So I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 today...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Awimoway, Jun 25, 2004.

  1. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #1
    And I loved it. It was tonic for the frustration of watching your country get flushed down the toilet by the most inept president since Warren G. Harding.

    One of the major criticisms of Moore and his films is that he twists truth or lies outright for effect, so I want to deal with that subject most of all. I don't think this movie is intended to be a journalistic piece. It's not 60 Minutes or (God forbid) Fox News. It's a work of art with a political subject (much of art is political anyway). I think it's nothing more than an emotional reaction to the feckless punk who is running our country into the ground, and taking several others down with him.

    Moore expects the viewer to know the details already (there is some reporting about Bush's connections with the Saudis, but it's window dressing to the overall purpose of the film). What Fahrenheit does is give us an outlet for all the pent up anger and dismay. It's from the heart. It pokes fun at the president for being a yokel and a tool. But it's also a dead-serious look at the consequences of putting a yokel and a tool into the White House. It's funny, it's infuriating, it's tragic.

    Love it or hate it, it will be remembered as a historic piece of filmwork that captured the political anger of our time for many, many Americans and good people all over the world. And I think it did a damn fine job of it.
     
  2. carbonmotion macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #2
    F911 Reviewed (WARNING REPOST)

    Fahrenheit 9/11 Film Reviewed


    Before I start this review, I want to tell your guys a bit about myself. I am a member of the Democratic Party. I am 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
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    thanks for the reports, guys. i hope to see it soon.
     
  4. Awimoway thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #4
    carbonmotion posted his background, and I think it's helpful to know where poeple are coming from, so I'll post mine as well.

    I grew up a religious, military-brat conservative Republican. I grew up in the Cold War that my dad was on the front line of (literally, flying recon planes and doing week-long alerts where he would sleep next to his plane in case of World War III). The president of my childhood was Ronald Reagan and I adored him. He was like the grandfather of our country—witty, charming, and he didn't take any bull**** from the commies.

    As I grew older, I was a little off-put by the utter disregard Republicans took toward the poor, the environment, but I trusted them and stuck with them. I thought Bush Sr. was a fundamentally honest man who foolishly made a campaign promise he couldn't keep. Bill Clinton was a weaselly, lying worm who always blamed someone else for his mistakes. (I still feel that way. I saw the 60 Minutes interview, and I'm so glad we're done with him.)

    I voted for George W. Bush. Yep. I admit it. To my everlasting shame. I didn't love him (I was a John McCain man). I thought he was under-qualified, but I was still trying to be a good Republican.

    I left the Republican party last year. From the start, this war has seemed unjustified and hypocritical (I love how the conservatives, who claim a monopoly on patriotism, so recklessly disavow due process for anyone except themselves: where any non-Americans are concerned it's shoot first and ask questions later). I don't understand why we aren't seeing the same kind of war effort where the terrorists really are (hello? Afghanistan?). I finally stopped trying to convince myself that Republicans were for the little guy and I faced up to the fact that liberalism more fully embraces the Christian principles of charity and tolerance that I try to live by, and I embraced the politics of Howard Dean who was and is the only politician to ever speak forefully, clearly, and correctly on the war (John Kerry is just me-tooing Dean, but I'll vote for him--hell, I'd vote for Willy Wonka if it would get Bush defeated).

    So that's where I'm coming from. What a long, narcissistic post. But now you know.
     
  5. mgargan1 macrumors 65816

    mgargan1

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    #5
    very well put ;)
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    Awimoway, thanks for the review and the confession. You'd have stopped Diogenes in his tracks.
     
  7. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #7
    -It's too bad one must feel compelled to mention one's standing politically before stating one's feelings about a particular subject.

    No matter one's background, the opinions' and stated observations' validity is no different person to person.
     
  8. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #8
    That was how I first became a liberal too!
     
  9. LaMerVipere macrumors 6502a

    LaMerVipere

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    What's up Doc?

    While I personally didn't find Moore's last film, "Bowling for Columbine" all that impressive, I'm going to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" tomorrow even so.

