Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

**Official FAHRENHEIT 9/11 Discussion Thread - READ GUIDELINES BEFORE POSTING!***


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
365 replies to this topic

#1 of 366 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted June 21 2004 - 01:29 AM

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "FAHRENHEIT 9/11". Please post all comments, other than member reviews, to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "FAHRENHEIT 911" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

This thread and the Review thread are an experiment. We are interested in learning whether a film with such an overt political agenda can be discussed at all on the HTF, given our forum rules and posting guidelines. We will evaluate the experiment often and may terminate it at any time. The best chance for having the experiment continue is for all members to observe the following:

[c]Guidelines for Posting[/c][list=1][*]To post in this thread, you must have seen the film. If it appears from your post that you haven't seen the film, the post will be deleted.
[*]This thread is for discussing the film and its contents. The subject matter is contentious enough without branching out into collateral topics. This is not the thread for airing one's general views on Michael Moore or his prior works, nor should it be used to discourse about such topics as the upcoming November election, the worldviews of so-called "liberals" or "conservatives", or the controversy between Disney and Miramax over the film's release. Posts that do not focus on the film itself will be deleted.
[*]While we understand that the film is intended to elicit strong reactions, reasonable and mature people should be able to discuss the film -- and even disagree about it -- while still conducting themselves within the HTF rules. So use your best judgment, and think before you hit the "submit" button. If you find yourself becoming angry or agitated while composing a post, it's a good sign that the post shouldn't be submitted. Disagreement is fine; exercises in sarcasm and outrage are not, regardless of their target.
[*]The moderation of this thread will be more active than usual. We would very much like to be able to provide a platform for discussion of this film. To that end, we will not hesitate to delete posts that the HTF staff determines, in its sole discretion, to be excessively argumentative, contentious or provocative.
[*]Severe or repeated violations of these guidelines will result in removal of the offender.
[/list=1]
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

M.

COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#2 of 366 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted June 21 2004 - 01:29 AM

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "FAHRENHEIT 9/11". Please post all comments, other than member reviews, to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "FAHRENHEIT 911" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

This thread and the Review thread are an experiment. We are interested in learning whether a film with such an overt political agenda can be discussed at all on the HTF, given our forum rules and posting guidelines. We will evaluate the experiment often and may terminate it at any time. The best chance for having the experiment continue is for all members to observe the following:

[c]Guidelines for Posting[/c][list=1][*]To post in this thread, you must have seen the film. If it appears from your post that you haven't seen the film, the post will be deleted.
[*]This thread is for discussing the film and its contents. The subject matter is contentious enough without branching out into collateral topics. This is not the thread for airing one's general views on Michael Moore or his prior works, nor should it be used to discourse about such topics as the upcoming November election, the worldviews of so-called "liberals" or "conservatives", or the controversy between Disney and Miramax over the film's release. Posts that do not focus on the film itself will be deleted.
[*]While we understand that the film is intended to elicit strong reactions, reasonable and mature people should be able to discuss the film -- and even disagree about it -- while still conducting themselves within the HTF rules. So use your best judgment, and think before you hit the "submit" button. If you find yourself becoming angry or agitated while composing a post, it's a good sign that the post shouldn't be submitted. Disagreement is fine; exercises in sarcasm and outrage are not, regardless of their target.
[*]The moderation of this thread will be more active than usual. We would very much like to be able to provide a platform for discussion of this film. To that end, we will not hesitate to delete posts that the HTF staff determines, in its sole discretion, to be excessively argumentative, contentious or provocative.
[*]Severe or repeated violations of these guidelines will result in removal of the offender.
[/list=1]
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

M.

COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#3 of 366 OFFLINE   Joseph S

Joseph S

    Screenwriter



  • 2,865 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 23 1999

Posted June 25 2004 - 09:19 AM

Saw the film at the first showing today. He took a broad topic and condensed it fairly well, my primary problem were that some of the cuts were too sharp. Of course this was his intention, but some of the laughs covered up specific points made immediately afterward. The other issue was that Lila's strong performances were in such contrast to a not so earlier set of scenes. This needed more separtation. Aside from that I thought it was well laid out and points were made with supporting evidence mixed with comedy and tragedy. His coverage of 9/11 was just as it was for each and every one of us, for those that haven't seen it you will know what I mean when you do. Well done.

