Fahrenheit as Film

Seeing as Chris Knipp is apparently incapable of starting a new thread to discuss the topics that interest him about F9/11, I thought, in an ironic twist, that I should start a thread to discuss Fahrenheit 9/11 as film. The goal of this thread should be restricted to discussing the aesthetics and craft of Fahrenheit 9/11 and, therefore, ought to stay away from discussions of the broader issues about the Bush administration, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war on terrorism that are raised therein. Posts, e.g., could raise and interact with some of these themes:

(1) What is the genre of this film? Moore is conventionally known as a documentary filmmaker but can this film be rightly classified as a documentary? If so, why? If not, why not and what is it?

(2) In what ways does Moore use images and narrative to weave together his argument? Again, as a reminder, the discussion should not get sidetracked into debates on the issues in the film; the question is how are the issues explored. Of course, some subjective judgment as to whether Moore is accurate or inaccurate may be raised but only insofar as relates to the craft employed. If Moore is deceptive or if he is telling the truth, how do we know? Issues such as film as ideology, film as propaganda, film as truth, and selectivity in film are all relevant for discussion.

(3) To what other films might Moore's documentary be compared? Or, is Moore's documentary a unique step in the history of filmmaking? Here, I'm also thinking, without prejudicing the debate, that it may be relevant to discuss other politically charged films by such directors as Griffith, Eisenstein, Riefenstahl, etc. (even if the film is not a documentary).

(4) What are some of the aesthetic values of the film? Is Moore's use of the camera, editing, and such innovative or banal?

(5) How does Moore's documentary stand up against other documentaries on this or related subjects? For instance, the abundance of documentaries that have aired on television or in theatres since 9/11, e.g., "Deadline Iraq", "Generation of Hate", "Generation Ex-Saddam", "Control Room", etc. etc.

Finally, as I have not seen the movie, I'll stay out of this discussion and simply lurk to see if we get some informed and interesting posts. Who knows maybe somebody will write something that will peak my interest and I'll have to go watch this film...

Oh, I reserve the right to pop in and comment if I think the posts are getting sidetracked... of course, as I'm not a moderator, I can't enforce my opinion but I figure it'll help to keep things focused... for Knipp's sake. Also, feel free to raise other issues that I've not mentioned as long as they conform to the parameters laid out in the first paragraph.

Questions, good:

Is it a documentary? Not sure what that definition is exactly. I would imagine a "true" documentary would attempt to be more objective and less opinionated. A.O. Scott of "The New York Times" says, "it might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon. Mr. Moore uses archival video images, rapid-fire editing and playful musical cues to create an exaggerated, satirical likeness of his targets." My opinion on this is that Moore has become so enraged at the complacency of the mainstream media and their willingness to swallow whatever the Bush Administration throws at them, that he feels he must present the counterargument and he must do so forcefully to wake the audience from their slumbers. A more nuanced and even-keeled film (i.e. an attempt at a "true" documentary) would not have had the same effect.

If one of Moore's "arguments" is that we've been duped by a highly-polished p.r. campaign, then his "use of images and narratives" is primarily to present images that belie those we've seen before. We see Bush frozen in indecision for several minutes after learning about the terrorist attacks. We hear from soldiers who are confused as to what they're doing in Iraq and seem to treat their mission as if it's a video game. Also, like in Moore's other films, he spends part of the film laying out his "argument" by narrating over standard stock-footage images.

"Is Moore deceptive or if he is telling the truth, how do we know?" Well, the same question could be asked about the information we receive from other sources. In some ways, a good documentary really succeeds when it shows that the complexities of a situation don't easily lead to a firm understanding of "the truth". Like I said, Moore presents the counterarguement to be used against what we've already seen and been told.

Well, that's enough for now. Maybe some others will join in and work on some of the other questions.

This is yet another example of your arrogance and ignorance.

You expect members here to discuss the film "as film" while you lurk? Why do we always have to do your legwork?
We must "refute your 8 points", we must discuss "the film as film", we must "give examples", we must "keep things focused".

Dear Professor: I hate your class. You won't engage us or give us the benefit of the doubt. (But who knows? Maybe you'll see our puny point- no guarantees or anything but WHO KNOWS? I may grant you a moment of lucidity...)

If you saw the film and explained why Moore is a total utter failure in the filmmaking dept. perhaps you might have an engaging discussion.

Don't be surprised if no one else responds, anduril.

Well, this is off-topic Johann... but then you knew that.

I apologize if it comes off as arrogant; that's not my deal. My point was deal with Knipp's objections that I'd sidetracked the earlier thread. Hey, if nobody posts, that's fine with me. In fact, that wouldn't surprise me and it would confirm my opinions about the film too... I'm just trying to build bridges here with Knipp who seems awfully pissed off with me.

I'm not here to piss people off.

The real problem here is that people want to discuss the issues that surround the film and I engaged those issues. Knipp told me to buzz off and lamented to high heaven about the fact that I discuss such issues instead of directly comment on the film itself. Well, first, I beg to differ; I do talk about films. I did in the Passion thread and I did in F9/11. In the latter case, you guys just want to be holier than thou and refuse to discuss it because I haven't seen it. Hey, whatever, no sweat off my back... your just a very poor advocate for film.

