradbury threatening legal action to force Moore to do nothing more than make a gesture and a handshake.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/21/bradbury.fahrenheit.ap/index.html)
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54126-2004Jun19.html)

I read the LA Times piece you linked to and, taken in context w/everything else currently out there (which isn't very much), it still sounds like, to me, Bradbury wants Moore to apologize and "give him his title back" by changing the name of the movie. Bradbury sees Moore's action as "stealing" his title and his book. I don't know how else Moore can "give it back" (metaphorically of course) without changing the title of his movie.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

I didn't say it was part of the books title. You said you don't remember the phrase even appearing in the book and I was just pointing that it appears on the cover of some books. It's been a couple of years sense the last time I read it but, IIRC, the phrase appears in the book when we first learn about the firefighters. I could be wrong though. Like I said, it's been a few years sense I last read it.

On the local news I heard that Bradbury wants it renamed, and below are a couple of links. Also in these links, plus the one posted by Voltron a few posts up, it says that Bradbury hopes it doesn't come to legal action. I can't imagine Bradbury threatening legal action to force Moore to do nothing more than make a gesture and a handshake.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/21/bradbury.fahrenheit.ap/index.html)
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54126-2004Jun19.html)

I read the LA Times piece you linked to and, taken in context w/everything else currently out there (which isn't very much), it still sounds like, to me, Bradbury wants Moore to apologize and "give him his title back" by changing the name of the movie. Bradbury sees Moore's action as "stealing" his title and his book. I don't know how else Moore can "give it back" (metaphorically of course) without changing the title of his movie.

All of the articles are essentially the same, and include identical quotes from both Bradbury and Moore. Being a careful reader of the press, I immediately notice that the difference between the LA Times article and two you cited were the inclusion of words not spoken by Bradbury about litigation and wanting the name of the movie changed. These were both assumptions, probably made by copy editors at CNN and the Post but not the Times, about what Bradbury meant, but apparently did not actually say. Reading between the lines, I'd surmise that Bradbury is a smart enough to know that he hasn't got a "case," but would like to call Moore on the carpet and get some credit or recognition.

The inclusion of the words on some of the book covers is not meaningful, which is why I pointed out that they are not part of the book title.

[Chip NoVaMac]

All of the articles are essentially the same, and include identical quotes from both Bradbury and Moore. Being a careful reader of the press, I immediately notice that the difference between the LA Times article and two you cited were the inclusion of words not spoken by Bradbury about litigation and wanting the name of the movie changed. These were both assumptions, probably made by copy editors at CNN and the Post but not the Times, about what Bradbury meant, but apparently did not actually say. Reading between the lines, I'd surmise that Bradbury is a smart enough to know that he hasn't got a "case," but would like to call Moore on the carpet and get some credit or recognition.

The inclusion of the words on some of the book covers is not meaningful, which is why I pointed out that they are not part of the book title.

Maybe he is hitch his star to Moore's. The book is due to re-released in about 6 to 8 weeks. And there a redo of the movie in the works.

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe he is hitch his star to Moore's. The book is due to re-released in about 6 to 8 weeks. And there a redo of the movie in the works.

Apparently. So even if Moore violated a copyright, which I doubt very much he did, it would be well nigh impossible for Bradbury to claim that he was damaged.

[Voltron]

Apparently. So even if Moore violated a copyright, which I doubt very much he did, it would be well nigh impossible for Bradbury to claim that he was damaged.
Maybe he'll sue Moore and have the Judge delay distribution of the book until the law suit is settled?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/7-picture1.gif

[mactastic]

Wow, someone discovered the animated smileys, didn't they?

Yeah it sounds like Bradbury is just a bitter old man who is looking for his five minutes of fame. He has a financial stake in promoting himself, and is simply riding the coattails of a Great American for a little. Plus I hear he has some weird sexual habits, and he looks French.

How's that for a right-wing hatchet job on a great writer like Bradbury? :D

Seriously, Moore should have taken care of this before releasing the film. It could have easily been retitled early on in the process, but now there's a big public stink going on over it which just gives Moore's critics (and I don't mean film critics) ammunition to use that in no way deals with the substance of the material. Once again, the debate is shifted away from the main issue to trivial and peripheral issues.

[LethalWolfe]

All of the articles are essentially the same, and include identical quotes from both Bradbury and Moore. Being a careful reader of the press, I immediately notice that the difference between the LA Times article and two you cited were the inclusion of words not spoken by Bradbury about litigation and wanting the name of the movie changed. These were both assumptions, probably made by copy editors at CNN and the Post but not the Times, about what Bradbury meant, but apparently did not actually say. Reading between the lines, I'd surmise that Bradbury is a smart enough to know that he hasn't got a "case," but would like to call Moore on the carpet and get some credit or recognition.

The inclusion of the words on some of the book covers is not meaningful, which is why I pointed out that they are not part of the book title.


I agree that Bradbury, most likely, has no legal leg to stand on, but he obviously seems irritated at the situation so a threat, even an idle one, of litigation wouldn't surprise me.

Just out of curiousity, in what symbolic way do you think Bradbury wants Moore to give him his "title and book back?"

As for ridding on coattails... Moore choose the title of his film for a reason.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

Just out of curiousity, in what symbolic way do you think Bradbury wants Moore to give him his "title and book back?"

Now, that's something on which Bradbury was actually quoted, right in the articles both you and I cited.

[zimv20]

Moore choose the title of his film for a reason.

absolutely. mr. bradbury's book was the first thing that popped in my head, as i'm sure was intended. and, clearly, there's a message or two in the book that mr. moore wants to juxtapose w/ his film.

[LethalWolfe]

absolutely. mr. bradbury's book was the first thing that popped in my head, as i'm sure was intended. and, clearly, there's a message or two in the book that mr. moore wants to juxtapose w/ his film.

Like robot dogs and highway billboards hundreds of feet long? :D


Lethal

[Neserk]

afaik, mr. bradbury has a legal case only if:
1. he can demonstrate that people confuse the two works, and
2. he can demonstrate damages because of it


Trying to find a link about this for the stubborn. I know it is the case because I've heard it a zillion times. Searches aren't helping any. I must not be searching with the right terms.

[zimv20]

Trying to find a link about this
fwiw, that's my own take on it, derived from what i understand about winning a libel case

[Chip NoVaMac]

Like robot dogs and highway billboards hundreds of feet long? :D


Lethal

Well Sony does have a robo-dog for sale.

And the DC Metro System is looking into advertising that uses the "strobo-topic" effect I believe (I may be using the wrong term) to create the illusion of a moving image.

So we are closer than one might think.

[Chip NoVaMac]

fwiw, that's my own take on it, derived from what i understand about winning a libel case

What no legal eagles (beagles for that matter)?
:)

[Neserk]

fwiw, that's my own take on it, derived from what i understand about winning a libel case


libel? Or copyright?