#4 of 366 OFFLINE   Rob Lutter

Rob Lutter

    Producer



  • 4,528 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2000

Posted June 25 2004 - 09:38 AM

Great film, a few walkouts but overall the audience at the noon showing here in Fort Lauderdale (sold out, I may add) loved it... standing ovation afterwards (one "boo!" from the back).

I thought the film was overall better than Bowling for Columbine because I felt that the overall beginning middle and ending came out better in editing (instead of just being different segments like in BfC) but, like others have said in reviews, Michael Moore himself wasn't in it enough. I know that that's a good thing for some people, but Moore's ambushing antics have always made me chuckle and made things a little more personal Posted Image

#5 of 366 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter



  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted June 25 2004 - 10:01 AM

I have to say I was much more impressed than I expected. I guess I expected the film to be less powerful emotionally and more humorous. While the humor was definitely present, the film was pretty heavy compared to Moore's previous works. From a technical perspective, I felt it was very well edited.

I was shocked at how full the theater was considering I went in one of the most Republican areas of Indiana. Also suprising, the film got a standing ovation after the credits came on.

I felt they could have focused a tad more on Cheaney, and also the Fox New Channel, but overall a very interesting film.

#6 of 366 OFFLINE   mark alan

mark alan

    Supporting Actor



  • 620 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 19 2002

Posted June 25 2004 - 10:55 AM

I was less impressed than I expected. I was expected a more passionate attack by Moore against the Bush administration. It almost seemed to be designed to not set off the conservative elements too much.

It was also less emotional than I expected. It is very easy to influence people emotionally when the subject is 9/11, war and death. Moore did not make too many cheap plays for our feelings.

I enjoyed the movie and everyone else did also. however I don't really expect it to either convince many people to change their view of Bush.

#7 of 366 OFFLINE   Quentin

Quentin

    Screenwriter



  • 2,507 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002
  • Real Name:Quentin H
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted June 25 2004 - 11:52 AM

Personally, I like Walter Chaw's take at filmfreakcentral. I think Moore's biggest problem is that he has become bigger and more important than the subject matter. His films were always slanted to express his opinions - call it propaganda if you'd like - but now his opinions, interjections, slants, etc. are more obvious and sloppier than ever before.

This film cost him $6 million to make?? Please.

#8 of 366 OFFLINE   Rob Lutter

Rob Lutter

    Producer



  • 4,528 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2000

Posted June 25 2004 - 12:34 PM

6 million above-the-line isn't that hard to reach when you consider music rights for a relatively large (for a documentary) release, the cost of film stock and cameras, scoring the film, insurance, salaries for the crewmembers/director, sound mixing, telecine, film processing, flying a crew out to Iraq and putting them up.

#9 of 366 OFFLINE   Kristian

Kristian

    Supporting Actor



  • 946 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 16 2001

Posted June 25 2004 - 01:01 PM

Wow, what a film! Bowling for Columbine was probably more consistently entertaining, but Fahrenheit is truly the more powerful and passionate of the two. Which is not to say that it wasn't hilarious, because it was. Especially the last scene. Posted Image

The screening I went to was packed to the fullest and the film was in one of the biggest screens in the theater. There was huge applause all throughout the film (which unfortunately drowned out some of the dialogue at times) and an absolutely incredible applause at the end. Surprisingly, I didn't notice a single "boo" or walkout. An incredible moviegoing experience in all respects.
Film Lists: 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | Pre-2006 | 2009
CollectionsMusic

#10 of 366 OFFLINE   Ravi K

Ravi K

    Supporting Actor



  • 707 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2003

Posted June 25 2004 - 02:20 PM

I saw it this afternoon and was surprised by the turnout on a Friday afternoon. The per-screen-average is going to be huge.

I generally liked the film. The filmmaking was good and the points Moore makes are sharp. I knew about some of the Bush ties to bin Laden, etc. beforehand, but the film fleshed it out a little more. I took issue with the happy montage of Baghdad before the invasion, which seemed like dramatic overkill, but otherwise I could not find any credibility problems. I wished Moore had covered the Patriot Act more instead of reading portions of it over an ice cream truck speaker. Lila Lipscomb's scenes were emotional without seeming manipulative. It was an effective polemic.
 

