**Official FAHRENHEIT 9/11 Discussion Thread - READ GUIDELINES BEFORE POSTING!*** (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

The comments you quoted had already been deleted from the thread by the time you posted. If you're concerned about any future posts, the proper procedure, as always, is to report the post. Quoting it just compounds the problem.

M.

 

[Steve Felix]

Bingo.

 

[Nick_Scott]

According to the FBI, they WERE questioned before CLARKE authorized them to leave.

I knew going in to the movie, that some scenes were altered to change the meaning. I knew some of the facts were false. Who didn't? This is Moore after all. Even Roger Ebert critized him for BFC.

So, I went into the movie expecting politicla satire, not a documentary. Moore would be poking fun at Bush, and thats what I received. It was brilliant. Well edited, paced, and narrated. Very clean throughout.

I caught some facts that were wrong right away. (like the note about the recounts). So I took everything is as 'tongue and cheek'.
Does anyone remember Bill Mahers "Pizza Boy"? It was a similar bit of political-satire, and just as clever. 911 reminded me A LOT of "Pizza Boy".

While I view it as a Political-Satire, the big question is: Is it a documentary? I'm sure Bush supporters would argue it was not, but I would differ. It certainly follows a documentary-style format, and there is NO RULE anywhere that says you have to be accurate and well-balanced.

Granted, thats part of the problem. I thought the films message about the horrors of war to be VERY IMPORTANT. War IS terrible, and as Americans, everything seems to far away, so we just don't understand.
Moore was VERY effective with the war message, as it seemed genuingly honest, and direct.
BUT, Moore insisted on throwing constent jabs at the president. Anyone who watches the news could spot many as being factually wrong, but it unfortunetly KILLS the message.

How can we discuss the VALID merits of the movie, when current discussion is focused on why Moore fudged so many of the facts.

 

[Doug R]

Nick, do you have any web references to your statement regarding the questioning. Would like to see it given it was one of the more important aspects of the movie for me.

Thanks!

 

[Tino]

The actuals are in for Fahrenheit 9/11 and it grossed $23.9 million, $2.1 million more than originally estimated.

I saw it today and am still processing it. I did enjoy it however.

 

[Jeff]

Either I wasn't paying attention or I'm not up on US politics but can anyone tell me what that scene at the beginning was all about with the African Americans being shot down because they weren't getting signatures?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Moore never suggests that all Saudis are evil. He does suggest (and back up with evidence) the idea that the Bush family, the Bin Laden family, and the Saudi royal family conspire to profit from acts of terrorism.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Jeff,

Those congressmen and -women were disputing the certification of the 2000 election results, due to the fraudulent purging of the voter rolls in Florida, as carried out by Jeb Bush, Kathryn Harris, and the database firm they hired.

Unfortunately, since Mr. Moore didn't go into the details of how this was actually carried out (one of the film's biggest flaws IMO), you will have to go to Google for more info, as we aren't allow to discuss it here.

If I remember correctly, to dispute the election results, the complaint had to be in writing, and had to be signed by at least one Congressman and one Senator. No Senator would sign any of the complaints. Therefore, they were dismissed.

 

[Michael Harris]

Saw it on Sunday in a sold out screening. Tried to see it on Saturday but no luck. I liked it better then "Columbine" because, for the most part, Moore kept the camera on his subject rather than on himself. Even when he was on screen it was short and to make a humerous point. It seemed the F 9/11 was a more personal film.

 

[Nick_Scott]

I just read whatever pops up on Drudge. You can do a search there for "fahrenheit".
In truth, I think 911 has been far more accurate then BFC, especially with the war coverage, which I liked. I think Moore learned his lesson... somewhat.

He will go from making an excellent point about war, to some silly comment about Bush... and I will start grinding my teeth.
For example: He mentions that the Taliban came to the USA before 9/11 to have a cozy meeting with President Bush. In truth, they DID come, but Bush refused to see them BECUASE THEY WON'T HAND OVER Bin Laden.

This is Moores style. He didn't lie. What he said was "technically" true, but what he implied was false. I picked up on that, and it ruins the scene, because his bias suddenly clouds the movie.

Whenever he would imply something so obviously false, it would drive me nuts. He has the ability to make a revolutionary movie. Something that could end the war, and prevent future ones. Something school kids would be forced to watch. But between the good stuff, is hatefull, partisen, mudslinging, where the stuff he IMPLIES is false.
As far as I can tell, he doesnt care about art, or war, but just wants to make money by making what his core audience wants to see. (Certaintly, "traditional documentary film-making" is not a good way to make money).

During the scene where he was complaining about how the media knew about the prison abuse, but kept it secret.....
The first thing I thought was... Ummm... Mr Moore, you also kept it secret... Just like how the Bin Laden "family" own 60 theaters that are showing your movie.

Anyway, here is a question:
WHen they show weekend totals, how do they calculate movies released on Wednesday? Ignore Wed/Thur for opening weekend?

Nick

 

[Doug R]

He may not suggest it but the images more than imply it. I'm sure you won't agree given your bias but I do given mine.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Nick,


What he implied was NOT false. While Bush himself may not have met with the Taliban, members of his administration most certainly did.