I know it is the case because I had a mini-session on copyright in one of my teaching classes (best to know the law, so you don't break it ;)) Just trying to find it somewhere on the net 'cause we all know *everything* that is *anything* is on the net :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

libel? Or copyright?

oh. uh... yeah.... umm.... i'll be right back

[skunk]

oh. uh... yeah.... umm.... i'll be right back
Well it's certainly not libel, is it? Anyway, there are loads of books with the same titles. Anyway, Moore could say it was a homage to the original. ;)

[johnnyroesco]

Howdy!

For all you Micheal Moore fans! enjoy this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079

Micheal Moore aligns with middle east terrorist group Hezbollah. What delightfull all American way to go. :rolleyes:
He is showing his true color here.

[trebblekicked]

Howdy!

For all you Micheal Moore fans! enjoy this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079

Micheal Moore aligns with middle east terrorist group Hezbollah. What delightfull all American way to go. :rolleyes:
He is showing his true color here.

try again (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/film_reporter.jsp) but welcome to the forums anyway.

By Thursday, it degenerated into something close to self-parody as Move America Forward sent out a bulletin headlined, "Terrorist Group Hezbollah Endorses Michael Moore Film: Offers to Help Promote 'Fahrenheit 9/11/.' "

The warning cited a report in London's the Guardian, which referenced a June 9 story in Screen International. The Screen story, about plans that United Arab Emirates-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has for the film, reported "organizations related to Hezbollah ... have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there is anything they can do to support the film."

[Chip NoVaMac]

Howdy!

For all you Micheal Moore fans! enjoy this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079

Micheal Moore aligns with middle east terrorist group Hezbollah. What delightfull all American way to go. :rolleyes:
He is showing his true color here.

Oh my! A truly unbiased Right Wing web "newspaper' to tell us the real truth! How will i ever decide who is telling the truth :rolleyes:

[johnnyroesco]

The Hollywood reporter are'nt exactly denying the allegations are they. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

The Hollywood reporter are'nt exactly denying the allegations are they. :rolleyes:
then it mu'st be true!

[johnnyroesco]

Naw probably a lie since Micheal Moore is such an all american standup guy. ;)

What would an extremist terrorist orginazation want with him anywho? :p

A selfless servant of the people is what he is alright.

[IJ Reilly]

then it mu'st be true!

LOL. :D

[trebblekicked]

The Hollywood reporter are'nt exactly denying the allegations are they. :rolleyes:

no, no. read just a little bit more. think just a little bit harder. you'll see what i mean. :)

edit- zing, zimv. zing.

[johnnyroesco]

I was trying real hard until I ran into this article.

Some F911 fiction:

"Saudi flights out of the United States. The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis—including members of the bin Laden family—could leave the country. Author Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel. The report confirms that six chartered airplanes flew 142 mostly Saudi nationals out of the country, including one carrying members of the bin Laden family. But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened. Moreover, the report states the Saudi flights were screened by the FBI, and 22 of the 26 people on the bin Laden flight were interviewed. None had any links to terrorism."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/

It's only just a little lie so that does'nt really count right! :rolleyes:

[skunk]

But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened. Moreover, the report states the Saudi flights were screened by the FBI, and 22 of the 26 people on the bin Laden flight were interviewed. None had any links to terrorism."
As in: "Do you have any links to terrorism?"
"No."
"OK, thank you, Sir, you can board now."

[takao]

As in: "Do you have any links to terrorism?"
"No."
"OK, thank you, Sir, you can board now."

haha i was thinking the same ... imagine one fbi agent standing at the door of the plane...

[Voltron]

As in: "Do you have any links to terrorism?"
"No."
"OK, thank you, Sir, you can board now."
Yea but had they not let them go the ACLU would've been all over it.

[johnnyroesco]

Yea whats a couple of little lies? You have to consider what a great public service Micheal Moore has performed by exposing the "evil war mongering" and "stupid" George W. Bush.
"He has to be removed at any cost"! Dont you think?

I dont think Micheal Moore gives a hoot about all the money he will make. Being such a social benefactor he will no doubt give a substancial amount to charity.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I was trying real hard until I ran into this article.

Some F911 fiction:

"Saudi flights out of the United States. The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis—including members of the bin Laden family—could leave the country. Author Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel. The report confirms that six chartered airplanes flew 142 mostly Saudi nationals out of the country, including one carrying members of the bin Laden family. But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened. Moreover, the report states the Saudi flights were screened by the FBI, and 22 of the 26 people on the bin Laden flight were interviewed. None had any links to terrorism."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/

It's only just a little lie so that does'nt really count right! :rolleyes:

Keep in mind that is if the Bush administration provided [b]ALL[b] details of the days that followed 9-11. There are some of us that remember the "I am not a crooK" from the 70's.

Maybe I am cynical, but I don't believe in our government to provide all info related to anyt mater for the public to reasonably to decide on what is what.

[Chip NoVaMac]

As in: "Do you have any links to terrorism?"
"No."
"OK, thank you, Sir, you can board now."

I am sure that they did not have to go through what I did back in December of 2002 in Las vegas at Christmas. I was returning to DC after a week. I am a photographer. I had my film in their canisters. IO made a mistake of using hand lotion in handling those canisters. they tested positive for nitrates. never mind that they had my name on the ticket, I was required to produce my ID in order to take the flight. Even after ALL of my luggage was searched yet a second time. Mind you I don't mind my luggage being searched one or more times. I took offense that now my name and ID information maybe in a database somewhere. Only becuase of some machine that sensed some nitrates. Maybe we need to outlaw nitrates except in explosives?

I have not flown since (by circumstance). I am just waiting till my next trip to see what I am put through. Maybe a full cavity search. :eek:

[skunk]

Yea whats a couple of little lies? You have to consider what a great public service Micheal Moore has performed by exposing the "evil war mongering" and "stupid" George W. Bush.
"He has to be removed at any cost"! Dont you think?
I absolutely agree.

[johnnyroesco]

I absolutely agree.

Lie cheat steal whatever, throw ethics out the window George Bush has got to go regardless of how stupid it might make us look. Maybe if we all held our breath till we turned blue? :D ;)

[skunk]

Lie cheat steal whatever, throw ethics out the window George Bush has got to go regardless of how stupid it might make us look. Maybe if we all held our breath till we turned blue? :D ;)
It's worth a try.

PS: How could dumping a warmongering fundamentalist make you look any more stupid than you do already for (nearly) electing him? :confused:

[mactastic]

Lie cheat steal whatever, throw ethics out the window George Bush has got to go regardless of how stupid it might make us look. Maybe if we all held our breath till we turned blue? :D ;)

Hehe, that would indeed be fitting since that's how Dubya got there in the first place. :D :p ;)

[wwworry]

I was trying real hard until I ran into this article.