#11 of 366 OFFLINE   Derek Miner

Derek Miner

    Screenwriter



  • 1,668 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 22 1999

Posted June 25 2004 - 03:01 PM

I wish I could have seen the film with a large audience, but I had to settle for a test run of the print with just a couple co-workers (I'll get to see plenty of audience reactions over the next week, however).

Before the film began, I wondered how much different Fahrenheit 9/11 would be from previous Michael Moore films. I thought it would have to be more serious than his other works, and in some ways it is. Still, Moore's trademarks are certainly evident from his amusing opening narration to the always-interesting choices of popular songs to underscore points with a bit of humor. Since the drive of this particular topic is so linear, I think the film could have benefited from less of the branching which served Bowling for Columbine so well. The sections on the Patriot Act and patrolling the border of Oregon seemed a bit superfluous.

I also wanted to mention that I went into the film thinking about the last-minute appeal to get the film's R rating overturned to a PG-13. While there are some gruesome battle scenes and a long shot of a public beheading in the film, I noted one thing that must have sealed the fate of that appeal - the repeating of the chorus of "The Roof Is On Fire" (Bloodhound Gang's "Fire Water Burn" is also played) certainly exceeds the f-word allowance for a PG-13.
= Derek Miner =
Co-founder, Sunscreen Film Festival

#12 of 366 OFFLINE   Joseph S

Joseph S

    Screenwriter



  • 2,865 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 23 1999

Posted June 25 2004 - 03:15 PM

Quote:
I'd love to see it, but it's not playing anywhere near me. Is it going into wider release soon?

Todd,
A quick check with the Watson tools shows this film isn't within 100 miles of your location. Many of these theaters have "The Notebook" and other smaller films. I question if a wider release is really going to solve this. Road Trip. Posted Image

Edit: I see Todd's post was deleted obviously for not seeing the film. I'm not sure if I should delete this. No big deal how this is dealt with. I have seen the film and my comments are noted earlier in the thread.

#13 of 366 OFFLINE   Allan^L

Allan^L

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 106 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2004

Posted June 25 2004 - 03:35 PM

I saw it at a 1:20 matinee just outside Toronto (about 90% full with only the crappy rows in the front empty). I loved it. It had a nice mixture of humour, satire, and dead-on seriousness. Many people, including myself, cried when
Lila Lipscomb read the letter that her son wrote
.

I do agree with the R rating as there's some pretty heavy stuff here. That being said, I encourage teenagers 13+ to see it with their parents as I think it's an important film for them to see.

When it ended, there was a big round of applause - an extreme rarity up here. Where I live, people don't even react to trailers!

On July 2nd, the film will expand into more theatres so I hope all of you who don't live near a theatre currently playing it will get to see it.

#14 of 366 OFFLINE   Ray Chuang

Ray Chuang

    Screenwriter



  • 1,055 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2002

Posted June 25 2004 - 03:44 PM

Having seen the film, Moore does have good technique, but his political bias comes through a bit too strong the movie, especially the first half.

In a way, the movie kind of reminded me at times of the infamous propaganda film Der ewige Jude (I saw that film at a film festival some years ago). It's essentially bludgeon-you-on-the-head propaganda, in my humble opinion, which detracts from much of the film. But then, that's Moore's style, so what else do you expect. Posted Image
Raymond in Sacramento, CA USA

#15 of 366 OFFLINE   Allan^L

Allan^L

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 106 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2004

Posted June 25 2004 - 03:52 PM

But aren't documentaries, by their very nature, supposed to be biased? I'm not talking National Geographic-type things but the ones based on social/economic/political issues? I've always thought of documentaries as a filmed version of the essays and theses that we wrote in school. What all of our teachers always taught us is that we needed to make an argument in our essays and support that with evidence. Isn't that what F9/11 is?