Again, I'm not going to provide facts that weren't in the film, but you are free to do your own research.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Doug,

With all due respect, did you read the rest of my post, beyond the portion you quoted? Moore never suggested that Saudis are evil because of their race. He did suggest that these particular Saudis bought Bush's loyalty for the price of 1.4 billion dollars.

 

[Chris Harvey]

Yes, Wednesday and Thursday totals are tracked separately from the 3-day opening weekend. You'll notice that F9/11's weekend was $23.9 million, but its total gross is over $24 million. The difference is the roughly $150,000 it earned over the first two days of its release.

With huge films that make a ton over those first two days, box-office trackers will have stats for the "3-day" and "5-day" opening. For example, since a lot of people are guessing what SPIDER-MAN might make, you'll see figures like $75/$125 thrown out. The first is the 3-day, the second is the 5-day.

 

[Richard Kim]

Also, it was pointed out that Saudi Arabia is one of the leading violators of human rights in the world (the public beheading shown in the film for example). It's pretty hypocritical to proclaim that the war in Iraq was for democracy in the Middle East when one of your allies there is itself a despotic regieme.

 

[Nick_Scott]

(if rules are broken. Just delete, but it seems to be within the bounds of the film).

I HAVE done research.
The problem is Moore IMPLIES that we had deals with the Taliban OVER OIL. When, in fact, we DID, except it was with a "previous president". MOORE leaves that part out.

The current administration CLOSED the taliban office in DC, and took a "give us bin laden or go to hell" attitude in 2000.
Now, it can definetly be argued that when Bush ended "the previus presidents" ties to the Taliban, that it also made it difficult to deal diplomatically with them to get bin laden. They certaintly did not like our arrogant demands, and perhaps was even lost in translation.

Does Moore lie? Of course not. On paper, everything looks good. But, as always, is presented to imply a different meaning. Thats his signature style. I just wish he would have toned it down a bit more, and focused on the good half of the movie.

Nick

 

[Doug R]

Rob,

In fact I did read your entire post. I'm telling you given the sequence of the film at that point, that's the impression it leaves. Naturally you see it otherwise since you probably could have written this film yourself.

Richard,

I think you're reading what you want into the look Bush gives. My post was in regards to the merit of the F911 in covering that subject. Given the response of many Senators, Representatives, and 9/11 commission regarding what happened in that school, I believe Moore's attempt to paint it poorly ended hollow.

For instance Moore's voiceover of "No one came to help him. He sat there not knowing what to do." was absurd unless Moore can read minds. I certainly understand the entire film is what Moore wants in and what Moore wants left out. I'm just saying that part of the film rang as reaching where other parts rang more important. I believe your attempt to debate the subject violates the thread rules.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Doug,

If that's the impression you got, it's not my place to dispute that. However, there is nothing in the film itself to indicate that Moore engages in racial profiling, or that he believes all Saudis are evil. I don't remember the word "evil" ever being uttered in the film. And even if he does try to imply that all Saudis are evil, how does that support the thesis of the film? I guess I just don't see what point you're trying to make. If you're saying that not all Saudis are evil, then I agree with you, and I think Moore does too, considering what he actually said in the film.

 

[Nate Anderson]

After seeing the film this evening myself, I will say this: I have never been angrier, more disturbed or more aware than I have after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11. It is my opinion that every person of a reasonable age (say 16 or older) should see this film. I'm not saying you have to agree with it or even like it. I only ask that they consider it. I think that is extremely fine filmmaking and Michael Moore shows just how much has been going on. I feel like I've been blind these past few years and now I truely see what has been going on. I am very upset.

Upon further reflections on the film, there were no moments that really rang false for me. I agree that the part where the mother read the letter from her son and the scene where she breaks down in front of the White House were the most poignant and really made a point about what this film about.

I am also impressed by the blackout 9/11 sequence where you hear the planes crashing into the towers, but you don't see it. Those images are so ingrained in most of our memories that we don't need to SEE them. We know what is happening. And then he fades in on people's reactions.

At the end there was a steady applause for a few minutes from the audience. It was an incredible experience. I recommend it for everyone to see.

:star: :star: :star: :star: /:star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Doug R]

In regards to what Moore leaves out: (Unfortunately you have to register, but it's a story about Representative from Minnesota shown in the film saying that his lines were edited out in the "Would you send your son to Iraq" section.)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4845919.html

A few more moments I remembered that were part of the film's misses:

1) The listing of the "Coalition of the Willing" seemed a bit insulting. Another section of what Moore chooses to leave out. But it seemed also backhandedly insulting to those countries listed. I understand the point but the way it's presented would appear quite belittling. MOROCCOOOOO.

2) Iraq never threatened or killed an American? Huh? I assume Moore meant "on American soil" but that wasn't said. If that's what he meant, he should have said it. As it stands, it sounds ridiculous.

Despite disagreeing with what Moore has become (I used to love TV Nation!), I agree with several of the movie's main points but as a critical thinker, it's hard to look past the obvious exaggerations and "things left out" to give the film the credibility it begs for. I would say a more balanced (heck, even slightly more balanced) look at the topic would make a more fascinating documentary.