Some F911 fiction:

"Saudi flights out of the United States. The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis—including members of the bin Laden family—could leave the country. Author Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel. The report confirms that six chartered airplanes flew 142 mostly Saudi nationals out of the country, including one carrying members of the bin Laden family. But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened. Moreover, the report states the Saudi flights were screened by the FBI, and 22 of the 26 people on the bin Laden flight were interviewed. None had any links to terrorism."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/

It's only just a little lie so that does'nt really count right! :rolleyes:


link (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml)
The commission's general counsel, Daniel Marcus, asked TIA in a letter dated May 25 for any information about "a chartered flight with six people, including a Saudi prince, that flew from Tampa, Florida on or about Sept. 13, 2001." He asked for the information no later than June 8.

TIA officials said they sent their reply on Monday.

The airport used aircraft tracking equipment normally assigned to a noise abatement program to determine the identity of all aircraft entering TIA airspace on Sept. 13, and found four records for the LearJet 35.

The plane first entered the airspace from the south, possibly from the Fort Lauderdale area, sometime after 3 p.m. and landed for the first time at 3:34 p.m. It took off at 4:37 p.m., headed north. It returned to Tampa at 8:23 p.m. and took off again at 8:48 p.m., headed south.

Author Craig Unger, who first disclosed the possibility of a post-9/11 Saudi airlift in his book House of Bush, House of Saud, said in an interview that he believes the jet came to Tampa a second time to drop off two former law enforcement agents from Tampa who accompanied three young Saudis to Lexington for security purposes.

The Saudis asked the Tampa Police Department to escort the flight, but the department handed off the assignment to Dan Grossi, a former member of the force, Unger said. Grossi recruited Manuel Perez, a retired FBI agent, to accompany him. Both described the flight to Unger as somewhat surreal.

"They got the approval somewhere," Perez is quoted as telling Unger. "It must have come from the highest levels of government."

While there is no manifest for those aboard the Lear flight to Kentucky, Unger says the foreign nationals left Lexington for London aboard a Boeing 727. That manifest lists eight Saudis, two Sudan nationals, one Tunisian, one Philippine citizen, one Egyptian and two British subjects.

Of those, three listed residences on Normandy Trace Drive in Tampa, and all of them held Florida drivers' licenses. They are Ahmad Al Hazmi, then 19, Fahad Al Zeid, then 20, and Talal M. Al Mejrad, then 18, all male Saudis.

It is not known which, if any, is a Saudi prince.

[johnnyroesco]

Hehe, that would indeed be fitting since that's how Dubya got there in the first place. :D :p ;)

Good so you have no doubt about where you stand. Its a good thing to be so absolutely sure of yourself. That way you wont be waffling around like some politicians we know. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

haha i was thinking the same ... imagine one fbi agent standing at the door of the plane...
according to richard clarke's 9/11 commission testimony, that's basically what happened. the "interviews" were conducted at the gate as the planes were being boarded.

[zimv20]

hey johnnysocko, here's a thought - maybe you should see the film before you rip it to shreds. 'cuz now you're coming across as someone who's scared that it's gonna hurt bush so you're launching a pre-emptive attack.

and guess what? no one is buying it.

[Voltron]

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.


More of this opinionated column can be found http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
oopsie aint By Christopher Hitchens
a liberal?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_smilie_colors1.gif

[Chip NoVaMac]

More of this opinionated column can be found http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
oopsie aint By Christopher Hitchens
a liberal?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_smilie_colors1.gif

Opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one. I want to see some true facts. Though those in control of the records can do what they please.

Regardless, if this movie allows the people to question what went on so much the better.

[trebblekicked]

I was trying real hard until I ran into this article.

Some F911 fiction:
....

It's only just a little lie so that does'nt really count right! :rolleyes:

as wwworry demonstrated, if you insist on posting links to half-baked echo chamber gutter spunk and poorly researched misinformation, your posts will be debunked and that right fast. i'm not sure if you read these forums much before posting, but someone came in here a month or so ago with the same brazen tactics, and he's been more or less relegated to arguing with himself. if that's what you're here to do, so be it and have fun, but if you'd like to do something worthwhile, i suggest you take my earlier advice:

read just a little bit more.
think just a little bit harder.

:)

[Voltron]

as wwworry demonstrated, if you insist on posting links to half-baked echo chamber gutter spunk and poorly researched misinformation, your posts will be debunked and that right fast. i'm not sure if you read these forums much before posting, but someone came in here a month or so ago with the same brazen tactics, and he's been more or less relegated to arguing with himself. if that's what you're here to do, so be it and have fun, but if you'd like to do something worthwhile, i suggest you take my earlier advice:

read just a little bit more.
think just a little bit harder.

:)
But if you post stuff from left wing opinionated propaganda web sites then its perfectly fine.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

[Voltron]

hey johnnysocko, here's a thought - maybe you should see the film before you rip it to shreds. 'cuz now you're coming across as someone who's scared that it's gonna hurt bush so you're launching a pre-emptive attack.

and guess what? no one is buying it.
That is what they said about the movie "Jesus Christ Superstar" and I agreed with them then. Then I saw it and wished I hadn't wasted the time. There is only so much time to do things and some things you don't waste on like Bowling for columbine or farhenheit 911.

[Chip NoVaMac]

But if you post stuff from left wing opinionated propaganda web sites then its perfectly fine.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

I think that if you read truly what those that disagree with you, you will see that they are not drones that repeat the neo-con rhetoric. The right seems to feel that they have the mind of the public. Far from the truth. they may have the votes from those that are unwilling to look past the sound bite. But this does not mean that they have a mandate.

[Chip NoVaMac]

That is what they said about the movie "Jesus Christ Superstar" and I agreed with them then. Then I saw it and wished I hadn't wasted the time. There is only so much time to do things and some things you don't waste on like Bowling for columbine or farhenheit 911.

???

Did you ever see the stage version? To be honest I don't fully remember the movie version. I remember it as a faithful version of the the stage version.

To be honest stage versions of movies leaves somethings wanting. Only because movie audiences want more spectacle. There is a reason that independent movies in general don't get the "money" that mainstream movies do.

As a "Christian" I found that that [bJesus Christ Superstar[b] t be a moving experience. To give me some thought into my Faith.

If you are so blind to believe very word that Mike Moore says in this movie or any other, then you really need to look at how you view things. Movies like this are designed to make people look at their beliefs and prejudices.

[Voltron]

I think that if you read truly what those that disagree with you, you will see that they are not drones that repeat the neo-con rhetoric. The right seems to feel that they have the mind of the public. Far from the truth. they may have the votes from those that are unwilling to look past the sound bite. But this does not mean that they have a mandate.
I think you got that backwards.
Up until a few years ago I called myself a Democrat. I couldn't get past the fact that they weren't acting the way I thought a liberal should act. Then one day I discovered that was because they aren't really liberals, at least not like the ones described by Locke. The ones who actually believe in live and let live. Do your own thing and let others do theirs. I couldn't go Republican because while they are our best defense against Democrats they tend to go too far with their morality crap. So I call myself a "Compassionate Libertarian" now. Not a mindless drone.

I paste and copy things that people say I find interesting some of which I don't agree with, but most I do. I'm trapped between stating my own opinion and having people demand I back my opinion with facts or spell checkers and since it is just my own opinion naturally I don't have links at the ready. Or posting from those I agree with. Either way its bitch bitch bitch so I ignore it and do what I think is best for me to do since no matter what I do it won't be good enough for the masses that populate this place.


Back on what you said about the sound bite. sound bites work best for Democrats. Most people work all day don't have time to research anything, their tv usually on cartoons when they go home. So they tend to simply repeat sound bites that they heard on tv. most of which come from Left wing biases media sources, or Democratic television commercials. When I talk to them and tried to get to the meat of their opinion I find that there is none. They are simply repeating what they heard because on an emotionally level it stuck.

Example last week I got in a discussion with a girl about how terrible it is about not allowing homosexuals into the Army. I asked her how would she feel if she was taking a shower with a bunch of 17 and 18 year old men and she dropped the soap? Or how about a guy having a girlfriend over and getting court martialed for it, while his buddy in the next room is getting all cozy with his boyfriend and nobody dares say a damn thing about it? Our military isn't about being fair it is about defending the country. Someday as a country we may become emotionally mature enough to handle coed bathrooms and thus known homosexuals also sharing those showers. But right now, too many people would quit or become criminals if we forced this on them. And we have to think about the defense of our country before we think about being fair to anyone in the armed forces.

Her beliefs and her opinons were simply emotional based. Once she thought it out logically she changed her opinion. An example of the typical Democrat that I run into.

I find most republicans I run into in everyday life should call themselves libertarian. They don't share the view that government should enforce high moral rules on us, but they do believe that everyone should be free to be an individual. But they get hooked on the fact that libertarins don't have enough votes to win, want to legalize drugs and allow their emotions to decide for them on this instead of logic, and a variety of other things get in their way which makes them stay Republicans.

I realize I'm starting to wander so I'll stop here.

[takao]

sadly sites like

www.spiegel.de
www.welt.de
www.faz.de

derstandard.at (favourite site ever for austrian news and commentaries on foreign and national politics and guess what they are doing.they seperate opinion and news...)

don't offer english articles...

yeah look at the poll in the polling thread which i posted....

37% of all questioned in that poll said that "turtore is somehow typical for americans and their behaviour against their enemies"
nice reputation huh ?

[Voltron]

???

Did you ever see the stage version? To be honest I don't fully remember the movie version. I remember it as a faithful version of the the stage version.

To be honest stage versions of movies leaves somethings wanting. Only because movie audiences want more spectacle. There is a reason that independent movies in general don't get the "money" that mainstream movies do.

As a "Christian" I found that that [bJesus Christ Superstar[b] t be a moving experience. To give me some thought into my Faith.

If you are so blind to believe very word that Mike Moore says in this movie or any other, then you really need to look at how you view things. Movies like this are designed to make people look at their beliefs and prejudices.
I found the movie to be disgusting and distastful. I did not stay to see the end.

[zimv20]

sly, asking to be taken seriously isn't going to achieve that effect, only hinder it. people have made their choices based on what and how you "argue" "your" "views".

you spend more time proclaiming your innocence and right to be heard than saying anything of value. what result did you expect?

[trebblekicked]

sly, asking to be taken seriously isn't going to achieve that effect, only hinder it. people have made their choices based on what and how you "argue" "your" "views".

you spend more time proclaiming your innocence and right to be heard than saying anything of value. what result did you expect?

zimv-

i just wanted to say you've taken the art of satirical punctuation to new heights this week.

[zimv20]

zimv-

i just wanted to say you've taken the art of satirical punctuation to new heights this week.
i'm hoping to work in an umlaut! :-)

[johnnyroesco]

hey johnnysocko, here's a thought - maybe you should see the film before you rip it to shreds. 'cuz now you're coming across as someone who's scared that it's gonna hurt bush so you're launching a pre-emptive attack.

and guess what? no one is buying it.

Since Micheal Moores's deceptive and manipulative propaganga peice "bowling for columbine" has been so thoroughly discredited and ripped to shreds that Moore's only defence when confronted is that he always meant for it to be a comedy, any rational thinking human will see the release of F911 with significant reserve.
If Micheal Isikoff is wrong about his reports re. the 911 commission findings regarding the initial obvious discrepacies of F911. I can accept that.

I dont need to to try and tear F911 to shreds when the credibility of Micheal Moore is highly suspect at the very least. Can you accept that?
I can see it is challenging to hold debate with individuals who are awash with trite little "dubya" baloney!. How quaint. Will you post some Bush as a monkey pictures now? Or just resort to calling him stupid and anyone who does'nt agree with you stupid.

Bush haters base much of thier vitriol on one rather debatable point. I say get over it!
Terrorists did in fact viciously attact the US and more than 3000 people perrished. I'm not just going to get over that! It is an ugly hard fact of life today that these fanatics are protesting our very existence. Can you deny that? Yet that is what the likes of Micheal Moores, Bob Woodwards, and Ted Ralls are trying to do. They equivocate while brave men and women are dying in the name of their freedom. This is no time for equivocation.
happy trails, I've got a big fish to fry, yumm. :D

[skunk]

Since Micheal Moores's deceptive and manipulative propaganga peice "bowling for columbine"
Do you have a problem with "thought-provoking"?

any rational thinking human will see the release of F911 with significant reserve.
But may well find this film thought-provoking too.

I dont need to to try and tear F911 to shreds when the credibility of Micheal Moore is highly suspect at the very least. Can you accept that?
Yeah, just tear Michael Moore to shreds, that'll do the trick. Then you don't have to think.

I can see it is challenging to hold debate with individuals who are awash with trite little "dubya" baloney!. How quaint. Will you post some Bush as a monkey pictures now? Or just resort to calling him stupid and anyone who does'nt agree with you stupid.
You are clearly not familiar with this forum. But tear it to shreds anyway. Why break the habit of a lifetime?

Bush haters base much of thier vitriol on one rather debatable point. I say get over it!
I don't hate Bush. I think he is incompetent.

Terrorists did in fact viciously attact the US and more than 3000 people perrished. I'm not just going to get over that!
So your country attacked the country their leader was based in and more than 10,000 people perished. I don't suppose they'll get over that either.

It is an ugly hard fact of life today that these fanatics are protesting our very existence. Can you deny that?
Actually, since you ask...Yes. What they are protesting is the presence and influence you have within their countries.

