Fahrenheit 9/11 (2 Viewers)

[Rorix]

I've now watched the whole movie.

Apparently Saudis are rich, and know Bush. That's about all I got out of it.

 

[sneaky pete]

Saw it today. Obviously some parts are a bit left field as we can expect from Moore.

I was not aware Bush's inauguration was so heavily protested (rather large protest crowd, egg(s) being thrown at his vehicle, etc). I don't remember any media coverage of it. A few interesting tidbits, but alot of nonsense..

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by sneaky pete
I was not aware Bush's inauguration was so heavily protested (rather large protest crowd, egg(s) being thrown at his vehicle, etc). I don't remember any media coverage of it. A few interesting tidbits, but alot of nonsense..

There was plenty of media coverage of it.

That part of the movie with the CNN quote of "gore would have won any recount" (paraphrased) is so misleading - completely ignoring the 6 month study done by (amongst others) the New York Times and the Washington post that concluded that Bush would have won had there been a statewide recount.

Just one of the numerous flaws in the movie.

 

[crazyhomo]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/images/mikes_log_photos/94.jpg

i just found this amusing

 

[Iron]

I think some people filmed were angry that their responses were cut off (like shot with a dumb look, cutting out their actual response) ...but yeah, Moore is so cool in constructing what he wants to and engaging the responder. having said that, he is hysterically enjoyable. Im not sure how much of a qualified political commentator he is, but he's a heck of an entertainer.

 

[chelloveck]

I think some people filmed were angry that their responses were cut off (like shot with a dumb look, cutting out their actual response) ...but yeah, Moore is so cool in constructing what he wants to and engaging the responder. having said that, he is hysterically enjoyable. Im not sure how much of a qualified political commentator he is, but he's a heck of an entertainer.

the problem is 99% of his viewers don't realise that.

 

[Rorix]

I believe this is the section you're talking about:

Early in this segment, Moore states that “only one” member of Congress has a child in Iraq. The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, “Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”



Moore’s statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice” his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.



How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.



The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading” after viewing the interview in question.

Fahrenheit Fact.



George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:

Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, “Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading.”

Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—

Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.

Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, “I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,” he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.



This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.” But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:

Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.



So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy rebuffed Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.



Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.



Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.

 

[mack]

He claims that perhaps the missle factory in columbine set up an atmosphere more conducive to a school shooting. Not only is a big stretch, but the purported "missle factory" makes vehicles to send satalites into orbit..........

Goes to show that there is no such thing as a fact. You can twist information anyway you want it. Now, I'm not going to dispute the idea that Bush is doing a terrible job. And, for all I know, Moore's movie is an honest representation of life, I haven't seen it. But I do know that, as his past films have shown, he is famous for twisting the "facts". (Yeah, technically you could call satalite launch vehicles "missles"...but really...) All I'm saying is ALWAYS be skeptical, ESPECIALLY when talking about michael moore.

 

[chelloveck]

WEll i hired out bowling for columbine yesterday. I found it chilling but of course that is the purpose of it. I have never supported gun ownership so i had pretty much agreed with Moore before id even started to watch the doco.

But really no documentary ever pretends to be established fact. Really moore is writing an essay in the form of film. He is arguing his point as best as possible.

Im not sure that anyone of you out there has ever written a totally impartial objective essay?!?!?!

Even though there are some problems the mssg of his doco's is the important thing. The mssg is important and i think he achieves his goal of shocking us into taking a very very deep look at outselves before we start judging other people -

I dont think there is anything wrong with his basic mssg...just like anything he interprets it in his own way...there is nothing to say that that interpretation is wrong its just the interpretation is used to argue his basic mssg.

true there aren't many people that argue anything totally objectively, but some things are more bias than others, i.e. michael moores distortion and concealment of the truth. i can give you a specific scene from bowling for columbine if you want. i'm using it for my telling the truth module in english. in his "a breif history of the usa" he replaces a lot of fact with hyperbole (america's role) and euphmism (role of idians and blacks)..if you look at the comment "but the blacks took no revenge, they just wanted to live in peace, but you couldn't convince the americans" you can see this. the bias is just too blatent for me, i can't stand him. also his hypocrisy gets to me. talking about the american govt stirring conspiracy and hysteria when he does exactly the same thing. the other reason why i don't like him is because he predominantly aims to evoke an emotional response rather than an intellectual one. this could be seen if you were to go to a cinema in some place playing farenhright 9/11 and observing the audience. apparently people have thrown things at the screen and screamed when bush came one. like smegger_em said, it's like the two minutes of hate from 1984.

 

[Alvin Yeap]

He claims that perhaps the missle factory in columbine set up an atmosphere more conducive to a school shooting. Not only is a big stretch, but the purported "missle factory" makes vehicles to send satalites into orbit..........

Goes to show that there is no such thing as a fact. You can twist information anyway you want it. Now, I'm not going to dispute the idea that Bush is doing a terrible job. And, for all I know, Moore's movie is an honest representation of life, I haven't seen it. But I do know that, as his past films have shown, he is famous for twisting the "facts". (Yeah, technically you could call satalite launch vehicles "missles"...but really...) All I'm saying is ALWAYS be skeptical, ESPECIALLY when talking about michael moore.

He talking about a culture of violence.

 

[neo o]

this could be seen if you were to go to a cinema in some place playing farenhright 9/11 and observing the audience. apparently people have thrown things at the screen and screamed when bush came one. like smegger_em said, it's like the two minutes of hate from 1984.

Sounds more like audience participation from back in the days of midnight Rocky Horror screenings

 

[Alvin Yeap]

It is important to note that is trying to get the message accorss. I can hardly see why it is bad to say 'guns are bad' and the USA has a culture of gun voilence and there are underlying racial undertones.

I see nothing wrong with those conclusions.

 

[Rorix]

Well, I'd tend to think that if there was a problem, one should be able to demonstrate evidence of a problem without resorting to telling lies or providing misleading implications.

 

[SimonCrean]

You dont think 'the right' resorts to telling lies and providing misleading implications?

 

[sneaky pete]

yeah but us cons aren't as good at it

 

[ameh]

when does this movie come out?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I really liked the beginning of the film - showing Bush's political group having their make-up applied was a nice touch. Sort of symbolises their masks and layers of lies.

The presented 'facts' of the film are true. Moore makes certain suggestions based upon those facts as a kind of confronting 'food for thought'. Sure the film is biased, its intended to persuade viewers not to re-elect Bush. But there is certainly a lot of merit in it, both as a film alone and as an op-ed/commentry.

I think Bowling for Columbine was better though

 

[Alvin Yeap]

like smegger_em said, it's like the two minutes of hate from 1984.

Um...Bush is in power

The 2 mins hate in 1984 is directed at someone who isnt in power.

 

[chelloveck]

Um...Bush is in power

The 2 mins hate in 1984 is directed at someone who isnt in power.

so the intricacies aren't the same, but you can see how they're really similar situations, yeah? i mean the extent of emotion in that particualr audience as opposed to intellectual thought.

 

[chelloveck]

It is important to note that is trying to get the message accorss. I can hardly see why it is bad to say 'guns are bad' and the USA has a culture of gun voilence and there are underlying racial undertones.

I see nothing wrong with those conclusions.

this is true. however, i still don't like being lied to.