But, in any case, the issues raised by a film are important in their own right. If Knipp doesn't like it, he shouldn't have engaged me in the Eve of Destruction thread. He should have started his own thread to engage the issues he wanted to talk about, which is what I attempted to do here for him. Even in his protest threads though, he tries to argue with me. But, you know, I imagine his thread would have been awfully dead. In fact, the F9/11 threads weren't very active until I posted. Hey, but if that's the way you all like to keep it then go right ahead... don't post here about the film.

Speaking for myself, I DO want to discuss the film.
That's what my Eve of Destruction thread was founded on.

How can you have a great discussion when one party hasn't seen it? It's not "holier than thou". Can't we entertain (like you) the idea that we might be swayed by an opposing view? Or is that just reserved for you, who has all the facts he needs?

See the film and then we can begin some discussions that I know we are capable of.

In the meantime, I started this thread so that you, Knipp, JustaFied, Oscar, PMW, and everybody else can discuss the film. Why are you and the others being so antagonistic? Here's my position on it:

(1) I'm not supporting Moore on this one; if I can manage to see it without paying for it then I will.
(2) There's nothing in the film I don't already know about. I've had this confirmed by a partial script of the film available on the 'Net and, to this point, by the posts at FilmWurld.
(3) Moore's film creates a lie. Again I've had this confirmed by a partial script of the film and by the posts at FilmWurld.
(4) I'm interested in discussing the issues that the film covers but Knipp wants me to stay out of the Eve of Destruction thread so I've done so despite the fact that people in that thread continue to engage my points rather than the posts by Knipp and Oscar that addressed the 'film as film'--and Knipp is just as guilty as everyone else in doing it. Nearly everyone of his protest posts includes a snipe at one of my points.
(5) Knipp's being a whiner so I created this thread in an attempt to appease him but now, it appears, you guys are going to reject the overture. At least, JustaFied made an attempt to start a discussion on the film. It's too bad people are more interested in dissin' me than they are in discussing the film.

I want you to explain in short or long form (no wait- short form please) what exactly this LIE is that Moore has created.

Without seeing the film I'm afraid you are barking with ZERO BITE, amigo.

Are you oblivious to the notion that you are not participating in a discussion of the film at all? You HAVEN'T SEEN IT. This is kinda important, man!
Can we be blamed for "telling you to buzz off" when you don't even have memories of the film to work with? Cripes man!

We've heard your point about the invasion of Iraq. Chris pointed out Ceaucescu, Marcos, Jong Il, and the fact that Iraq is #2 in oil reserves on the planet.

In the film Bush is asked point blank: "What is the status of Bin Laden?"
Bush furrows his brow, and flippantly says: "Uh, he's a marginal figure".

Uh huh. Bin Laden is a marginal figure. Sept. 11, 2001 was a marginal day...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
I want you to explain in short or long form (no wait- short form please) what exactly this LIE is that Moore has created.

---

As I pointed out in the Eve of Destruction thread, this lie starts in the opening minutes. Here's another example:

Quote:

---

BRIT HUME: Sorry to interrupt you; Fox News now projects George W. Bush the winner in Florida and thus it appears the winner of the Presidency of the United States.

NARRATOR: All of a sudden the other networks said, "Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true."

---

The narrator's comments here are not factual statements. This continues on and on. The narrator repeatedly interjects commentary that is meant to incite not elucidate. And then, you get cuts to scenes of Bush laughing or other such things as if Bush is laughing in mockery and contempt of the narrator's words and the success of his evil, devilish plans; talk about over the top and, amazingly, people buy it. The script reveals many of these sorts of attempts to link and juxtapose events or actions in a way that are simply not connected in that way.

Or, back to the example I commented on in the Eve of Destruction:

Quote:

---

NARRATOR: A report like that might make some men jump, but as in days passed, George W. just went fishing. As the minutes went by, George Bush continued to sit in the classroom. Was he thinking, 'I've been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Which one of them screwed me? (cut to video of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein in 1983) Was it the man my daddy's friends delivered a lot of weapons to? (cut to picture of "Taliban Leaders") Was it that group of religious fundamentalists who visited my state when I was governor? (cut to picture of the President and Saudi Royal Prince) Or was it the Saudis? Damn, it was them. I think I'd better blame it on this guy (video of Saddam Hussein smoking a cigar, dancing).'

---

So, apparently Moore is a psychic. Are any of these observations factual? Its incitement and its character assassination.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
Without seeing the film I'm afraid you are barking with ZERO BITE, amigo.

---

That's the allegation...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
Are you oblivious to the notion that you are not participating in a discussion of the film at all? You HAVEN'T SEEN IT. This is kinda important, man!

---

Right now, yes. No-one. Not one person has engaged in a discussion of this film that suggests I'm at a disadvantage for not having seen the film.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
Can we be blamed for "telling you to buzz off" when you don't even have memories of the film to work with? Cripes man!

---

Hey, and as I've demonstrated, I'm willing to buzz off. I stopped posting in the Eve of Destruction but then rather than discussing the film, everybody, including Knipp, starts arguing with me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
[B]We've heard your point about the invasion of Iraq. Chris pointed out Ceaucescu, Marcos, Il Jong, and the fact that Iraq is #2 in oil reserves on the planet known as earth. Salient points?