They equivocate while brave men and women are dying in the name of their freedom. This is no time for equivocation.
On the contrary, they equivocate while brave men and women are killing in the name of their freedom.

happy trails, I've got a big fish to fry, yumm. :D
Don't get a bone stuck in your throat, will you?

[zimv20]

[chomp]
good one. keep up the nice work.

[Sayhey]

Since Micheal Moores's deceptive and manipulative propaganga peice "bowling for columbine" has been so thoroughly discredited and ripped to shreds that Moore's only defence when confronted is that he always meant for it to be a comedy, any rational thinking human will see the release of F911 with significant reserve....
I dont need to to try and tear F911 to shreds when the credibility of Micheal Moore is highly suspect at the very least. Can you accept that?

I keep hearing repitition of right-wing and NRA rants, but I've yet to see the evidence that Moore lied in Bowling for Columbine. If you have it kindly post it, otherwise stop with the invective. I would recommend taking a look at Moore's (http://www.michaelmoore.com/) response to some of his critics before yöu post easily discredited attacks.

As to the new film, I'm looking forward to seeing it, but I'll withhold my judgment until I actually go see the picture.

PS - zim, the "yöu" is in you honor. :p

[zimv20]

PS - zim, the "yöu" is in you honor. :p
awesöme!

[Sayhey]

I seemed to have dropped a "r" in that postscript. Must have been absorbed by the umlaut. ;)

[skunk]

Those umlauts absorb 'r's' quicker than you'd think possible... :p

[IJ Reilly]

awesöme!

Very niße.

[mactastic]

Good so you have no doubt about where you stand. Its a good thing to be so absolutely sure of yourself. That way you wont be waffling around like some politicians we know. :rolleyes:

Hehe, thanks for the laugh of the day. I guess we pretty much know where you stand as well, and what your level of self-assuredness is as well. In case anyone cared that much or anything. :eek:

[johnnyroesco]

I keep hearing repitition of right-wing and NRA rants, but I've yet to see the evidence that Moore lied in Bowling for Columbine. If you have it kindly post it, otherwise stop with the invective. I would recommend taking a look at Moore's (http://www.michaelmoore.com/) response to some of his critics before yöu post easily discredited attacks.

As to the new film, I'm looking forward to seeing it, but I'll withhold my judgment until I actually go see the picture.

PS - zim, the "yöu" is in you honor. :p

since you either have your head in the sand or up your you know what. read this for starters. This is not news and if you arent aware of it you probably have your head up your you know what!

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[johnnyroesco]

[QUOTE=skunk]Do you have a problem with "thought-provoking"?


But may well find this film thought-provoking too.


how is lying deceptive manipulative propaganda thought provoking?

MICHEAL MOORE IS TELLING YOU HOW TO THINK. capish?

you can put your umlaut on this sweetheart!

[mactastic]

Hey will you cool it with the 'head in inappropriate aperture' comments? Say what you have to say without the insults.

[johnnyroesco]

Hehe, thanks for the laugh of the day. I guess we pretty much know where you stand as well, and what your level of self-assuredness is as well. In case anyone cared that much or anything. :eek:

clearly you dont!

but some of of us do care about what is happening in the world. cheers! :p

[johnnyroesco]

I don't hate Bush. I think he is incompetent.

Maybe incompetent is'nt an exact synonym for stupid but it sure comes close. This is predictable banality from the Bush-hater.

[mactastic]

I don't hate Bush. I think he is incompetent.

Maybe incompetent is'nt an exact synonim for stupid but it sure comes close. This is predictable banality from the Bush-hater.

What's your opinion of Kerry?

[johnnyroesco]

What's your opinion of Kerry?

Cant you guess?
I share a similar opinion about Kerry which the 200 or so servicemen who served with him in vietnam and question his qualifications share. Really! do I need to spell it out? Surely you are in the loop on that!

[mactastic]

Cant you guess?
I share a similar opinion about Kerry which the 200 or so servicemen who served with him in vietnam and question his qualifications share. Really! do I need to spell it out? Surely you are in the loop on that!

Doesn't that qualify as predictable banality on the part of a typical Kerry-basher? ;)

[screener]

Cant you guess?
I share a similar opinion about Kerry which the 200 or so servicemen who served with him in vietnam and question his qualifications share. Really! do I need to spell it out? Surely you are in the loop on that!

I find it incredible that veterans support Bush. Why?
The 200 or so Vietnam Vets won't support anyone that diminishes the sacrifices made in that stupidily run war. But Bush?

[johnnyroesco]

Hey will you cool it with the 'head in inappropriate aperture' comments? Say what you have to say without the insults.

I did'nt infer any apperture.
I left it up to you. "you know what"
since you know so much about appertures you probably understand the term "bend over". Well that is what Micheal Moore is asking of his viewers: "bend over" you are about to get the Micheal Moore Maytag treatment'". :eek:

[johnnyroesco]

I find it incredible that veterans support Bush. Why?
The 200 or so Vietnam Vets won't support anyone that diminishes the sacrifices made in that stupidily run war. But Bush?

It is not just any 200 vets. It is 200 vets who either served directly with him or knew him directly. They are funded out of thier own pockets BTW. They denounce John Kerry's bid for commander and chief. That should speak volumes. The info is there run the search. I've got my hands full with this barrage of Micheal Moore fans. ;)

[mactastic]

I did'nt infer any apperture.
I left it up to you. "you know what"
since you know so much about appertures you probably understand the term "bend over". Well that is what Micheal Moore is asking of his viewers: "bend over" you are about to get the Micheal Moore Maytag treatment'". :eek:

Ah the same defense as the Bush administration.... I just led you to the conclusion, I never said it myself (even though everyone knew damn well what I was talking about). It's downright Clintonian.

[johnnyroesco]

Doesn't that qualify as predictable banality on the part of a typical Kerry-basher? ;)

Please spare me the transparent baiting. I havent said one word to bash Kerry. I dont need to. His record speaks for itself. BTW where are his military medical records? hummmmm?

[johnnyroesco]

well that was fun
later alligators
untill we meet again! :D ;) :rolleyes:

[screener]

Please spare me the transparent baiting. I havent said one word to bash Kerry. I dont need to. His record speaks for itself. BTW where are his military medical records? hummmmm?

I'm not a Bush hater, just in the incompetent camp.
Again, why Bush, because he is a "republican?" or willing to put more troops into a stupidly run war. That must be it, what other reason could it be. His stellar war record?

[mactastic]

Please spare me the transparent baiting. I havent said one word to bash Kerry. I dont need to. His record speaks for itself. BTW where are his military medical records? hummmmm?

