Fahrenheit 9/11 Review Thread

[Beor]

I just saw it today (an Iraqi bootleg copy), and I must say, that it feels like a slap in the face. Mr. Moore might as well go to Arlington and spit on everyone's graves. The entire "documentary" was more akin to a perverted, disgusting "This is Spinal Tap", without the band and kick ass rock and roll. Oh, and I am also glad that he decided to play on the pains that people who lost sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters down here to insult the president. On the other side, he is probably a hero to the insurgent muslims that keep killing American soldiers, so he will be able to make another stab at us again in about five years.

[Hemel]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Beor. I don't know whether this helps, but when I watched the film I came away with the thoughts that MM had respected immensely the troops who went over to Iraq. I found the ending of the film very moving.

If anything I felt that actually MM was standing up for people enlisted, and asking some pertinent and necessary questions on their behalf. I never felt they were disrespected.

I don't want to intrude. But I hope this helps.

[Beor]

Well, Hemel, I am glad you got that from it, and I hope that is the message that gets to more people.

However, to me it came off as him exploiting service members when they arent expecting it to make a point that they probably werent trying to make. The editing was obviously done, as JD said, to portray a solid extreme left view. Not only that, but I thought that it made the military look like a bunch of clowns. The way that he showed the civilian casualitys made it seem like we were targeting them, and he apparantly refused to show any of the people that were happy about it, which seems to be the majority of the Iraqis. he didnt show you any pictures of Iraqis waving and rejoicing when 3rd ID rolled through, but he did manage to show some Iraqi woman screaming to God and denouncing the military and the US. Now, I suppose I cant blame her, but if you are going to show something, you need to show all sides. Michael Moore wasnt trying to show the truth, he was trying to promote controversy, controversy that we really dont need right now, the county is divided enough, and we are at war, whether or not they say we are. I think the film was extremely inapproiate, and it did offend me pretty bad.

But, if you came off with a good feeling about the military, then good, maybe I am wrong.

[Ragnarok]

I like what Moore did, of course he has manipulated the media to his advantage and yes it is one sided. You need to take into consideration that this movie is NOT about truth, its a piece of propaganda to screw up Bush's campaign. And I applaud Moore for creating it, and some of the things shown in the movie are true, some of it is stretched. I think Moore is a very smart guy because his movie has made people question or reanalyze the Bush administration. Of course, many people won't believe everything shown in the film, parts of it are one sided or inaccurate... however he is making people think.... which is very good IMO. I'm sure Beor that there are alot of people who hate this movie as well, especially if you support Bush or the war. However, Moore is raising questions that need to be answered, and all I can say is deal with it, he can't please everybody.

[Beor]

Well, I really dont have much of a choice but to deal with it, now do I? Point is that I am not asking anyone to believe in the war, but it is pretty *****y to exploit soldiers. You dont have to support the war to support the troops.

[Hemel]

Originally posted by Beor
... he apparantly refused to show any of the people that were happy about it, which seems to be the majority of the Iraqis. he didnt show you any pictures of Iraqis waving and rejoicing when 3rd ID rolled through,

I agree with this absolutely, and this was in my mind when I watched the film. And too what was in my mind were you and the good things you'd said, here on Entmoot. (Yup - I thought of you while I was watching! ) So right from the first shots of Baghdad, it was clear that this was a particular construction of a story, and there were other things that could have been said and yet were left out. I think maybe too I expected that from MM - he isn't at all averse to bending things to get his point across

But, yes, I can promise you that that film hasn't ended up making me think bad things about the military - quite the opposite, in fact


And now you're coming back ... I hope, Beor, you really enjoy your time back at home - and make sure you get lots of everything you've been deprived of!

[Beor]

Originally posted by Hemel



And now you're coming back ... I hope, Beor, you really enjoy your time back at home - and make sure you get lots of everything you've been deprived of!

I will, and thanks. I really do appriciate the good will willing, dude. And I hope you get lots of what I have been deprived of too

[Rían]

I was hoping to get your opinion on this movie, Beor - I'm glad you saw it, but sorry for the "slap in the face" I really wanted to hear the opinion of someone that's actually BEEN THERE for quite a long time now, as opposed to someone popping in and out and only looking for one side.

I think your point, "However, to me it came off as him exploiting service members when they arent expecting it to make a point that they probably werent trying to make." is important. Like how someone said earlier on this thread that service members said that they wanted to go home. Well, pretty much EVERY service member in EVERY war has wanted to go home, and they'd be looney to NOT want to go home! The important point is that they have chosen to stay, mainly because many think it's the RIGHT decision to be there, and that's why they aren't all just chucking their responsibilities and deserting, and THAT was probably never mentioned.

From what I've heard, I think your: "Michael Moore wasnt trying to show the truth..." is prob. pretty accurate, and I don't think that's right.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Beor
Well, I really dont have much of a choice but to deal with it, now do I? Point is that I am not asking anyone to believe in the war, but it is pretty *****y to exploit soldiers. You dont have to support the war to support the troops.

Its propaganda man, no one should take it seriously for the matter, I've read up about it and I have seen the trailers for it. I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't comment on "exploiting of soldiers' but I can see why you would be pissed off. I think Moore wasn't trying to "exploit the soldiers" in a bad way, my guess is he was aiming to show opposition to the war but I could be wrong since I haven't seen it yet.

[brownjenkins]

i probably won't get around to seeing it till it comes out on video... but one positive i've noticed, is that, pro or con, it has people talking about sensitive issues that many were afraid to touch not that long ago... a good thing in the long run

[Giroth]

hmm..here is some math... (all in fun )

michael moore + far left views + movie equipment = PROPAGANDA

me + Fahrenheit 9/11 = total waste of time and money

Fahrenheit 9/11 + "Documentary" = lie

[Janny]

Young... popular, right wing? I thought I was the only one...

[Orion]

Originally posted by Nerdanel
I'd really like to see it. I wonder whenm it comes to Finland though..

My american friend checked the imbd.com and she said that it´d get here sometimes in the fall. Can´t wait to see it myself, she liked it a lot.

[/off topic]

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Janny
Young... popular, right wing? I thought I was the only one...

of course not!
I'm young, popular, right wing, and pulchritudinous.

This is from the Philly Inquirer (originally the website www.spinsanity.org) "It's a Web site whose proprietors scrutinize statements by our political leaders, candidates, journalists, and pundits for honesty, fairness, and rhetorical soundness."

Let's count the ways film distorted facts

Despite all the critical notice and box-office success it has achieved, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 continues a pattern of dissembling and inaccuracy found in most of his work.

Moore's antics have become notorious. He distorted the chronology of his first movie, Roger & Me; made numerous factual errors in his books Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country?; and altered footage of a Bush-Quayle ad and unfairly edited a speech by National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston (among other things) in his Academy Award-winning documentary Bowling for Columbine. Although Fahrenheit 9/11 avoids glaring factual errors, it is filled with deceptive half-truths and carefully phrased but unsubstantiated insinuations.

For instance, Moore suggests that relatives of Osama bin Laden, along with other Saudis, obtained special permission to fly out of the United States while air traffic was grounded after Sept. 11. He states: "In the days following Sept. 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded," adding, "But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the bin Ladens." Moore later says, "It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after Sept. 13th." Moore fails to note that U.S. airspace reopened to commercial aircraft on Sept. 13 and to general aviation on Sept. 14. While technically correct, his language leaves the impression that the bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to.

The film harps on the relationship between the Bush family and the bin Ladens, making the connection seem ominous. In one case, Moore shows that the White House blacked out the name of James R. Bath, a Texas Air National Guard pilot suspended at the same time as President Bush, in service records released earlier this year. He suggests that the White House was not concerned about privacy and instead wanted to hide Bath's links to Bush because he "was the Texas money manager for the bin Ladens."

Moore notes that the sources of funding for Bush's oil company, Arbusto, are unknown, and then piles on the innuendo. "So where did George W. Bush get his money?" he asks, adding that "one person who did invest in him was James R. Bath. Bush's good friend James Bath was hired by the bin Laden family to manage its money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush." This phrasing suggests that Bath invested bin Laden family money in Arbusto. But Bath has stated this investment was his money, not the bin Ladens', and Moore presents no evidence to the contrary.

Moore spends much time on the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm Bush and his father have been involved with that counts members of the bin Laden family among its investors. Moore drops a big number - $1.4 billion - claiming, "That's how much the Saudi royals and their associates have given the Bush family, their friends and their related businesses in the past three decades." But Newsweek has shown that nearly 90 percent of that total represents contracts awarded by the Saudi government to BDM, a defense contractor Carlyle owned when Bush Sr. had little official involvement with the firm. He didn't join Carlyle's Asian advisory board until after the firm had sold BDM. And although George W. Bush had previously served on the board of another Carlyle company, he left it before BDM received the first Saudi contract.

Moore also repeatedly suggests that the Bush administration's military and homeland security policies were driven by hidden agendas. For instance, former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke's claim of a two-month delay in deploying U.S. special forces to areas of Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden was hiding is portrayed as an indication of a hidden motive. "A mass murderer who attacked the United States was given a two-month head start? Who in their right mind would do that?" Moore asks. "Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas."