---

Salient points? Yes. But, in the same post, Knipp is telling me to buzz off. So, should I answer or should I buzz off?

I'll answer Knipp's point. None of those leaders had (a) violated cease-fire agreements and certainly not to the extent that Saddam had done, (b) only one of those leaders is guilty of aggressively pursuing a WMD program, (c) none of those leaders are situated in a highly volatile region of the world (N.Korea, e.g., is bordered by highly stable, mostly democractic countries), (d) none of those leaders are in violation of UN resolutions authorizing all necessary means to effect compliance, (e) only one of those leaders has acted with similar belligerence towards the United States as that of Saddam, (f) while all these leaders have deplorable records on human rights issues, only one could really be put in the same category as Saddam, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Where's the LIE, anduril?

You've pointed out no lies. You've pointed out Moore's opinions- which he accepts full responsibility for.
The film is not about Moore- he's raising questions, questions which you disregard. You are taking offence at MOORE. Look at what he's saying, genius.

Who cares if all the other news networks did as Moore said? The fact is THEY REPORTED BUSH WINNING FLORIDA. That's the issue, and that's no lie.

Mind reader? No. He's offering us his opinion, and you're free to disagree. He's making us think. Character assassination? That's pushing it. He's fully justified: Bush told him to "find real work" in the film- you're telling a great filmmaker to find real work? Your asking for great film in return. The film is mightier than the pen!

No one has suggested you're at a disadvantage? I'm suggesting it. If you're gonna deprive yourself of the opportunity to confirm or deny what you already know, then you better believe that you're at a disadvantage.
I don't think you realize how true Fahrenheit rings with people. People who are for the war, against the war, neutral- this film is damn important.

You can stay in the dark or come into the light. It's up to you. This film is revolutionary and your act of spite is really pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
Where's the LIE, anduril?

You've pointed out no lies. You've pointed out Moore's opinions- which he accepts full responsibility for.
The film is not about Moore- he's raising questions, questions which you disregard. You are taking offence at MOORE. Look at what he's saying, genius.

Who cares if all the other news networks did as Moore said? The fact is THEY REPORTED BUSH WINNING FLORIDA. That's the issue, and that's no lie.

Mind reader? No. He's offering us his opinion, and you're free to disagree. He's making us think. Character assassination? That's pushing it. He's fully justified: Bush told him to "find real work" in the film- you're telling a great filmmaker to find real work? Your asking for great film in return. The film is mightier than the pen!

---

The lie is in the misrepresentation, that is in Moore's opinion. To imply that FOX had influenced (1) the other networks and (2) the final election results is simply wrong. It's hocus pocus and anybody familiar with the electoral system knows it. Bush's win may be cause to lament that the presidency isn't decided by proportional representation; it may be cause to get upset with the poor voting technologies; or, the rules of the electoral system. That's all fair game. But, the fact is that Bush, by all accounts, played the political game and won. Gore admitted it and so has virtually every other constitutional scholar in the land. Complain all you want about the system but what Moore does is misrepresent what happened. That's a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
No one has suggested you're at a disadvantage? I'm suggesting it. If you're gonna deprive yourself of the opportunity to confirm or deny what you already know, then you better believe that you're at a disadvantage.

---

Sorry... I should clarify... no one has proven I'm at a disadvantage. Suggest it... yeah, they all have.

I won't deny myself. I just won't support Moore to do it. Y'know, people have talked about how Moore is this great patriot who just wants everybody to see the truth. Well then, now that he has made more than it ever cost him to make the movie, why doesn't he let people see it for free? If it appears on network television, I'll watch it. If he wants to make it available for free download, I'll watch it. But, I ain't paying Moore $12 just for the honor of listening to his opinion for two hours... especially when every indication is that I'll feel like I wasted not only my money but the two hours too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
I don't think you realize how true Fahrenheit rings with people. People who are for the war, against the war, neutral- this film is damn important.

---

Oh, I get this. It just doesn't mean the movie is true. People are frustrated with democracy and the state of the world. They don't like their lot in life and they resent people with more money telling them how they should see the world. So, they latch on to someone like Moore who they think is just like them... but in reality he's as much, if not more in my opinion, a part of the machine and he's taking advantage of people too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anduril
1) I'm not supporting Moore on this one; if I can manage to see it without paying for it then I will.

---

Why don't you hop it? If you're not willing to contribute money to the cause, pay for another film, watch it, then see 9/11. Well, at least that's what us "rebellious hooligan teenagers" occasionally do.

That's an idea PMW raised and I may yet do that... I've never done it before, though...

As I have said, anduril won't see Fahrenheit.
His whole belief system collapses if he does.

Let's tally the facts:

-Bush claims GOD himself wanted him to be President. Can't argue with that one: Jesus has approved Bush.

-He doesn't think Bush stole the election. If he did, then his whole argument about the justification of the invasion of Iraq is utterly meaningless because we wouldn't have seen the events that have unfolded since.