Transparent baiting indeed. Typical of the right wing Kerry-haters. BTW where are the records of Cheney's energy policy meetings? hummmmmmm? Why the opposition to the 9/11 panel? How come no one can seem to find out who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent? Who authorized the transfer of funds and assets away from hunting bin Laden to hunting Saddam? The Bush record speaks for itself as well. :eek:

[Ugg]

It is not just any 200 vets. It is 200 vets who either served directly with him or knew him directly. They are funded out of thier own pockets BTW. They denounce John Kerry's bid for commander and chief. That should speak volumes. The info is there run the search. I've got my hands full with this barrage of Micheal Moore fans. ;)

I love it, 200 guys. Wow, what memories they must have! That was almost 40 years ago and yet 200 guys carry these intense images of someone that very few of them knew for more than a few days at a time. What a bunch of bs.

Why do you believe them to be anything other than paid hacks of the Republican Party? It's not his war record they have a problem with, it's his postwar record that bothers them and most of it are in if for a few seconds of glory.

Take a hike buddy along with your phony 200.

[takao]

michael moore .... propaganda ...am i missing something ? how is fox called then ? "FOX tönende Wochenschau" ?

[Sayhey]

well that was fun
later alligators
untill we meet again! :D ;) :rolleyes:

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a more blatant example of trolling.

[FritzTheWonderM]

...or willing to put more troops into a stupidly run war.
Sorry to contradict, but show me the last time we took over a country in less time with fewer casualties. As a "war" it has been executed (pardon the pun) very well.

By the way, how come we don't heard any mention of good things that may be going on in Iraq? Surely we've gotten a few schools or hospitals running... Not to debate whether we're doing good, I just find it odd that you don't hear anything about it.

[mactastic]

Sorry to contradict, but show me the last time we took over a country in less time with fewer casualties. As a "war" it has been executed (pardon the pun) very well.

Proof that a President named Bush CAN invade a country, topple it's leader, and get the hell out with neithermajor loss of American life, nor entry into a quagmire. (http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/panamaus1989.htm)

By the way, how come we don't heard any mention of good things that may be going on in Iraq? Surely we've gotten a few schools or hospitals running... Not to debate whether we're doing good, I just find it odd that you don't hear anything about it.

I think we hear about it in proportion to the amount of good stuff going on versus bad. If 10% of what goes on in Iraq is 'good news' (to US ears anyway) why should more than 10% of the news coverage be devoted to it?

[FritzTheWonderM]

Proof that a President named Bush CAN invade a country, topple it's leader, and get the hell out with neithermajor loss of American life, nor entry into a quagmire. (http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/panamaus1989.htm)



I think we hear about it in proportion to the amount of good stuff going on versus bad. If 10% of what goes on in Iraq is 'good news' (to US ears anyway) why should more than 10% of the news coverage be devoted to it?

No, I meant a real country, :rolleyes: . As for being in proportion, it looks like the same unbiased reporting that Micheal Moore does. :eek:

[mactastic]

No, I meant a real country, :rolleyes: .

Panama is a real country. Your rhetoric was wrong, admit it.

As for being in proportion, it looks like the same unbiased reporting that Micheal Moore does. :eek:

No, you're thinking of FAUX reporting. :eek: :D

[johnnyroesco]

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a more blatant example of trolling.

What a nice pat orderly world you live in! ;) Albiet rather small. :(

[IJ Reilly]

Just when he says he's going, he comes back...

[FritzTheWonderM]

No, you're thinking of FAUX reporting. :eek: :D

Ok, that was funny.

And I'll grant you Panama. It's just no fun to have the highest tech most powerful army in the world and nobody worth playing with anymore. Iraq was supposed to be "the most powerful army" in the area. What a bunch of pip-squeaks they turned out to be. Twice even.

[takao]

And I'll grant you Panama. It's just no fun to have the highest tech most powerful army in the world and nobody worth playing with anymore. Iraq was supposed to be "the most powerful army" in the area. What a bunch of pip-squeaks they turned out to be. Twice even.


my guess is that was meant as a joke ;)
it's quite a time now since T-72s were considered 'state of the art' (and those tanks where designed for european battlefields in the first place) ;)
a war against a similiar equipment opponent would lead to similiar losses on both sides...

[FritzTheWonderM]

a war against a similiar equipment opponent would lead to similiar losses on both sides...

That would be Israel, the UK, or Germany for similar equipment and sufficent training, and I don't see us playing other than war games with them. Gone a bit off topic though...

[takao]

That would be Israel, the UK, or Germany for similar equipment and sufficent training, and I don't see us playing other than war games with them. Gone a bit off topic though...

as expected you missed france,italy,sweden and perhaps a few others ;-)
but now it is time for all to get back on topic...

[zimv20]

link (http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx)


‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ ban?
Ads for Moore’s movie could be stopped on July 30
By Alexander Bolton

Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.

At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.

In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s agenda for today’s meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.

The proscription is broadly defined. Section 100.29 of the federal election regulations defines restricted corporate-funded ads as those that identify a candidate by his “name, nickname, photograph or drawing” or make it “otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference.”

Should the six members of the FEC vote to approve the counsel’s opinion, it could put a serious crimp on Moore’s promotion efforts. The flavor of the movie was encapsulated by a recent review in The Boston Globe as “the case against George W. Bush, a fat compendium of previously reported crimes, errors, sins, and grievances delivered in the director’s patented tone of vaudevillian social outrage.”

The FEC ruling may also affect promotion of a slew of other upcoming political documentaries and films, such as “Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War,” which opens in August, “The Corporation,” about democratic institutions being subsumed by the corporate agenda, or “Silver City,” a recently finished film by John Sayles that criticizes the Bush administration.

Another film, “The Hunting of the President,” which investigates whether Bill Clinton was the victim of a vast conspiracy, could be subject to regulations if it mentions Bush or members of Congress in its ads.

(more)


<to the tune of a xmas song>
it's beginning to look a lot like censorship
</tune>

[FritzTheWonderM]

as expected you missed france,italy,sweden and perhaps a few others ;-)
but now it is time for all to get back on topic...

You must be kidding. I'm afraid we could mop all three up in less time than it took to invade Iraq. France?? The Louisiana National Guard could take out France, all they'd have to do is advance faster than the french retreated! :eek:

[zimv20]

You must be kidding. I'm afraid we could mop all three up in less time than it took to invade Iraq. France?? The Louisiana National Guard could take out France, all they'd have to do is advance faster than the french retreated! :eek:
what's w/ the pissing contest?

[mactastic]

If all else fails, bash the French. Or the Canadians. :p

[takao]

You must be kidding. I'm afraid we could mop all three up in less time than it took to invade Iraq. France?? The Louisiana National Guard could take out France, all they'd have to do is advance faster than the french retreated! :eek:

sounds funny but completly far from reality....all those countries have the same high mobility armed forces tactics,strong air forces,etc.

you know after all ...if it's the Leopard2, M1A1 etc. doesn't really matter...all use the same smooth bore gun... isn't it irony that the main gun of the M1 abrams (M256) were designed and built by the same company who designed the german tank guns in WW 2 ? (Rheinmetall) (same company who designed the M68 gun of the M60 tank)

[Chip NoVaMac]

link (http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx)



<to the tune of a xmas song>
it's beginning to look a lot like censorship
</tune>

I am not so sure that I would jump on that bandwagon.I understand the rule in principal. Would you want the RNC to back some film maker to make a film that showed Bush in nothing but the best light?

