|
Post by Brett on Jun 23, 2004 10:58:24 GMT -5
Fahrenheit 9/11 Starts Friday! Just a reminder to everyone interested in seeing this movie, which subsequently should probably be everyone. www.fahrenheit911.com/
|
|
|
Post by Hot Carl on Jun 24, 2004 8:38:50 GMT -5
I would, except that Michael Moore is a jackass muckraker who would rather get the cheap laugh from the people in the audience who don't know any better than make a real documentary based on fact.
A. O. Scott did a review of the movie at the (left-leaning) New York Times. It's quite interesting. But if you don't want to read the whole thing, allow me to sum it up for you: "[The movie] is not a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies."
Respect for the president is a longstanding American tradition and one that is still very much alive, as the weeklong national obsequies for Ronald Reagan recently proved. But there is also an opposing tradition of holding up our presidents, especially while they are in office, to ridicule and scorn.
Which is to say that while Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be properly debated on the basis of its factual claims and cinematic techniques, it should first of all be appreciated as a high-spirited and unruly exercise in democratic self-expression. Mixing sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery, Mr. Moore takes wholesale aim at the Bush administration, whose tenure has been distinguished, in his view, by unparalleled and unmitigated arrogance, mendacity and incompetence.
That Mr. Moore does not like Mr. Bush will hardly come as news. "Fahrenheit 9/11," which opens in Manhattan today and in the rest of the country on Friday, is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to the republic.
While his new film, awarded the top prize at the Cannes International Film Festival this year, has been likened to an op-ed column, 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. The president and his team have obliged him by looking sinister and ridiculous on camera.
Paul D. Wolfowitz shares his icky hair-care secrets (a black plastic comb and a great deal of saliva); John Ashcroft raptly croons a patriotic ballad of his own composition; Mr. Bush, when he is not blundering through the thickets of his native tongue, projects an air of shallow self-confidence.
Through it all, Mr. Moore provides sardonic commentary, to which the soundtrack adds nudges and winks. As the camera pans across copies of Mr. Bush's records from the Texas Air National Guard, and Mr. Moore reads that the future president was suspended for missing a medical examination, we hear a familiar electric guitar riff; it takes you a moment to remember that it comes from a song called "Cocaine."
Not that Mr. Moore is kidding around. Perhaps because of the scale and gravity of the subject of "Fahrenheit 9/11," perhaps because his own celebrity has made the man-in-the-street pose harder to sustain, Mr. Moore's trademark pranks and interventions are not as much in evidence as in earlier films. He does commandeer an ice cream truck to drive around Washington, reading the U.S.A. Patriot Act through a loudspeaker (after learning that few of the lawmakers who voted for it had actually read it), and he does stand outside the Capitol trying to persuade members of Congress to enlist their children in the armed forces. (The contortion that one legislator performs to avoid shaking Mr. Moore's hand is an amusing moment of found slapstick.)
Mostly, though, he sifts through the public record, constructing a chronicle of misrule that stretches from the Florida recount to the events of this spring. His case is synthetic rather than comprehensive, and it is not always internally consistent. He dwells on the connections between the Bush family and the Saudi Arabian elite (including the bin Laden family), and while he creates a strong impression of unseemly coziness, his larger point is not altogether clear.
After you leave the theater, some questions are likely to linger about Mr. Moore's views on the war in Afghanistan, about whether he thinks the homeland security program has been too intrusive or not intrusive enough, and about how he thinks the government should have responded to the murderous jihadists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
At the same time, though, it may be that the confusions trailing Mr. Moore's narrative are what make "Fahrenheit 9/11" an authentic and indispensable document of its time. The film can be seen as an effort to wrest clarity from shock, anger and dismay, and if parts of it seem rash, overstated or muddled, well, so has the national mood.
If "Fahrenheit 9/11" consisted solely of talking heads and unflattering glimpses of public figures, it would be, depending on your politics, either a rousing call to arms or an irresponsible provocation, but it might not persuade you to re-examine your assumptions. But the movie is much more than "Dude, Where's My Country," carried out by other means. It is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances.
Mr. Moore's populist instincts have never been sharper, and he is, as ever, at his best when he turns down the showmanship and listens to what people have to say. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is, along with everything else, an extraordinary collage of ordinary American voices: soldiers in the field, an Oregon state trooper patrolling the border, and, above all, citizens of Flint, Mich., Mr. Moore's hometown. The trauma that deindustrialization visited on that city was the subject of "Roger and Me," and that film remains fresh 15 years later, now that the volunteer army has replaced the automobile factory as the vehicle for upward mobility.
The most moving sections of "Fahrenheit 9/11" concern Lila Lipscomb, a cheerful state employee and former welfare recipient who wears a crucifix pendant and an American flag lapel pin. When we first meet her, she is proud of her family's military service — a daughter served in the Persian Gulf war and a son, Michael Pedersen, was a marine in Iraq — and grateful for the opportunities it has offered. Then Michael is killed in Karbala, and in sharing her grief with Mr. Moore, she also gives his film an eloquence that its most determined critics will find hard to dismiss. Mr. Bush is under no obligation to answer Mr. Moore's charges, but he will have to answer to Mrs. Lipscomb.