-Michael Moore's opinions. This is the root- you've admitted it. You said the lies are in his opinions. We have a winner! The lies are not in what he's saying- it's HOW he's saying it. The sad truth is you won't see the film so you DON'T KNOW HOW HE'S SAYING IT. You are speculating based on what you've heard here and bits of the script you've read online. But you won't see it, out of pure spite. The man is a patriot whether you like it or not. I'm not "jumping into bed with him"- I agree with his point. As I said in the other thread- I don't need to see it again. The film doesn't wow me as a documentary. It wows me as an op-ed piece.
This is why I'm so indignant over your refusal to address the film in a fair manner. Praise Jesus!
I wanna see a burning bush alright....



P.S. Another confirmation that Bush will win in Nov: He was asked yesterday what the difference between Edwards and Cheney is.
He said: Cheney could be President. Is he one confident, arrogant Mofo or what?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
P.S. Another confirmation that Bush will win in Nov: He was asked yesterday what the difference between Edwards and Cheney is. He said: Cheney could be President. Is he one confident, arrogant Mofo or what?

---

Confident yes. But I suspect we could see a shift in Bush's VP choice if his numbers continue to drop...interesting. Cheney is an asshole, and a sick asshole. Not doing much for Bush's innocent/tough cowboy act... I think he could bring in old Colin Powell who might even say yes to the nomination if he thought it would pave his way to the White House... an interesting few months we have ahead of us, all culminating in the timely capture of Osama bin Laden. What a show it should be!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
As I have said, anduril won't see Fahrenheit.
His whole belief system collapses if he does.

---

C'mon, Jason. You can do better than that.

BTW, I saw Bowling for Columbine yesterday; it was on Movie Central. Now, this was a movie where I anticipated I might sympathize with Moore as I share similar views about some of the issues raised but, man, I couldn't believe what I was watching. It was almost enough to make me hurl. His fuzzy logic; constantly undermining his own arguments; jumping all over the place with disconnected and decontextualized ideas/facts/events; his insensitive way of conducting interviews; his political gamesmanship; it was sickening. I never expected it either because I generally agree that the (1) media promotes fear, (2) gun control is a legitimate policy, and so on. But, his rhetoric was so bad in this movie; so offensive in many respects; that it almost makes me want to join the NRA. If F9/11 is anything like this, I hope I never find the time to watch it. It would be a shame to give this guy another two hours of my life.

The great irony of Moore's film is that he is doing the very thing he rails against in his documentary. He's feeding off people's fears; only he is feeding off their fears of the rich and the powerful; their fear of not having control over their own lives let alone the political process and international events; their fears that everything, everywhere is a conspiracy that threatens their life.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
P.S. Another confirmation that Bush will win in Nov: He was asked yesterday what the difference between Edwards and Cheney is.
He said: Cheney could be President. Is he one confident, arrogant Mofo or what?

---

What's so arrogant about that, Johann? This just goes to show that anything Bush does is evil in your books. You've been had.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pmw
Confident yes. But I suspect we could see a shift in Bush's VP choice if his numbers continue to drop...interesting. Cheney is an asshole, and a sick asshole. Not doing much for Bush's innocent/tough cowboy act... I think he could bring in old Colin Powell who might even say yes to the nomination if he thought it would pave his way to the White House... an interesting few months we have ahead of us, all culminating in the timely capture of Osama bin Laden. What a show it should be!!

---

I think it is more likely that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney would swap posts. Powell has already said he's leaving the cabinet after this term is over and don't suspect that he would return. He's got little chance in 2008 against Giuliani, McCain, and/or Jeb Bush for the next Republican presidential nomination.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anduril

I think it is more likely that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney would swap posts. Powell has already said he's leaving the cabinet after this term is over and don't suspect that he would return. He's got little chance in 2008 against Giuliani, McCain, and/or Jeb Bush for the next Republican presidential nomination.

---

Good point, but they fed her to the wolves with the testimony thing. She's fodder for so much ridicule in the media that I'm not sure how she would do against two fresh faces. What about Mccain though? That would be interesting... Im decidedly with the Democrats in either case, but I am very interested in the currents and how they are ridden/stoked.
P

I'm talking to a ghost. anduril is a ghost. A right-wing nutjob of a ghost. You have a macabre hatred for Michael Moore. I'm wretching reading your comments.

Moore's just a guy from Flint Michigan who worked half his life at poverty level wages. He said recently "People complain about me living in a rich apartment in Manhattan, but when you live half your life making less than $19, 000 a year you don't care about money. It's THAT ingrained in you."

Irregardless of the "lies", of the "misinterpretation" that you ALLEGE (still haven't seen the movie, right?) the man is making a serious point: the president must be held accountable. And in this case the man must go. Indeed, the next few months will be very interesting. Edwards has thrown a huge wrench in everybody's plans. He's young enough to last long enough to become President one day. Even Hillary Clinton, in her cozy little niche, has come out to fight. Nobody's happy with Kerry's choice.

What's so arrogant about that? Oh, nothing. Just the fact that Bush hasn't batted an eye since the film premiered, that's all.
He's gritting his teeth. He's got contempt. Not a positive thing to dwell on when you're the top man in Washington...