#16 of 366 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter



  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted June 25 2004 - 04:41 PM

Quote:
While there are some gruesome battle scenes and a long shot of a public beheading in the film, I noted one thing that must have sealed the fate of that appeal - the repeating of the chorus of "The Roof Is On Fire" (Bloodhound Gang's "Fire Water Burn" is also played) certainly exceeds the f-word allowance for a PG-13.
I don't think so. All The President's Men has a dozen or so f-bombs and it's rated PG.

#17 of 366 OFFLINE   James_G

James_G

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 74 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2001

Posted June 25 2004 - 07:29 PM

Quote:
But aren't documentaries, by their very nature, supposed to be biased?

Well, that depends. The dictionary definition of documentary is pretty strict ("of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE (a documentary film of the war)"), but since it's neigh impossible to be purely objective from a human being's perspective there's wiggle room in the definition. However, by Moore's own admission there has been no strivance towards any kind of objective position in F9/11. He's actually done quite the opposite. Propaganda is defined as "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect". Again, by Moore's own admission F9/11 is definitely a collection of ideas and facts spread to deliberately further his cause to damage George Bush's reelection. The definition fits like a glove. Some people say that F9/11 is a mix of propaganda and documentary, but since the definitions are at complete ends of the spectrum I can't accept that. Of course, some will also say that the Bush administration is the Yin and F9/11 is the Yang, so we do end up getting a rounded view in the end anyway...but those are dangerous waters to head towards, so I'll stop right here. Posted Image

#18 of 366 OFFLINE   Keith Paynter

Keith Paynter

    Screenwriter



  • 1,830 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted June 25 2004 - 07:55 PM

edit
I don't like SPAM!

#19 of 366 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor



  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted June 25 2004 - 08:52 PM

Quote:
Having seen the film, Moore does have good technique, but his political bias comes through a bit too strong the movie, especially the first half.


Agreed. The overt anti-Bush stuff was a little hard to swallow (but damn funny at times), but the stuff relating directly to the war was very moving. I'm a big fan of Bowling for Columbine, but I think he's able to illustrate his opinion much better in this film.

There was a big round of applause at the end of my viewing too. Whether Moore's film is propaganda or documentary...or a bit of both, I'm glad people are seeing it. I'd much rather have more people talking about national issues than watching another reality TV series.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]

#20 of 366 OFFLINE   Terry St

Terry St

    Second Unit



  • 393 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2002

Posted June 25 2004 - 08:58 PM

Quote:
But aren't documentaries, by their very nature, supposed to be biased? I'm not talking National Geographic-type things but the ones based on social/economic/political issues? I've always thought of documentaries as a filmed version of the essays and theses that we wrote in school. What all of our teachers always taught us is that we needed to make an argument in our essays and support that with evidence. Isn't that what F9/11 is?


All documentaries are biased even if they claim/appear to be objective. The moment you point a camera at a subject and start selecting shots to show in a film a part of your personal bias on the subject material exerts itself on the final product. It's unavoidable. Documentaries that appear objective but which use heavy selective bias are actually the most dangerous form of propaganda. Moore's films, with their painfully obvious bias, are actually far less dangerous because you know the politics of the film-maker and can evaluate what he says with that in mind. Put simply, if it looks like blatant propaganda then it probably isn't, but if it looks objective then beware! It might be, or it might not be. Counterintuitive, but true.

As for the film itself... I was actually expecting Moore to dig up more new material. If you've been following the news from a variety of sources (and not just CNN, which is way more biased than Moore) then you'd probably have already seen lots of material on Bush's connections to the Osama family, etc. (e.g. CBC aired a nice piece on that) Still, there was some really good material such as the marine recruiters in Flint or the state troopers in Oregon. However, I felt the film really bogged down about half-way through when it stopped presenting facts and started focusing on bleeding-heart melodramatics. (i.e. Lila)

Fortunately, Moore does seem to use more self-restraint in this film than he did in BFC or "Roger & Me". I didn't see any facts that seemed out of line, although I suppose only time will tell. As I mentioned above, this isn't a bunch of rabid paranoia coming out of nowhere. Most of what Moore presents in this film has been previously presented by credible news services. Bottom line, it's a good documentary/film essay that sums up the anti-bush side of things very well and is well worth the price of admission.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow