I haven't seen it yet . . . probably won't. I know where Moore's coming from and have no respect for his opinions.

It does seem this movie is getting a lot of press, however, not to mention raking in the crowds and making a lot of money. He's already won at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, so that's something, I guess.

I am hoping this thread can help readers sort things out. If you like the film, I'd like to know why. Do you trust Moore's information . . . his insinuations? If you don't like it, please share.

Meanwhile, here are some reviews that take Moore to task for his "facts".

The Lies of Michael Moore, by Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is an op ed writer very much on the left with frequent criticisms of Bush policies, yet he shreds the basic premises of Moore's movie. He notes: To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery. Read the rest; you'll see what he means.

Democrats and the Farenheit 911 trap by Byron York. You know what you'll get with National Review . . . conservative views, but well thought-out. What York points out is the way Democrats are going for the film and using it to skewer Bush. Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe says he believes radical filmmaker Michael Moore's assertion that the United States went to war in Afghanistan not to avenge the terrorist attacks of September 11 but instead to assure that the Unocal Corporation could build a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan for the financial benefit of Vice President Dick Cheney and former Enron chief Kenneth Lay. Maybe they should talk to Bill Clinton, who approved the Afghanistan campaign (along with the U.N., who are all undoubtedly on Bush's payroll). In fact, Clinton even approves the war in Iraq, as noted in a recent interview he gave to Time. When the father of a soldier killed in Iraq speaks of his son's death, he asks plaintively, "And for what?" At that point, the movie quickly cuts to a clip from a promotional film for Halliburton.

Sick stuff! But maybe in plenty of time for the country to swallow and barf before the serious issues facing our country and, indeed, the world, are voted on in the elections this year.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...hrenheit911-1133649/

Follow the link above to gain access to numerous reviews printed by film critics in newspapers around the country. Alarmingly, most are positive! Overall rating is 7.3 out of 10.

Here's a quote from a Washington Post editorial:
During the screening at the Uptown Theatre, I sat next to a newspaper reporter who was raised in an activist Republican party family, whose sister worked previously for the Bush White House and who considers herself moderate. She cried through the second half of the movie, which featured graphic images of injured and killed Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers and focused on the U.S. military's efforts to recruit minorities and poor whites.

She and others who don't hew to Moore's hardcore lefty vision of the world gave him credit for, if nothing else, presenting an incredibly cohesive and emotionally stirring piece of work.

"There's no way people are not going to come out of this hating Bush," she said. Which, of course, is exactly what the GOP fears. Conservative opposition is not based on the belief that this is just some commie-pinko rant that'll be ignored by the masses.

Very bad spirit at work, here, and very bad for the country!

Here's even more refutation of Moore's "facts."

So what we see here is a film based on hatred and lies, attempting to stir people to hatred of Bush and cynicism of U.S. leadership. Awful stuff, from an awful man who still can't even concede that Bush is the legally-elected President of the U.S.

So what we see here is a film based on hatred and lies, attempting to stir people to hatred of Bush and cynicism of U.S. leadership.

He has certainly mastered the art of propaganda. Tell big lies, tell them often, and people will come to believe them. His lack of personal integrity is appalling.

Inevitably the refutation of his lies will bring him attention and some sort of pop culture status and thus a smidgen of legitimacy. But the lies need to be refuted nevertheless. We can�t cede the public opinion making process to people such as Moore.

re: We can�t cede the public opinion making process to people such as Moore

Personally, I still think Demi Moore is one of the finest actresses on the Big Screen, even if she is dating a lad half her age. I say: Let her have her say.

Personally, I still think Demi Moore is one of the finest actresses on the Big Screen, even if she is dating a lad half her age. I say: Let her have her say.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. What's a smile worth?

Ha, yes . . . levity! Now wouldn't it really be something if Demi and Michael Moore were related . . . or if Michael Moore was related to Judge Moore.

Enter: Jonah Goldberg, in very good form.

I don't need to know very much about you or your ideas to know that if you think Michael Moore is just great, a truth-teller and a much-needed tonic for everything that is wrong in American life, you are not someone to take seriously about anything of political consequence, or you are French. But I repeat myself.

. . .

Anyway, as I said, if you think Moore is great you are generally immune to the power of facts and reason, so I doubt the above will even be a speed bump for the e-mail to come.

Richard Cohen's review. Cohen is a liberal and harsh critic of Bush. He warns here of Democrats associating themselves too closely with Moore.

. . . the stunning box-office success of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. Speaking just for myself, not only was I dismayed by how prosaic and boring the movie was -- nothing new and utterly predictable -- but I recoiled from Moore's methodology, if it can be called that. For a time, I hated his approach more than I opposed the cartoonishly portrayed Bush.

. . .

Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival -- lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission.

I thought the F/911 was quite comprehensive in gathering facts that have been scattered, alluded to in the NY Times and other papers. Moore does a good job to sythesize certain facts. There are parts of it that run the risk of of sounding bathetic; and manipulate the emotions, but even these can be considered fair ground for the topic. For instance showing a family dead ones in Iraq is fair play and doesn't have to be seen as trying to work on a sentimental level. And it rarely comes off in that way.

I think Moore is not a Bush hater; and I'm aware he has his own agenda's (like everyone), but he comes off as a good hearted fellow, who happens to be talented and rich, and perhaps as they say: Moore is a stupid white man. Dunno. But I know the movie is worth a view to see where modern media is headed in the future. Satire is more in than CNN, and why not? I certainly didn't find it hateful. It is my feeling from seeing Bush that he is partially retarded, so I ended up feeling sorry for him; and I'm sure others did as well. The above attacks against the movie don't refute the facts presented in the movie and Moore only insinuates that that the Pipe line from the Caspian Sea through Afganistan and Pakistan is the cause of war. It is not stated outright and an astute viewer will be able decipher the facts for himself. Moore beats the hell out of CNN and actually makes me laugh. Again, the main facts/allegations presented by this film are NOT refuted in the articles posted in attack of Moore. I'm not for either Moore or Bush, to be honest, I just want facts, and Moore give his version just as CNN does.

Asher, you are aware, I hope that most of the main points made in Farenheit 9/11 are erroneous. Also, the movie was presented as a documentary, not a satire. Moore and others began to use the term satire when/after his theses were blown apart. I hope you'll read some of the articles and reviews posted above, as even the most liberal of reviewers--people who will surely vote against Bush--consider Moore's movie pure b.s.

As for Bush being a retard, you are very sorely mistaken. He's probably slightly dyslexic and is definitely an introvert, but those characteristics do not make one a retard. Of course, Moore chose to showcase Bush in some of his worst moments, which is grossly unfair to him, as it would be to anyone.

It really saddens me to see how Moore's movie has contributed to such a distorted view of Bush and U.S. foreign policy abroad. But, then, that was the whole purpose of the movie, so I guess it's succeeded.

Phil--

I was thinking of "documentary satire" before I wrote "satire", but since that doesn't quite fit into a genre, I didn't mention it. So many ambiguities. But perhaps it is a documentary covertly posing as satire.

If you saw Bushes facial expressions after he found out about 9/11 (reading "My Pet Goat" in a classroom), perhaps you would think such a delayed response on his part suggested some mental abberation.

I know Moore heightened it by various means (slow motion etc) However, that blank, innane look on his face sort of stuck with me, which is why I thought perhaps he has some sort of problem. The mayor of NY was quick to act, not sure why Bush just looked so apathetic after the knowledge was conveyed about the first plane hitting the tower. At any rate, I used the incorrect word above, to be sure.

At any rate, I haven't yet found articles (I skimmed through the ones above) that directly address each point brought out in the movie; maybe someone who has more knowledge on politics and can nuance it is fit to argue in favor of certain points in the movie. I obviously need to read more. I'm a Canadian and much of our agenda recently has been to develop our own identity. Part of this national identity comes from intellectually attacking Bush, for whatever reason. People really dislike him here.

Huuuuu

I listened to Dr. David Hawkins on a radio program yesterday and a caller asked about Moore.
Dr. Hawkins calibrated Farenheit 911 at 175 on the scale. White Supremecist groups calibrate at 150 and
fundamentalist Christian and Islamic groups at 175.
Honesty begins at 200. 150 represents anger and 175 pride.(Marine Corps boot camp level pride)

Question: Why is Moore so upset about capitalism while making millions from this? mm

Michael, that's a very high rating for Moore, imo. The man seems to have no critical thinking skills and reasons along the lines of crass emotionality. Yes, he's also a fat-ass hypocrite, advocating for socialism while exploiting the very econonomic system he claims to detest.

-----

From Asher: However, that blank, innane look on his [Bush's] face sort of stuck with me, which is why I thought perhaps he has some sort of problem. The mayor of NY was quick to act, not sure why Bush just looked so apathetic after the knowledge was conveyed about the first plane hitting the tower.

It's interesting to hear the perceptions of Bush from another culture, but also disconcerting to hear how Michael Moore has influenced them.

The first notification Bush was given was that a small private plane had crashed into the WTC and that it was probably an accident. He mulled it over, but decided to stay where he was, visiting a school. The second notification provided an update to the effect that it was a terrorist attack. He seemed to be in shock about this, as probably every human being on the planet was. So which notification is Moore showcasing? And for what intent?

Within an hour after the notification of terrorism, Bush had sprung into action, approving orders to shoot down any apparent threats. In the days that followed, his leadership was considered sterling by even his most staunch critics (Moore being a possible exception; during that time Moore was defending bin Laden, stating that he should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty--even though Al Qaeda had taken credit for the attacks).

Asher, perhaps you could tell us more about why people really dislike Bush in your part of the world. The intense dislike--really hatred!--held by so many toward Bush is one of the most mystifiying phenomena I've ever seen. Please use this thread to respond. Thanks.

Well Phil, it's very sad to think I was tricked by Moore. Moore never mentions that Bush was informed that it was probably "an accident." Why can't people give a balanced/nuanced view? This is so sad to hear. Also, it was disconcerting to hear that the pipe line likely has nothing to do with this. And even that the pipe line (if it were proposed--Moore insinates that the pipe line was proposed b/f the attack, so the invasion of Afganistan was not simply a "call to war," but also a "call for oil,") seems to be a lie. Slowly, the various premises of the movie come to pieces in this light.

More in a couple of days after my exam...

Peace,

Asher

Asher, you were also tricked into believing that the Bush's gave the bin Ladens in the U.S. a special break to leave the country after 9/11. That was the big deal in the first part of the movie, and it was intended to suggest that Bush was somehow complicit in the attacks. Two points:
1. The bin Ladens didn't get a special pass to leave, but departed after the airports opened again and they were cleared by security.
2. The bin Ladens in the U.S. have long distanced themselves from their renegade sibling/relative.

So, add another falsehood by Moore to your list.

Good luck with your exam.

This movie seems to be having another round of popularity since its recent release in DVD. Obviously, Moore is trying to influence the election.

I recommend Fifty-nine deceits in Farenheit 9/11 to anyone interested in seeing how devious and deceptive Moore's movie really is.

Because of the intentional lies and malicious intent, Farenheit 9/11 ought to be a walking billboard for the Republican Party. This it is not shows just how, where and perhaps why this country is supposedly so divided. Just don't ask me to split the difference of my principles with theirs to bridge that divide.

Psalms 14:1, 53:1,69:5, 73:3,22 107:17
Proverbs 10:8,21,23,
9:6, 12:15,23, 19:3, 24:7,9, 21:20, 14:9, 11:29,
13:16, 18:7,
Ecclesiastes 7:17, 2:14, 5:4, 10:14
Matthew 23:17,19
Luke 11:40
Ephesians 5:15
I Corinthians 1:20,23,25, 2:14
Titus 3:3
caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Hello, all. It's been a while.

I know this is late, after the fact, moot, and everything else...but here's an aspect of the Michael Moore thing that's obvious, but hasn't been mentioned. If he was so idealistic, so interested in changing things for the better, why did he never offer his film in any way that he didn't get paid for? He didn't release it to theaters without a distribution deal that paid him. He didn't put it out on video and DVD without a deal that paid him. He didn't release it to TV without a pay-per-view deal that paid him. No one ever got to see it for free...except industry insiders at private screenings in Beverly Hills.

I was actually for the other side, but I know dishonesty and hypocrisy when I see it. Just the appearance of that pig at the Democratic Convention probably lost more votes for the Dems than his pay-to-be-propagandized movie ever got them.

Oh, well...life goes on.

Markle

Good to see you here, Markle, and you make a good point. There's Moore, the great critic of capitalist greed, getting filthy rich off his film(s), laughing all the way to the bank.

I think that footage of him sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the convention probably did turn a lot of people off. In a way, it's symbolic of what's wrong with the Democratic Party now. See our thread on Why the Red States Rule for more reflection on this topic from the "regulars" here.

Here's the latest . . .

Fahrenheit 9/11, far from being the runaway nationwide hit that Moore claimed, underperformed in dozens of markets throughout red states and, most important � as far as the presidential election was concerned � swing states. Dallas/Fort Worth, the ninth-largest movie market, accounts for 2.07 percent of North American box office but made up just 1.21 percent of Fahrenheit 9/11 box office, for an underperformance of nearly 42 percent. In Phoenix, the tenth-largest market, Fahrenheit 9/11 underperformed by 29 percent. In Houston, ranked twelfth for movies, it underperformed by 38 percent. In Orlando, it underperformed by 38 percent; Tampa-St. Petersburg, by 41 percent; Salt Lake City, by 61 percent.

The movie did better than normal in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, and a few other Blue State cities. Otherwise, it was pretty much a dud.

- http://www.nationalreview.com/...york200504110813.asp

The movie did better than normal in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, and a few other Blue State cities. Otherwise, it was pretty much a dud.

That film was, analogously, the left�s "The Passion of the Christ". If you�re at all wondering why I still maintain an interest in the transcendent, despite my doubts, you should keep this in mind.

Brad, I see Passion and F911 placed side-by-side all the time, especially in the media, but I don't think the analogy works very well. Passion stays much closer to the facts as we know them through Scripture; F911 is largely fiction and propaganda. That's why Passion grossed many times more money than F911 and was viewed by a much wider segment of the culture. I know many liberal Democrats who loved "The Passion of the Christ" and felt deeply moved in their faith because of it. In fact, of the many people I know and converse with, I don't know a single one who didn't like Passion. They thought it was rough . . . hard to watch in places . . . but very well done. Conservative Republicans won't say the same of F911 nor will even many liberal Democrats. This comparison between these two films was set up by the usual media outlets, who were also at the heart of accusing Mel Gibson of anti-Semitism while giving Moore a complete pass on anti-Bushism.

It's been awhile since we've had any activity on this thread. I posted what follows in a discussion of Richard Rohr's CD on "The Third Eye," but have decided to move it here, so as not to distract from the other topic. My reason for posting is that I recently came across Rohr'sreflections on Michael Moore's movie, Farenheit 911. It's a good example of how progressive Christians are willing to give virtually anyone a pass on almost anything bad they have to say about the USA provided they have a "heart for the poor."

Rohr begins by conceding inaccuracies in F911, but then quickly passes that off as "interpretation," which we all do -- even the Supreme Court! Rohr acknowledges what he sees as the shadow side of the Right and the Left, and offers a third perspective, that of the poor, as the true Biblical "take" on things (a highly debatable point, imo, as Jesu's teaching on love did not single out poor nor rich). In that regard:

quote:

Where does Michael Moore fit into all of this? Well, whatever his faults, or his faulty interpretations, he consistently takes the side of the poor! I do not know if he is a believer, but for whatever reason, he sees as the Bible sees. Moore always asks the question, "What effect does this have on those at the bottom and those marginalized by the system?" Only that position reveals and exposes a country's lies, addictions, and idolatries, the "false gods before us.

Only that position? Surely that is not the only valid or "Gospel-friendly" perspective on things.

In the end, then, it sounds like Rohr is saying that F911 gives us a Biblical perspective on the events surrounding 911. I'm not sure how F911 was a message about the poor, but that's how Rohr seems to have heard it.

quote:

I came out of Fahrenheit 9/ll both very sad and very disturbed. Whatever its truth, and I personally think there is much truth in the movie, why did it take an outsider to say things that cannot be said on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, the Washington Post or the New York Times?

Because those more respectable news agencies place some value on truthful reporting?

quote:

What is the blindness in this country that only allows us to critique so far? What is our isolation that cannot see what most of the world now sees about America?

I don't know. What does he think the world sees that we are unaware of?

But, wait a minute: wasn't 911 about Islamists initiating terrorist acts against the U.S. for reasons motivated by their fascist ideology? OK, Moore doesn't like the Iraq war, but his movie goes beyond protesting this to making it seem like the U.S. leadership is somehow to blame for the terrorist attacks -- that the Bush admin even colluded! Rohr has nothing to say about this? That didn't make his good, Kansas blood boil? Doesn't seem like it. He comes out of F911 "sad and disturbed" but why? Because he buys into Moore's dishonest, deceptive, malicious innuendos toward the Bush Admin. and it's war on terror? That's what stuck with Rohr? Apparently so, as he seems to consider Moore something of a prophet.

quote:

What made most of the country, including Democrats, Congress, Christians, and the media, jump on the bandwagon of this unjust war as soon as we started it? Loyalty to troops who signed up? Loyalty to my country because it is my country? Country as a substitute for the true self? Inability to believe that our government would lie to us? Fear of terrorism after months of paranoia and reinforcement? Fear of death? Fear of not being in control? Fear of not being "number one"?

It's clear that Rohr isn't willing to seriously consider the reasons given for the war by the Bush admin. re. Saddam/WMD, U.N. resolution violations, geopolitical concerns, etc. Moore pretty much implies that it's a Cheney-driven policy designed to benefit Haliburton. Does Rohr agree with this? He says there is "much truth" in the movie, but would that he were more specific about what and what-not.