    There were so many problems with the way that Moore preseneted so-called "facts" and "stastics" that no one could argue, in his last film, that going in to the theatre tomorrow I will be going in as a skeptic. One doesn't need to go through the littany of "truths" that were displayed in his last movie that were since proved to be false or at least not fully supporting his story. It's been proved that the Columbine shooter's didn't go bowling before their rampage, and the Lockheed Martin plant shown in the film where rockets which supposedly carry "nukes" are built in near proximity to columbine was somehow to have influenced the 2 mentally disturbed teens to go kill their classmates. No mention of the fact that the plant builds rockets to launch T.V. satellites into orbit.("Nukes" is more fun to say than "TV" anyway) No mention of the blatent disproportions between the number of killings by guns in one country as opposed to the U.S. in one year. The sheer population differences and # of guns in the hands of citizens between the US and France alone is staggering, but you didn't see Moore talking about that in his film, he only showed the raw numbers. And since when did 3 Canadian teens coming out of a Taco Bell in the afternoon become experts on american culture, society, and global politics? I rest my case.

    All that being said, I can't stand Bush. This is the first election that I will be able to vote in and I can guarantee that I am voting for Kerry.

    I have mixed feelings about this documentary however. On the one hand, as most intensely anti-bush americans do, I enjoy almost anything that mocks our primate-in-chief. But on the other hand, I am going to be seeing a supposed "documentary" that tells the "truth" coming from someone who I really don't think is capable of giving the whole picture honestly and without distortion of raw facts to suit his personal opinion.

    I do believe that bush is just as big a threat to this country as any terrorist, and his administration's standing on just about every issue is the exact opposite of what this country and the world needs right now from the planet's only remaining super power. I believe that his administration has lied and misled the american people at almost every turn, playing on their fear and ignorance in regards to ths issues. I'm sure I'll be willing to accept a lot of what Moore lays out for us in his doc, but I am definitely not coming out of that theatre assuming everything i've seen is true. I'll research what I've been presented with and pick and choose what I will and won't accept. As we all will, I'm sure.

    When it comes to the Iraq War of choice, I think Paul Savoy, writing for my most favourite of all magazines "The Nation" said it best from the May 31, 2004 issue when he wrote:

    "The capture of Saddam Hussein, who may have killed as many as 300,000 people, ends a twenty-four-year reign of terror and might finally bring a measure of justice to the Iraqi people. But what would we think of a police chief whose war against crime resulted in killing thousands of innocent bystanders in the course of apprehending a criminal suspect, even a criminal as despicable as Saddam? The officer who breaks the law, who becomes a law unto himself,--is more dangerous than the criminal and, like the American guards who committed the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, becomes a criminal himself. The false charge that Saddam was reaching for his weapons of mass destruction when US troops attacked bears an uncanny resemblance to the pretexts for the use of deadly force that document a long and shameful history of incidents of police misconduct in cities across America. The evil of this President, once acclaimed for his "moral clarity," is the evil of police violence on a global scale--the evil of the law-enforcement officer who regards himself as above the law and thereby undermines the very foundation of law and morality.

    If, in the 2004 presidential election campaign, voters were to compel the candidates to confront the profound moral and legal questions raised by the use of military power that needlessly extinguished the lives of children, of entire families, of great numbers of ordinary Iraqis who had as much of a right to live as we do, there might ultimately emerge a nonpartisan basis for a national consensus about the war, in much the same way that a universal accord has developed in the United States about the immorality and illegality of police conduct in violation of an individual's civil liberties. While there will always be disagreement about the way we should wage the war on terrorism, as there will be about the way we should fight the war on crime, a global form of law enforcement that unnecessarily kills thousands of innocent people to punish or prevent crimes for which they bear no responsibility is plainly and simply wrong."
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    Well, I just returned from the theatre here in Portland...not to start off-topic, but I do not go to the theatre too often these days, and before the film began I had to endure:
    1) Advertisement(long) for a New Anti-Terrorism show beginning on TNT...supposedly modeled after current events and techniques in anti-terrorism
    2) Another ad for another TNT show, this time a made-for-tv movie...I have already pushed it from my mind...
    3) A Volvo ad...
    4) A m&ms ad...
    5) Two Coke ads (one for a new "low carb" Coke)...
    6) An ad for the Military...I think the National Guard...(the crowd loved that one...)
    Then there were four previews...

    What in the hell is this? Sorry just venting...I just remember fondly the dancing popcorn and soda asking you to go to the concession stand to an annoying (but catchy and ultimately, endearing) tune....oh, the times...

    As for myself (for context) I lived in the UK until I was nearly 13...I lived in a small village (600 or so), did not watch TV or listen to the radio much and went to a Boarding School (day-student) which was very much like that of Harry Potter (For US readers) minus the magic. Moving over here (to the Midwest) and starting Junior HIgh was a Culture shock I have never really gotten over, and part of me has always remained somewhat European in thinking, which shows itself in my concern for social programs and diplomacy, in part...

    Basically, Since I became Politically Active, during the Senior Bush Administration (yes, I am pretty young), I have voted Democratic, and agree with their policy more often than that of the Republicans, but it depends on the individual. I was never a big fan of Clinton, although I did admire (and think useful) his excellent speaking and persuasive ability as a leader. In 2000, I greatly respected McCain and Bradley...Bradley seemed intelligent and thoughtful, McCain seemed reasonable and Integral...I will vote for Kerry come November, as I lived in Texas under Bush, and even then I knew what he was about...me no likey.

    So, the movie...I really enjoyed it. There was nothing in it that I did not know, except for some individual names of players. The first half was particularily enjoyable (although the theatre did get progressively hotter, so that might have been a factor), and I feel that while the movie was obviously propaganda and manipulative considering both the effort of trying to condense a complicated an contentious world of Geo and Domestic Politics into two hours will necessarily be incomplete, and the fact that Moore obviously wants Bush out...

    That said, it is very even-handed for Moore, and does imo, an outstanding job of communicating the points it wishes to in a visceral and affecting way...many people were crying in the second-half, which deals with Iraq and casualties of both sides...I was impressed.

    My only complaint was imo, the overuse of a woman from Flint, who had lost her son in Iraq...I never like to see grief used to support or preclude an argument...it seems overly manipulative, but it was not a grievous error (no pun)...

    I feel this movie may have quite an explosive impact on Election Year Politics, as I feel it should...and should make a fair chunk of change, I am curious about weekend box-office receipts...

    BTW, The Scene with John Ashcroft (those who have seen will know) is almost worth the price of admission itself...hilarious.
     
  11. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #11
    You are right, but given how Mr. Moore and F911 have been vilified by the right before it was even screened. Being labeled as trash by the White House spokesperson, who admits he has not even seen it. Some people even going as far as threatening to paintball viewers this weekend (a comment on another forum I am on).

    I think that it helps understand better knowing a reviewers point of view. Sort of the full disclosure that a media outlet makes when reporting on a news item dealing with their particular owner.
     
  12. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #12
    For some of us that is how we have never truly found a home in the modern Republican Party, especially after the 1980's.
     
  13. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #13
    I agree, but...

    Is that much different than the "liberal media" providing a cheering section for the war, yet hiding the ugly truth from being seen? A made for TV moment on the USS Lincoln. The rule forbidding images of flag draped coffins coming home. My Dad in my younger years would make the point of watching the news coverage of the fallen coming home for the final time. (As a career military man he felt very strongly that it showed the sacrifices that the men and women had made to try and keep the peace in the world.)
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    That is very heartening to hear.

    I, OTOH, came from a Kennedy-liberal family, and when I was a teenager, having been educated by Jesuits and having looked at both sides of the fence, I came to that same conclusion about liberalism and Christian principles myself.

    But when I say that liberalism is more "Christian" than conservatism, given my background, it sounds like a more biased conclusion. Coming from you, though, that conclusion has much more credibility.

    (And for the critics of liberalism, let me say that I do recognize that not all liberal principles conform to Christian ideals, but they're sure a lot closer than conservatives are.)
     
  15. LaMerVipere macrumors 6502a

    LaMerVipere

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #15
    Well I've seen it, and I must say that it was great! I have to spend some time researching some of the "facts" and conclusions that this movie presents us with, but all in all I'd say that it's an incredibly hard hitting, and an incredibly moving piece of artistic cinema. Documentary, it is not.

    I recommend that everyone go see it, even if you aren't anti-Bush. There are certain things in it which simply can't be argued, and I believe that those are the most influencial parts of the movie, like showing the true realities of war, our injured soldiers, the aftermath of it all. You know, the stuff the regular news won't show you. War is brutal and horrible, and most importantly, this movie attempts to express that above all else. It is important that we see the blood, hear the screams and shouts of pain, see it ALL, because that's the reality of what we are doing to the Iraqis and our soldiers.

    One comes away with, or at least I did, a true feeling of Michael Moore's great love for America and, even more so, his love for our fighting men and women who have been placed in a needlessly dangerous and ever growing conflict for misleading purposes, and with no end in sight.

    Bravo Mr Moore!
     
  16. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #16
    Given the "early numbers" and the "message"; how soon do you think that this film makes it to DVD before November 2004?

    I am predicting weekend box-office numbers of $15 to 20 million dollars.
     
  17. Awimoway thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #17
    That's a good point. Having switched, I found myself asking "Well, if these people can be right about so many issues I once disagreed on, maybe they are right about others."

    I've had to reevaluate my position on values-oriented subjects like abortion, gay marriage, media censorship, separation of church and state, and drug legalization. I'm still pretty "conservative" on church-state issues, abortion and censorship (and don't ask Neserk about drugs ;) ), but even so, I've taken the time to actually listen to the other side of the argument and respect where they're coming from. I don't hate the ACLU or NARAL, but I don't much agree with them. I appreciate that they are just trying to accomplish what they think is best for the American people.

    I'm reminded of the old line about politics and strange bedfellows. You can't expect one party's platform to satisfy you from top to bottom, but you have to make compromises to get anything done. So, for example, there will probably never be a candidate I completely agree with, but that doesn't mean I'll refuse to vote or waste my vote on a longshot--COUGH <<Nader>> COUGH.

    I can sleep at night knowing I voted for a candidate who will stock the Supreme Court with pro-abortion justices even if I think abortion is very wrong because it's not the only issue.
     
  18. bitfactory macrumors 6502

    bitfactory

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #18
    saw it. not impressed, but somewhat entertained.

    a) Mr. Moore spends a lot of time trying to convince you that the Bush family is in the Saudi's back pocket... then, incredibly - jumps to the Iraq war. the same war the Saudi's vehemently OPPOSED. whoops.

    b) spends way too much time on the BL family flights out of the US. Now the man Moore paints as the hero (Clarke) says it was his decision alone, and he made it. whoops.

    c) a lot of time spent on minorities in the military - right AFTER showing quite a few dead white soldiers.

    d) ohhh... the 7-minutes sitting in the classroom after being informed of the attack. give me a break... even the school principal (a Democrat) says she thinks he handled it perfectly.

    e) and everyone knows Democrats don't need to be made up before going on camera. entertaining clips, but entertaining in the same way Kerry's home video of him pretending to be smoking a joint while singing "Puff the Magic Dragon."

    overall, he paints the average military serviceman as a barbarian. sad, really. he really shows no respect for the military. his faux sympathy for the dead servicemen/women is transparent while trying to flip back and forth between points.

    doesn't matter anyway... he is the MASTER of promotional spin. good for him. he deserves to make money off of this - that's what America is all about. he loves making money off of people he thinks are "possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks."

    carry on!
     
  19. Dale Sorel macrumors 6502a

    Dale Sorel

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2003
    #19
    Why did I already know that the MacRumors forum was the only place where I would see this POS film put onto a pedestal :rolleyes:
     
  20. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #20
    So? Why does the military automatically somehow deserve respect? I have to personally meet and know a person in the military before I will show them respect.
     
  21. bitfactory macrumors 6502

    bitfactory

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #21
    2004 Democratic campaign celluloid pamphlet. the movie itself is WEAK - if you agree with the message "anyone but Bush," you'll eat it up.

    if you were hoping for more informative, well rounded op-ed piece about the current global/domestic political climate... look somewhere else. this isn't a documentary.
     
  22. bitfactory macrumors 6502

    bitfactory

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #22
    cause' they are serving their country - and possibly dying for it. those people deserve MY respect. obviously not yours, though.
     
  23. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #23
    Amen. They signed up to protect the freedoms that we hold dear. They sometimes die for it. It is our responsibility to make sure that if they do die in protecting us it was not for some lie or corporate benefit.

    Plus i though that the conservative ideal was to respect those that put their lives on the line for the rest of us.
     
  24. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #24
    Maybe you underestimated the intelligence of this community. To be able to see through the partisan politics that has been shoved down the throats in the last 12 years and to make an informative opinion on their won.

    I can't wait till next week when i hopefully won't have to reserve a seat in order to see the film. Sure there are not that many liberals willing to spend their money on what they already know.
     
  25. carbonmotion macrumors 6502a

    carbonmotion

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #25
    Some men die for their country, some men rape and pillage for their country. Who deserves respect and who doesn't? How do you seperate the bad apple from the good? These are questions we must answer as a nation. In my personal opinion, the few bad apples on the tree of "American Justice" are more than enough to taint the dignity of the entire tree. In fact as I write this, my friend Bobby is home from Iraq, he is a Huey Helicopter pilot in the U.S. Army and he concurs with me on this issue.
     

Share This Page