I'm so happy anduril is placing his comments here for posterity.
Watch those blinders! The knowledge that I'm on the correct side with the right perspective is what counts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pmw


Good point, but they fed her to the wolves with the testimony thing. She's fodder for so much ridicule in the media that I'm not sure how she would do against two fresh faces. What about Mccain though? That would be interesting... Im decidedly with the Democrats in either case, but I am very interested in the currents and how they are ridden/stoked.
P

---

Personally, I think it is unlikely that Bush will replace Cheney. Bush is very loyal to his friends and he's unlikely to dump Cheney, especially after Kerry choosing Edwards didn't produce the usual Veep bounce that one might expect. Bush is actually very comfortable right now in the polls, especially for an incumbent.

McCain is an unlikely choice, primarily because it would give McCain a boost against Jeb Bush in the 2008 nomination. It's also why Giuliani is unlikely. Condi, I think, held up pretty good and her numbers are strong. Plus a black woman VP... that's got power to pull Dems... no question.

Still, like I say, it's unlikely that Bush will drop Cheney.

I'm a peaceful guy.

I don't like this situation in Iraq.
Bush caused it. He gives many many reasons for it, but the fact remains that he did not have to attack. He was not justified.

So many people have suffered and died on both sides that there cannot be any "victory" here in any way shape or form. Correction: financially. There's victory Financially.

Bush is a businessman, not a politician. He's a manipulative, silverspoon-fed, arrogant, slimy piece of shit. He had a chance in the depressing aftermath of the attacks to become a real man for the history books.

What happened? See Michael Moore's film. He'll help you out.
Bush ain't talking. He's got his own rules:
-I don't testify
-A dictatorship would be easier...
-I'm a war president
-Bin Laden is a marginal figure
-We didn't find any weapons. But we knew he could make them....

And on and on and on. The man is a political disgrace.

With great power comes great responsibility. Where's Bush's responsibility? He has none. GOD is on his side- he answers to no one. He was a Yale Bonesman. He towers over all us "citizens".


Who was he speaking to when he spoke these timeless words?
"Some call you the elite. I call you my base"

I'm tired of reading anduril's hot air.
I rest Moore's powerful case.

Johann: Really, c'mon, you said you wanted to discuss the film but you are not again. I posted lines out of the friggin' script but only you can do is try and label me and insult me.

I don't hate Moore but Bowling for Columbine was a pathetic piece of work. Like I said, I had much to agree with him on going into the movie but by the end of it, his rhetoric was so over the top, his logic so fuzzy, his arguments so innane, that I literally started wondering about whether or not I should really share his views.

F9/11 seems to me much the same way... like I've said, I've seen a significant portion of the script and it's the same sort of deal. Consider the Senator in the movie who won't sign up his son for the draft... he had nephews fighting in that war and, in fact, several senators do have boys fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or, consider the James Bath thing that Moore makes such a big deal out of... of course, the name was crossed out... whenever you request public records on your own behalf, the government blacks out any records that do not pertain to you in order to protect the privacy of the other individual. It's standard policy. Go order your military medical record, Johann... if anybody else from your unit is named in it I bet you, even here in Canada, the name will be blacked out. Flimsy, flimsy evidence all the way through... and then the abundance of close up shots on Bush et al.; the use of stock, 'off-the-record' footage juxtaposed with other comments in order to deliberately incite hatred... it's a B-rated movie stunt with no real merit. Give me stock footage of Moore 'off-the-record' and I'm sure I could make tonnes of people think the guy is an asshole first-class. It's cheap tricks like this throughout. Events are constantly decontextualized and recontextualized in ways that suits Moore's fancies. I actually really appreciate when I see a good counter-argument... in fact, I read an article the other day from Al Gore on MoveOn.org that I actually thought was well-done. I thrive on seeing good arguments put forward. In fact, my career is best on being able to read and appreciate multiple views and nothing impresses me more than seeing a point well-argued whether I agree with it or not. Moore doesn't make a good argument; it's incitement and character assassination and rhetoric. If this is the best you're going to throw out at me, Johann, I have no reason at all to see this movie.

I will not discuss the film with someone who hasn't seen it and has no intention to.

You've made your point clear. I've made mine. You could say you and I speak for "both sides" of the Iraq war.

Yeah, you sure did post lines from the friggin' script. Too bad you didn't read my reply: it doesn't matter what Moore's opinions are:
what is the core of what he's saying?

Hello? Anybody out there? If all you can do is call it character assassination and rhetoric, then you've got a helluva weak case, man.

You're not addressing Moore's complaints- you do not pass go- you go straight to "rhetoric".
Can anybody see through the thick fog anduril's been spraying around here?

God save me from your followers...

You haven't addressed Bush's claim that God ordained him to be President. You have no opinion on that?

Regardless of how well anybody debates you, you just parry with boring tripe.

I'm seriously through talking with you. This is like hitting your head on a brick wall...