Using a series of loose juxtapositions, Moore then suggests he is unraveling the alleged hidden story of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. First, he states that "in 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea." Contrary to Moore's implication, however, the fact that Bush was governor of Texas at the time of the Taliban/Unocal meeting does nothing to prove he was somehow involved.

Moore implies that the Afghanistan campaign was really a front for Unocal to create a pipeline: "When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai. Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former adviser to Unocal. Bush also appointed as our envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, who was also a former Unocal adviser... . Faster than you can say black gold, Texas tea, Afghanistan signed an agreement with her neighboring countries to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea."

But Unocal dropped its support for the pipeline in 1998. Afghanistan did sign the agreement in 2002, but Unocal is not involved in the project, which is still in its planning stages.

Later, Moore presents a series of anecdotal examples of what he sees as misguided homeland security efforts: questioning of an older man who made derogatory statements about President Bush at a gym; infiltration of a peace group in Fresno by a sheriff's detective; a mother forced to drink her breast milk during an airport security screening; and rules that allow airline passengers to carry lighters and matches on planes while banning other items.

After these examples, Moore asks: "Was this really about our safety? Or was something else going on?" He shows clips arguing that Oregon state troopers are underfunded and undermanned. A trooper wishes aloud for a manual on how to catch terrorists, prompting Moore to go even further: "Of course, the Bush administration didn't hand out a manual on how to deal with the terrorist threat because the terrorist threat wasn't what this was all about. They just wanted us to be fearful enough so that we'd get behind what their real plan was."

[Mercutio]

Spinsanity, con't.

"Their real plan" is, as the movie later makes clear, a reference to the war in Iraq. But Moore's argument makes no sense. The breast milk example, for instance, indicates overzealous devotion to homeland security, not indifference to it. And Oregon's budgetary woes are hardly proof that the federal government's homeland security effort was insincere.

During a recent interview with David Letterman, Moore claimed that "you can't refute what's said in the film. It's all there, the facts are all there, the footage is all there." Not so. Moore may insinuate a great deal with his slipshod style of argument, but his movie actually proves far less than he suggests.

It's interesting how he insinuates things.

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by Orion
My american friend checked the imbd.com and she said that it´d get here sometimes in the fall. Can´t wait to see it myself, she liked it a lot.

[/off topic]

Thank you.

[HOBBIT]

If you are going by "you shouldn't believe everything moore says," then you shouldn't believe everything that site says.


I find it funny that many immediately believe everything about the articles that try to disclaim the facts in the movie.

If you really want both sides, I suggest going to www.michaelmoore.com , where every single one of those articles trying to disprove the facts is refuted.

The facts in that movie are correct - it is UP TO YOU whether you want to believe michael moore's interpretation OF THOSE FACTS and if all the connections he made USING THE FACTS are true.

That article you quoted has many errors in it. For example, the first few Bin Laden family planes left before air traffic had resumed. It was approved by the white house first. Why would it have to be approved by the White House if flying had already been resumed?

[Hasty Ent]

I saw this movie last night, and hate to say that I was disappointed. I had high hopes for this film, and felt that Moore could have produced something that was far more effective if he had presented his information simply, and without the silly pop culture references. Certain scenes were drawn out far too long, and serious issues like the Patriot Act weren't given enough time. On the other hand, making it entertaining undoubtedly has impacted the size of the viewing audience. A more straightforward exposition of the information would possibly have turned people off as 'too dry.'

Nevertheless, I don't feel our current situation is a laughing matter. I hope every person of voting age sees this movie, and hope parents take their children, as well. This brings me to the R rating it received which I honestly don't understand. Politics and influence, I suspect, affected that decision.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
If you are going by "you shouldn't believe everything moore says," then you shouldn't believe everything that site says.


I find it funny that many immediately believe everything about the articles that try to disclaim the facts in the movie.

If you really want both sides, I suggest going to www.michaelmoore.com , where every single one of those articles trying to disprove the facts is refuted.

The facts in that movie are correct - it is UP TO YOU whether you want to believe michael moore's interpretation OF THOSE FACTS and if all the connections he made USING THE FACTS are true.

That article you quoted has many errors in it. For example, the first few Bin Laden family planes left before air traffic had resumed. It was approved by the white house first. Why would it have to be approved by the White House if flying had already been resumed?

Yes, isn't it ironic how people whine and complain that no one should believe what Moore says because its all false information. And yet they turn their backs and blindly follow some writer from a website who has manipulated facts, just like Moore, to his/her advantage and more importantly to discredit the opposition.

[The Gaffer]

Totally agree with you. I've been holding off this thread till I've seen the film, but the mainstream media coverage has been not much better than wall-to-wall propaganda. It's about time someone put the alternative view across in an accessible way.