I do question the July 30th date. 60 days would give the F911 film till August 30th IMO.

i wonder if the FEC regulations would prohibit the films from being released on video first? Also it would be interesting to know if a "positive" film on Reagan or Bush I would be OK?

[zimv20]

Would you want the RNC to back some film maker to make a film that showed Bush in nothing but the best light?
i would support application of the rules if the DNC had funded it, but the funding was private, afaik.

[Voltron]

The thesis of “Bowling for Columbine” is sometimes difficult to ascertain because Moore frequently contradicts himself in the movie. Nonetheless, I think that he is trying, above all else, to assert the following:

The United States has more crime than other countries (like Canada).
The United States has more guns than other countries (like Canada).
Therefore, guns cause crime and, of course, more gun control is necessary.

I have encountered similar simplistic thinking from the right in my eleven years as a college professor. For example, some students have made the following argument, usually in my introductory criminal justice course:

Saudi Arabia has less crime than the United States.
Saudi Arabia uses harsher punishment than the Unites States (including public executions and amputation of hands for thieves).
Therefore, we should have public executions and amputate the hands of thieves in the United States. (I won’t even mention the penalty for adultery. Talk about a harsh penal system!).

http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

When confronted with such arguments from my most punitive students, I usually begin by challenging the assertion that we can readily ascertain the difference in crime rates between various nations. National crime statistics are simply too flawed to do that with any level of precision.

For example, in the United States, only about 35 to 40% of the victims of crime bother to contact the police in the first place. When they do, the police (usually local) are not required to report the crime to the federal government, although the feds ask them to do so in the form of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). And the UCR totally exclude federal crimes from their data set. And so on, and so on.

The end result is that the government has some ability to assess changes in crime rates from year to year in the United States because these flaws tend to be equally present from year to year (roughly). But they have little ability to compare crime rates between nations, because the statistics of other nations are even less accurate than ours.

But even if we were able to say with precision that the United States had two times, or five times, or ten times as much crime as Saudi Arabia, how could we conclude that the system of punishment is the “cause” of the lower crime rate? Could it instead have something to do with climate? Or could it have something to do with culture? Or could it be something else we haven’t considered?

And speaking of causality, I know that the murder rate goes up in the summer. I also know that ice cream sales go up in the summer. But only a simpleton would assert that ice cream “causes” murder.

http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_icecream.gifhttp://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_tomato.gif

But, of course, Michael Moore is just such a simpleton. And, not to be disrespectful, but simplemindedness is to be occasionally expected of a college dropout. When we choose people to teach our students, through lectures or films or books, we should give some consideration to their educational qualifications.

Recently, the second murder of a UNC-Wilmington student occurred in the span of a single month. There has been plenty of talk about the fact that the killer had a gun. There has been little talk about the fact that the victim did not.

Before the next unarmed student loses her life, let’s have a real debate on gun control. Let’s do it in the name of diversity.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040624.shtml

http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_2gunsfiring_v1.gif

[Chip NoVaMac]

You must be kidding. I'm afraid we could mop all three up in less time than it took to invade Iraq. France?? The Louisiana National Guard could take out France, all they'd have to do is advance faster than the french retreated! :eek:

I think that this is the issue that now appears with the difficulty in Iraq. The American public has been spoiled by the rapid successes in many of the more recent wars. Bush and his advisors may have fallen to that assumption.

before you take and make comments based on history, you may want to try to put your mind and heart in those people at that moment of history. The people of France may not have wanted the Nazi's, but sometimes it easier to accept the inevitable. There was also the French Resistance that played a powerful part in WWII history.

But then again are those that are fighting our troops in Iraq insurgents or are they freedom fighters?

[Chip NoVaMac]

i would support application of the rules if the DNC had funded it, but the funding was private, afaik.

fair enough. What if Rush backed a film on Bush II? Should that be allowed in the 60 day period before the election?

[Rower_CPU]

This seems to come up from time to time and must be restated - nation/people bashing will get you banned.

Read the rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?postid=280695) (see the "Special Note")

Consider this fair warning. Offenders will get a 1 week vacation; repeat offenders will be permanently excused.

[zimv20]

fair enough. What if Rush backed a film on Bush II? Should that be allowed in the 60 day period before the election?
yes.

one of the base differences between how i understood CFR and this example, is that movie viewers elect to go see a movie, which is the substance of the message. the ad to see the movie isn't the substance. a candidate TV ad _is_ the substance.

so maybe there's a grey area in how much a TV ad, for example, can show of the film before the ad itself becomes substantive. but i'd rather explore that grey area than ban it all together. i don't think there's any harm in a TV ad putting up a logo and saying, "go see this film," as an extreme harmless example.

bottom line, though, is that this ruling is clearly aimed at moore's film.

[zimv20]

link (http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/24/news/midcaps/fahrenheit.reut/)


Michael Moore's anti-Bush film breaks the single-day records at the two New York theaters.
June 24, 2004: 2:45 PM EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Michael Moore's controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" turned on the box office heat in its first day in theaters breaking single-day records at the two New York City theaters where it played.

The movie, which aims a critical eye at President Bush and his prosecution of the war in Iraq, sold $49,000 worth of tickets at the Loew's Village 7 theater, beating the venue's single-day record of $43,435 held by 1997's "Men in Black," according to distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.

At the Lincoln Plaza theater, "Fahrenheit 9/11" took in more than $30,000 to top the $24,013 set by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in 2000.

(more)

[IJ Reilly]

Part of Turan's review in the LA Times.

Michael Moore's partisan yet provocative film commands attention.

By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer

He didn't call it "J'Accuse!" but he might as well have.

Like Emile Zola, whose celebrated 19th century open letter assailed the French government for being a party to intolerable injustice, Michael Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11" has launched an unapologetic attack, both savage and savvy, on an administration he feels has betrayed the best of America and done extensive damage in the world.

Unabashedly partisan, wearing its determination to bring about political change on its sleeve, "Fahrenheit" can be nitpicked and second-guessed, but it can't be ignored. Set to open today in New York and Friday in Los Angeles and across the country, this landmark in American political filmmaking demands to be seen.

...

Moore has always been a master provocateur, adept at raising temperatures and arousing passions. Under his shambling, willfully unglamorous persona lies a shrewd intelligence, someone with the keenest of eyes for the preposterous and the absurd, a filmmaker who knows both what he can make fun of and what makes fun of itself.

Now, seething with a controlled fury, Moore is angrier than ever; like Peter Finch's anchorman in "Network," he's fed up and not about to take it anymore. As outraged about Sept. 11 as any neo-con, he's livid about what's been done in its name. And he gives no one, least of all President Bush, the slightest benefit of the doubt.

What Moore has constructed in "Fahrenheit" is more ambitious and more complex than anyone had reason to expect.

...

"Fahrenheit 9/11" lifted its title from the Ray Bradbury novel "Fahrenheit 451," which is in turn named after the temperature at which books burn. The novel posits a comfortable future world without books where omnipresent television tells people what they should be thinking. It's a world, this always provocative and uncompromising film demonstrates, that is closer than we want to admit.

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan23jun23,2,2756103.story

[Voltron]

Maybe more people should read "Treason" by Ann Coulter. :cool:

[blackfox]

Well, If anyone cares, here in Portland OR, on the movie's opening day some interesting things are happening...it is playing @ 5 theatres in the metro area, at least two screens per theatre...all showings were sold out for today AND tomorrow by late-afternoon. The theatre in downtown, however, bumped two other movies off their marquee and opened up some new show-times...I am going tonight @ 11. In addition, there were Nader and Kerry supporters outside, Voter Registration Drives, and quite a few street confrontations and crying women (not absolutely sure if related)...also earlier today, someone pulled a fire alarm in the theatre to coincide with the movie playing simultaneously in all three screens it was showing on, so people had to be evacuated and many people subsequently missed 5 minutes or so...those wily Republicans...also news crews and the like...

Just a report from one city...FYI

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well, If anyone cares, here in Portland OR, on the movie's opening day some interesting things are happening...it is playing @ 5 theatres in the metro area, at least two screens per theatre...all showings were sold out for today AND tomorrow by late-afternoon. The theatre in downtown, however, bumped two other movies off their marquee and opened up some new show-times...I am going tonight @ 11. In addition, there were Nader and Kerry supporters outside, Voter Registration Drives, and quite a few street confrontations and crying women (not absolutely sure if related)...also earlier today, someone pulled a fire alarm in the theatre to coincide with the movie playing simultaneously in all three screens it was showing on, so people had to be evacuated and many people subsequently missed 5 minutes or so...those wily Republicans...also news crews and the like...

Just a report from one city...FYI

Similar reports are being made on TV here in the DC area of sold-out screens. So far there hasn't been any "political backlash" as of yet.

What scares me is that some people will stop at nothing to make their point against this movie. Another forum I am on, the moderator had made veiled threats about going out with his son with their paintball guns at the theaters in their area.

I can't wait till Monday morning with the movie $ numbers for this weekend. I am assuming that we will see polls on who is going to see the film, and whether opinions are changed.

[Voltron]

What scares me is that some people will stop at nothing to make their point against this movie. Another forum I am on, the moderator had made veiled threats about going out with his son with their paintball guns at the theaters in their area.


While I disagree with his action, compare that to purposely sitting in the doorways of the Republican whatchamacallit forcing cops to forcably remove them and calling that part of the democratic process. Both are stupid.

[Awimoway]

I saw it this afternoon and thought it was outstanding. I saw no unruliness, but it was definitely the hot-selling movie at the theatre I went to. Some people had to stand to watch it.

I would like to share my take on it. Should I do it here or should we make a new thread (obviously, it will have to stay in the politics forum)? I think we should make a new thread…

[carbonmotion]

Before I start this review, I want to tell your guys a bit about myself. I am a member of the Democratic Party and I is studying to be an International Trade Lawyer. I hated Moore for Bowling because I thought he went out of his way to be sensationalistic and assholish. Now, the review.

The film basically did not tell me anything that I didn't know already being a student of political and international relations. However, I thought it was suprising that Moore much more sensitive in this film, not appearing on screen nearly as much as the movie is mainly the reponses to his questions and not QBAs like the Bowling. Yes, this movie is sensationalistic and over the top in the way it manipulates footage to jeer at the current administation (though much of it not at all undeserving). Moore takes the complicated entanglement of international politics and reduces it in to a 2 hour emotional rollercoaster. I admit, I was impressed, what I had learned in school from the big Ph,Ds with lofy thesis filled with statistics, facts, and analysis were essentially deduced (and quite effectively might I add) very nice peice of docu-drama... yes, moore poofed it up alot, but it gets the general gist of the message across with well supported evidence on his main points. If you truely believe that he is a liar, than you are due to your opinion... however we must all base our judgement of reality on fact. If Moore truely made up the evidence which supported his pillar points in the movie, then he will surely be sued for and convicted of liable. So far (out of all he movies), he never been convicted. So while he is pretty sensationalistic, he doesn't stray far enough to break the law. While this film might not swing any hard-republicans, it will do much damage to bush's attempts to convince middle of the road voters ...yes, that very narrow sliver of undecided people, who will ultimately decide Decision 2004.

Note: Please excuse the typos (there are many), I'm runing on a nearly empty tank

[blackfox]

I saw it this afternoon and thought it was outstanding. I saw no unruliness, but it was definitely the hot-selling movie at the theatre I went to. Some people had to stand to watch it.

I would like to share my take on it. Should I do it here or should we make a new thread (obviously, it will have to stay in the politics forum)? I think we should make a new thread…
Awimoway, were people standing for lack of space (which is supposed to be against fire-code, right?) or out of choice?

I too, would like to share my take (after tonight, 1am WST)...I will look for a new thread...if not found, I will post here...I feel spoiler warnings should apply...

Oh, BTW...where are you?

[Awimoway]

Awimoway, were people standing for lack of space (which is supposed to be against fire-code, right?) or out of choice?

I too, would like to share my take (after tonight, 1am WST)...I will look for a new thread...if not found, I will post here...I feel spoiler warnings should apply...

Oh, BTW...where are you?

There is now a thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77067) for reviews. My review and the other one (carbonmation's, also posted above) don't really have any spoilers. There's nothing in them you wouldn't know already from following buzz about the film.

People weren't standing because there weren't any seats, but because there were so few that they couldn't find them. Some people walked in from other movies out of curiosity, too (I'm assuming, because they came in like an hour or more late).

And I live in SoCal (though I wish I was in the Northwest, you lucky bastard).

[Voltron]

If Moore truely made up the evidence which supported his pillar points in the movie, then he will surely be sued for and convicted of liable. So far (out of all he movies), he never been convicted. So while he is pretty sensationalistic, he doesn't stray far enough to break the law.
Actually in the public realm it is legal to lie without fear of being sued for libel. To prove you are telling the truth before being allowed to say it is a violtion of your free speech. Why 30 second commercials are so bad, they are allowed to lie to you.

[wwworry]

except Moore does not lie in the film. He admits he is biased but so far no one has found any lies or wrong facts in the movie. Bush and Cheney have lied about a lot of things. It's too bad we can't sue them.