Regarding Bush feeling that he was ordained by God to be President... I can certainly understand how an 'outsider' may regard such a statement with considerable annoyance to say the least. However, for me, I've got no problem with it. It is common Christianese, if you will. Many Christians, particularly those of the Fundamentalist ilk (but even more Evangelical moderates), will frequently use language like this because they feel that their vocations are a calling from God; it's not a God-complex or anything. Quite the contrary, it's actually a servant mentality. I feel the same way about being a professor. Bush feels that he was called by God to be President in this moment in history... considering that he is President right now, it is kind of hard to dispute--whether you like him or not--if you believe God superintends history... but it means no more than that and I don't find it offensive at all.

Johann: I'd love to have more to debate on but no one seems willing to throw it out there. Putting statements in bold caps doesn't make an argument. Dissin' me isn't an argument. Lamenting that I haven't seen the movie isn't an argument. Prove to me that I need to see the movie... that there is something there worth my attention... Or, argue on the issues. Or, discuss amongst yourselves if you want... I've indicated that I'm willing to step outside and just observe. I don't care...

You're frustrated because you haven't made a worthwhile point. You simply expect me to go along with your subjective opinions and go along with Moore's subjective opinions. Well, I don't work that way. I don't buy into something simply because people have opinions that I should. I buy into something because they've made the case for its importance. Moore is a crappy apologist for the left-wing cause; why won't anyone on this forum discuss F9/11 in an informative and insightful way? I don't care if your not responding to me. I will read anything anyone here has to write on the matter but not Knipp, not Oscar, not you, Johann, not PMW, not Raoul, not any of you advocates of the movies will do more than say: It was such a great movie and it's all true. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I'll stick to reading more informed commentary from the right and the left.

I'm a little surprised and a bit angry that my thread that started this whole conversation about 9/11 as film was mostly ignored and this thread was created. The creation of it was more as an emotional response to the more subjective political thread but it conveniently ignored the more focused issues that I have attempted to raise. I do agree that the political discussion of this film on this website has become too wide-ranging and has moved away from the basic premise of this website. This thread, therefore, is at least an attempt to bring some civility back to what otherwise might only drown into some black pool of political rhetoric that will serve no useful purpose in regards to films.

Great point tabuno.

Somebody needs to apologize. That word IGNORANCE seems to hang out on these threads a hell of a lot...

I apologize.
Because I helped in the creation of this thread.

Let's face it- the yo-yo president of the U.S.A. knows nothing. He is a dunce. He is a Fool.

The last living vestiges of the American Dream are on the line.
This is not the time to have a bogus rich kid in charge of the White House.

Which is, after all, our house. That is our headquarters- it is where the heart of America lives. So if the president acts giddy about other people's lives- if he wantonly and stupidly endorses mass murder as a logical plan to make sure we are stiil Number One- he is a Jackass by definition- a loud and meaningless animal with no functional intelligence and no balls.

To say this goofy child president is looking more and more like Nixon in the summer of 1974 would be a flagrant insult to Nixon.
Is it even vaguely possible that some Republican whore-beast of a false president could actually make Richard Nixon look like a Liberal?

Nixon crossed that line when he began murdering foreigners in the name of "family values"- and George W. Bush crossed it when he sneaked into office and began killing brown-skinned children in the name of Jesus and the American People.

We have become a Nazi Monster in the eyes of the whole world.
- a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that's how history will judge us....No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you.

Well, shit on that dumbness.

George W. Bush does not speak for me or my son or my mother or my friends or the people I respect inthis world.

We didn't vote for these cheap, greedy little killers who speak for America today- and we will not vote for them again in 2002. Or 2004. Or ever.

Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George W. Bush?

They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammed Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us- they are the Ku Klux Klan.

I piss down the throats of these Nazis.

Just read through this new thread and am astonished at the number of times anduril has used my name in vain. Who's this "Knipp"guy he keeps talking about, I found myself wondering. Another one of his fantasies? No, I guess it's me, in some form. I must have gotten under his skin. But it wasn't me but Johann who first told him to buzz off; I just seconded the motion. A guy who hasn't seen a film starting threads discussing it "as a film" is kind of a harmless crank. I hope harmless, anyway. I wonder if anduril acquired all his information indirectly like his information about Fahrenheit 9/11. Kinda sad, a secondhand life. Three cheers to Johann for his spirited rejoinders. I haven't the patience.

Statistics: number of IMDb comments on The Day After Tomorrow: 595; Troy: 930; Fahrenheit 9/11: 934. Moore's movie is beating out the summer blockbusters in web browser interest.

One thing is sure, and that's that the electorate is way more politicized than it was before the last presidential elections. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sign of that and a reason for it. For sure there are plenty of right wingers like anduril who are staying away from it, but a high proportion of the adult population is going to see the film. Six percent of all voters say they've seen it, and 38 percent say they are going to see it. That's close to half of all voters. Moreover 23 percent of viewers of the film are Bush voters, according to a poll (MCN Press Release http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad...040708_pr.html). I strongly urge a look at this site--there's a lot more interesting information there about the demographics and electoral implications of Fahrenheit 9/11 viewings.

And there are a lot of other political documentaries out. People haven't forgotten Bowling for Columbine, which some think a better piece of work than Fahrenheit. And there's Control Room, Hunting the President, Hijacking Catastrophe (which we all ought to be seeing and discussing in relation to Moore's film--since it's another treatment, some think better, of the same material--I haven't seen it yet), and The Corporation (which I have seen and which is excellent -- and in which Michael Moore literally has the last word), just to name stuff currently showing.

Bush is losing some of his base--off the base (which is what Al Qaeda means, of course)--the disenchanted and bereaved military; that widow in Flint Michael Moore follows to Washington is not alone. Are the slow but steady drops in his approval ratings (not as big as daddy's at this stage but bad enough so his reelection is, historically, quite doubtful now) partly due to Michael Moore? I think he's played a small part in them. He's put the anti-Bush argument out there in highly visible, ironic, in-your-face form for all to see and digest. PMW is certainly right: there are going to be some desperate moves, and it's going to be something to watch.

But let's not just watch, friends. Let's get active. Let's do what we can to get out the vote.

I may have been misread. I didn't mean that I wanted to discuss Fahrenheit 9/11 strictly and exclusively as a film; that would be ridiculous, and impossible. I meant that any discussion based on Fahrenheit 9/11 should not drift off exclusively into politics and abandon sight of the film--which one of the most visible and noisy participants in these Moore threads has still not even seen. You cannot discuss Fahrenheit 9/11 without getting into the facts, and the politics, but you should not discuss the politics on FilmWurld without reference to the film. I don't come here to argue about George Bush, but I'm as excited and glad that this film was made and has so much public attention as anduril is, apparenlty, annoyed and dismayed. It's impossible not to be partisan here, and every contribution illustrates that, but that's no reason to stop dealing with the issues of documentary film, political film, and Michael Moore.

I saw Fahrenheit for the second time yesterday.

The film is brilliant. It deserved the Palm D'or without question.
I was paying strict attention this time- allow me to discuss it "as film". I'll indulge anduril...



There are two scenes that didn't hit me emotionally the first time.
I felt so sad when we see the reactions of the people in the streets of New York. There is a brief shot of an old man, sobbing.
We don't know who he is, but the look on his face is so heart-wrenching that you feel absolutely horrible. The people watching people jumping to their deaths- how can you forget these images.

Moore has our attention with this movie. If you have a shred of humanity in you, you cannot stand behind this "president".You cannot "side" with this man if you are a human being- it's that simple. He is a war criminal. George W. Bush is a WAR CRIMINAL. 300 firefighters died on Sept.11. 300. That's an army of firefighters- a battallion of trained, fit men. They bravely went into the towers to do their duty and were snuffed out.

You'd think that losing 300+ professional, VITAL men would be an irretreivable loss. Well, since that day Dubya has sent 1000+ trained military soldiers to their deaths. ONE THOUSAND. And counting. For what?! Oil?

Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil? Oil?

Sorry. slip of the keys there....


Hey anduril- you got a lotta nerve to stand behind Iraq's invasion.
You got balls to say this war was justified. You got titanium testicles and a heart of black coal if you think this war is about "Ousting Saddam".

Iraq has never in it's whole history as a country attacked the United States in any way. Saddam never fired one bullet over the Atlantic and killed a single American. He pointed his fingers, many times. But he never actually punched any Yankee in the face.
Never caused violence in America- not once.

And here comes Baby Bush. "He tried to kill my Dad". Saddam was priority Number One when he moved into the White House. Michael Moore's genius sequence where he edits the words "Saddam" and "Al-Queda" together ad nauseum is sheer brilliance. Al-Queda had absolutely NOTHING to do with Saddam Hussein. Zero. Zip. Fuck all.

When you see this film and realize what is going on, you feel a knot tighten in your stomach so hard and fast that you wanna puke. The corruption and deception is so sickeningly EVIL that you cannot remain un-political. Chris Knipp is right- people who were never politicized are getting political. I'm getting political! I'm getting excited about politics! Michael Moore is one inspirational American. He's The Man right now. And he's so righteous about it it just warms the soul....Almost makes me wish I was an American. (Almost!)

There are other scenes in the film that I didn't ruminate too much on but are just as sickening:

-Moore shows the American soldiers protecting the Halliburton workers who are there for the oil- the ones who feel completely protected while they drill. That soldier (who is one of the bravest I've ever seen) who says: (I'm paraphrasing) When you see a Halliburton employee making $8000 a month working 40 hours a week driving the same route every day while we're risking our lives out here...everybody knows what is going on....

-The convention for "Re-Building Iraq". What a stroke of genius that Moore put that footage in there! "When that oil starts flowing there will be lots of money. And whatever the cost, the government will pay you". Not to mention: "It's good for business, bad for the people...."

George W. Bush has made millions and millions and millions of dollars off the blood of his own people and the Iraqi people- The Poor. The only thing anduril has written that has any truth to it is when he said Bush attacked Iraq "because he could". That's the only remark from him that has even a shred of truth in it. Fact Jack. Because he could.

Only mushrooms grow in the dark, anduril.
Iraqi Freedom? Bwahahahahahah!!!!!
Keep dreaming, chachi

It's all about money, power and OIL my blind ex-friend.

How can you sleep soundly, with a clean conscience, when you support Fascism, Naziism and Imperialism?

You are one sad animal. Praise Jesus.

At Michael Moore's website he has an Esquire article written by Ron Reagan- yes, the son of "Ronnie":The case against Bush.

He lays it all out, baby. Bush IS evil, anduril. He IS a nazi fascist imperialist- just watch the quicktime clip Moore posted of the speech he gave just 4 days ago. Priceless. And the Pillsbury Doughboy, standing right beside his pal Georgy...

Been watching your beloved CNN lately anduril?

Lots of peace over there! Lots of happy Iraqis!

Chim Chim Chereee!!

I gotta employ some heavy sarcasm here (as right-wing as I can make it):

Yep, those Iraqis sure are doing the happy dance. The invasion of Iraq was the best decision America ever made as a nation. Bush is tough on terrorism- let's make sure he's re-elected folks. He's not finished over there- we must support the Great Texan of the New Millenium. He's our commander- we're just the space cadets.

He's riding the rockets- for freedom. How unpatriotic it would be to vote out a man whose base is the elite. We all aspire to be the elite. He's a role model for today and for the future. Between his stellar record as a businessman and a National Guard pilot we have heaven as a leader. Not to mention his belief in the Christ.
No nation should have a leader who doesn't believe in Hay-zoose.

Without God we are nothing. Bush has God, thus we do too. Jesus' divine hand guides every bomb and bullet that is fired out of every American weapon. Why? Because it's in the name of
FREEDOM. It's worth fighting for. Vote Bush in November or we're all going to hell.




this message bought and paid for by an angry citizen of earth

AMEN, Brother!

Here's the Ron Reagan statement at Esquire's site:

http://www.esquire.com/features/arti..._reagan_1.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann

Been watching your beloved CNN lately anduril?

---

Hmm...well, since Anduril has bowed out of the discussion as a concession to those of us who thought he should see the movie, I don't think there should be any baiting in the thread. Leave it to politics/the film, but don't make it personal. We're likely to drift off into the woods again...

That being said, I am interested in Ron Reagan's article and the speech. Off to look at them right now!
P

I agree.

I've said enough here- I don't need to stoke the fires.

Moore is so tired of the huge gusts of hot right-wing air blowing from all directions that he's posted a Line-By-Line, six-section fact confirmation of his magnificent film.

Once and for all he's silencing the jokers, hate-mongers and just plain pathetic losers who attack him and his truth.

After all the words and politics expressed on this site I sit here now with a tremendous pride that I sided with a guy who's doing what no one in America seems to have the balls to do: speak up.

The right-wingers and Moore-haters truly sicken me. They don't seem to believe in democracy. They don't seem to embrace freedom- yet they call themselves "freedom fighters".

Think about that. Thay say we go to war for freedom. To "fight the terrorists" so we can be safe. Isn't this amazingly ironic and pathetically weak as an ideology?

Moore is right on the money with his complaints, and no one seems to notice. They see a fat man making noise and they want him to shut up.

Well, he ain't gonna shut up. Freedom of speech still exists, kids. The freedom to speak your mind and freedom of the press is an American right. Just because somebody disagrees with you you kill them? Those are great values you have there. Great moral code you live by. Wonderful outlook on life- can I sign up?

Moore's next film is on the health care system in America: Sicko. I can see the doctors in all the hospitals in America scurrying from him now! I can see the health care officials bracing for an earthquake- a Flint Michigan-brand quake registering 12.9 on the richter scale.

Moore is a powerful man and he's becoming more and more powerful. You cannot dismiss him anymore. You cannot run him down anymore. You can't "poke holes" in his work anymore.
He's a serious filmmaker, socio/political commentator and author.

What have these Moore haters done to help America? Moore is re-establishing faith in democracy. He's showing that the little man has a voice too- a voice that cries out to be heard.

He's a millionaire? yep- he sure is. And he STILL makes movies, films and comments on life in America just as he did back in '88. No huge changes in his attitude or appearance-he's still chubby, he still wears a ball cap. Still a pest to the liars and corrupt assholes who try to rip off innocent people.

How is shedding light on atrocious behaviors and practices unpatriotic or traitorious?

As Hunter Thompson said, who are these swine who get fleeced and fooled? Who are these morons who beak off at the mouth at people like Moore-who has truly righteous causes?

They are in the dark and do not inhabit the same world I do, and the really sad reality is that they must see those "mushroom clouds" condoleeza rice spoke about in Ron Reagan's article in order to change their tune.

Yet more great points posted on his website- today it's a piece by Bill Maher- that politically incorrect charmer whose show of the same name was one of the few on televison that had me tuning in. Bring back Politically Incorrect!

Not to mention the Goss fiasco- Moore has posted another quicktime clip: the new CIA goon stating VERY clearly that he's not qualified for the job.

It almost makes you wonder if the president, white house, and all the things Washington are an elaborate hoax, a REAL "West Wing" fiction created for our entertainment:

-There's no war in Iraq- the footage is being shot on a soundstage in L.A.

-Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney are actually Shakespearean actors, brilliant thespians who graduated top of their class.

-the "Washington Ensemble" have put on some amazing productions lately- this season has been a potboiler, eh?

-The season finale will be the greatest piece of TV ever witnessed- how many voters will tune in? How many will vote to Kill J.R.?