I might still go see it though, just to see how incredibly biased one man can make a movie. However, I would like to avoid giving that man any money if it is at all possible.
The perfect solution: Piracy!
|
|
|
Post by eoJ on Jun 24, 2004 10:31:09 GMT -5
Well if you do go, come along with us on our freak-out. At worst, we're going at the cheap time; besides that, I'm sure someone will help you to get in for free.
|
|
|
Post by eoJ 2 on Jun 24, 2004 10:43:26 GMT -5
|
|
a concerned citizen
Guest
|
Post by a concerned citizen on Jun 26, 2004 22:58:38 GMT -5
hate to burst any bubbles and sound ignorant on a message board that totally lambasts ignorace but here's a site that i stubled across but didn't have the time to actually read. www.moorelies.comi don't mean to piss anyone off but there it is. i think it may bring some life into an otherwise almost dead board.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blonde on Jun 27, 2004 19:12:24 GMT -5
I imagine that Dan's the concerned citizen. In which case, Delita's boards are more dead than these boards because they've been dead longer than these boards. We usually have some upsurgance in the threads now and again. I see none of that happening in Delita but I may be wrong.
Anyway, it's STUMBLED, not STUBLED or STUBBLED. Just thought I could clear that up for ya. Stubble is very short hair found shortly after you shave.
It seems that that site is directed more at the opinions expressed by Moore and not the facts he presents, like his opinions about the troops. I saw nothing in that site talking about the lack of validity between the ties between Bush and many Saudis, including the Bin Laden family, that were shown in the movie.
I admit, the beginning about how the election was stolen and the part where Moore just makes fun of the Republicans was a bit much on the liberal side, but the arguments and facts shown after that solidified my view to vote Democrat next election, even though Kerry may not be the best candidate (he's still better than Bush). I see no reason to have been in the war with Iraq. We're waisting money and time and lives that could be better used on making this country better, not ransacking another one.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blonde on Jun 27, 2004 20:29:06 GMT -5
I like this quote.
Entertainment Weekly / Owen Gleiberman: Scalding and glib, derisive yet impassioned, Fahrenheit 9/11 is an intensely resonant piece of Bush-bashing, because it lets the president do most of the work.
Also, this movie could be called "Why Bush Is an Idiot" for all the bashing Moore does, which leaves little room for Moore's analysis of the facts he presents.
|
|
|
Post by Hot Carl on Jun 29, 2004 21:49:54 GMT -5
I see no reason to have been in the war with Iraq. May 1st, 2003: Saddam Hussein ruled a country. June 28th, 2004: A new government rules said country. Conclusion: 25,374,691 People free from the rule of Saddam Hussein. US combat deaths: 525 Number of free Iraqis per US combat death: 48,333 Worth it?
|
|
|
Post by dannyd on Jun 30, 2004 15:30:51 GMT -5
Ok, first of all, ousting Saddam Hussein was not the intention of the war so you can't go back now and say, "hey, look the war was worth it after all." The objective of the war has changed so many times that nobody can keep track of it anymore. It's very convenient that Hussein was captured because now Bush can point to it and say how much good work he's done. Granted, Saddam Hussein being out of power is a good thing. Nobody is disagreeing with that. But tell the parents and sons and daughters of those men and women who died how worth it it all was. The truth is that people sign up for the military expecting to go to war to defend our country, not to just do the President's will, whatever that may be. I also think that death count you cited is quite low from the figures that I've heard. Could be just different sources, but I remember it being up more towards 1,000, whereas the Iraqi count is well over 10,000. But who's counting anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Hot Carl on Jun 30, 2004 16:42:59 GMT -5
I had a feeling you'd take that route, Danny, but I think you're mistaken. It's true - the main reason that the Bush administration put down for going into Iraq was his weapons of mass destruction. And I'll admit - I thought for sure we would find some nice, big stockpiles by now. However, I can remember specifically saying that I didn't care if they found weapons or not. Saddam shouldn't have had control of a country. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any of my posts saying that, but I found one very similar in the "Try and Stop Us" (http://junk.proboards12.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1048614214) thread. Here's my exact comment: Actually, this is where I have the biggest problem with the way the Bush administration is handling things. Instead of just explaining to people what a nutjob Saddam is, they're talking about links to terrorism and whatnot. They need to quit complicating things. He's a bad man that shouldn't be in a position of power. Note the date - March 29th 2003 - before we went in. I've been saying all along that I disagree with Bush's specific reasons for going to Iraq, but that it's a good thing that we went anyway. Even though he publicly used WMDs as a reason, Bush knew just as well as we all knew that Saddam had to be taken out. And thats what happened. I strongly believe that ousting Saddam will prove to be very beneficial for not only for the millions of people in Iraq, but also for the general mood in the middle east, and therefore good for the entire world. And although some people, including myself, don't agree with Bush's stated reasons for going to Iraq, I think the soldiers who have died in the conflict have done so for a very noble and very important cause. But time will tell how this all works out, and if I'm proven wrong, feel free to dig up this post and call me out on it. Also, I'm preparing some more numbers to put all this more into perspective. I'll post them when they're finished. The source for the casualty count was www.antiwar.com/casualties/Now that I look again, I see that I might have used the wrong number. I used the "Since May 1st" number, which I now see is lower than the "Since war begain" number. I assumed that the May 1st one was the one I wanted. What's the significance of May 1st if that's not the day the war began? But anyway, here's the revised numbers: US combat deaths: 635 Number of free Iraqis per US combat death: 39,960 Still, 39,000+ free people per death is pretty darn impressive. But my apologies for the wrong numbers earlier. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
|
Post by dannyd on Jun 30, 2004 19:16:54 GMT -5
I believe May 1 is the day that combat was officially declared "over."
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Carl, because I don't feel that the war has been worth the death toll. I also think that the Middle East is going to be much more hostile toward the U.S. in general and we're going to be much less safe (I think that feeling is already present over there). I know that's not a new stance but I believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Blonde on Jun 30, 2004 23:26:46 GMT -5
See, Saddam never made any threats to the US. He was a ruthless ruler, but is that any reason to get into a war. If we got into wars with any country just because the ruler was unfair, it would practically be us against the world. Judging by the amount of bad feelings made by this war, I feel all we did was make more enemies, rather than going after the one we thought was responsible for 9/11 in the first place. It's obvious that going after Iraq was something on Bush's agenda from the getgo, and he mislead the country to thinking Saddam was a bigger threat than he actually was. But now it may just sound like I'm spitting out facts from the movie so I might as well just end this post.
|
|
|
Post by Hot Carl on Jul 1, 2004 8:04:47 GMT -5
Did Hitler ever make any threats against the US?
I don't see how you could take the stance that just because Hussein wasn't sending troops over to our shores, we didn't have to worry about him. I just think that's wrong on so many levels. It's well documented that Saddam murdered thousands and thousands of his own people. Disagree with his religion? Disagree with his politics? Trying to lower the price of oil? DEAD DEAD DEAD. Have you read about what he said to the Iraqi court today? According to CNN, regarding his invasion of Kuwait: "Saddam said Kuwait had been trying to bring down the price of oil and turn Iraqis into paupers and Iraqi women into prostitutes." Regarding his using chemical weapons against the kurds, he said, "I heard about that on the television reports, saying it happened during the rule of President Saddam Hussein." From CNN again: "In another exchange, the former dictator said no one had the authority to strip him of his title of president if he is being accused of committing the crimes while he was in office. 'I'm elected by the people of Iraq. The occupation cannot take that right away from me,' he said."
But you're going to sit there and say that because none of those mass graves included any Americans, we needn't worry about removing him from office? That's insane. And since there are a few (by no means "practically the world") other countries who have some awful rulers, we shouldn't be singling out Saddam? We should've just let him keep on a-murderin' because there are a small number of other rulers who try to get away with the same?
These arguments make absolutely no sense to me. If we didn't take Saddam out of power, who would? Should we have just waited for Saddam to die of old age and let one of his even more brutal sons take over? How do you expect the world to ever take steps in the right direction? It was shown back in WWI that an isolationist stance gets us absolutely nowhere. So am I missing something? Please let me know what I'm not understanding about your agruments, because there's gotta be something.
|
|
|
Post by dannyd on Jul 1, 2004 16:36:59 GMT -5
I think the part of the argument that is being left out is that the United States cannot be the world's police force. That was the reason that the U.N. was created, but since Bush can just completely bypass that now, it's pretty much a mute point anyway. I agree with Andy when he says that Iraq was something that was on Bush's agenda from the beginning, because if he actually cared about people that were suffering, then he would be doing something about the Congo where over 3 million people have died in a war that's been going on for over a decade, or Iran, or North Korea, or Israel, or the other dozens of countries around the world where millions of people are dying. But he isn't. And he hasn't. And I'm not saying that he should. I think that should be left up to a much more multi-partisan and unbiased organization, such as the U.N., not an administration with barely any power checks which can pretty much do whatever it wants.
So I guess the point is not that we should just sit back and do nothing, but that we can't let Bush go starting wars wherever he wants to.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Jul 6, 2004 10:11:25 GMT -5
We wanted to get Saddam out because he kills and tortures his own people.. And then we proceed to bomb and kill his people for him. Moreso, in fact, than he has lately. Eh, self-justification to a higher power can pretty much right any wrong. At least in your own mind.
IN GOD WE FRIGGIN TRUST.
Also, can you justify the war profiteering of Halliburton/United Defense? More Halliburton, really, because the 2nd largest oil line in the world popping up in the middle of the desert really should have raised a few more eyebrows than it did. Especially when the Vice President has such control over the company in charge..
There are a lot of other points, I just want to see what the "Republican" stance is on this.. Cheney just got mad and cursed out a Senator when he asked him these same questions..
|
|