Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

You seem to want to use this film as a means to start a political conversation in a non political forum. Good luck, this is where I bow out.

Not at all, Gavin. None of my comments have been political. Basically, I think what Moore does and the main theme of his films, right from the very first one, is to highlight the plight of the working/middle class in this country. It's not a pretty picture and that's the background Moore comes from so I understand his anger when he expresses it.

Essentially I think what he exposes is the general dishonesty in politics and how big corporations exploit both politicians (on both sides of the aisle) and the working/middle class of this country to a horrific degree. The difference is many of these politicians go along for their own benefit but the working people of this country continue to struggle.

If you see his film he is not only critical of the current president but also the previous president, and the person the current president ran against. He is not letting anybody off the hook...nor should he.

 

[sidburyjr]

Very much tempered as compared to what he is making the film in response to. Keep in mind, Moore is just making a film not setting and creating policy that determines the fate of millions of people. Moore is just exorcising his right to free speech and that should be applauded.

I'm trying to decide whether exorcizing above is a typo. Personally I've always thought that Michael Moore was more of a propagandist than a documentation.

 

[TravisR]

I'm trying to decide whether exorcizing above is a typo. Personally I've always thought that Michael Moore was more of a propagandist than a documentation.

As a fan of his work, I'd call his movies 'editorials' rather than 'documentaries'. That's not a criticism because I think the topics he approaches are worth expressing your opinion about.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Personally I've always thought that Michael Moore was more of a propagandist than a documentation.

He lost me for good when I found out the bank scene in Bowling for Columbine was staged. All documentarians craft a narrative with their films by choosing what to include and what to omit, but he is far more likely than most to edit footage in away that actively misleads. I also don't care much for his self-righteousness.

On the other hand, I really loved Canadian Bacon back in the day, even though it was loathed by critics.

 

[RobertR]

I have particular scorn for people who excoriate capitalism while use capitalism to get rich from the excoriation of it.

 

[JohnRice]

I think you missed the point regarding “exorcizing”.

(The post I was referencing was deleted, so just move on.)

 

[benbess]

Good movie imho. My rating: "A-"

 

[Robert Crawford]

Either stop the current political references or this thread will be closed.

 

[Sam Favate]

I look forward to seeing this. I haven't seen all of his films, but the ones I have seen I have enjoyed very much.

 

[TJPC]

There was a big item in the Canadian news cycle of Michael Moore seriously considering moving to Canada after the premiere of this film. It intimated that he felt personally threatened. It also mentioned that his grandfather was Canadian. He was interviewed about it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think you missed the point regarding “exorcizing”.

(The post I was referencing was deleted, so just move on.)

Would not be the first time I was told an exorcism may be exactly what I need.

 

[PMF]

I'm good with Moore but, overall, I still prefer the docs of Connery.

 

[Tommy R]

He lost me for good when I found out the bank scene in Bowling for Columbine was staged. All documentarians craft a narrative with their films by choosing what to include and what to omit, but he is far more likely than most to edit footage in away that actively misleads. I also don't care much for his self-righteousness.

On the other hand, I really loved Canadian Bacon back in the day, even though it was loathed by critics.

THIS! Even if he's not outright "lying" with his words, he's painting a very false picture knowing that people are going to accept the false picture as what is really going on. It makes me second guess anything he says, and whether he's a documentarian or an editorialist or whatever, he's lost credibility with me. I think he tackles important topics, but I wish he weren't so dishonest with his methods.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

This must be the scene...



I'd call the scene hilariously nuts but not misleading in any way.

 

[JohnRice]

Now I'm confused. As I recall, the complaints of "lying" involved the fact that you didn't actually walk out of the bank with a firearm, but that you were given a certificate to pick one up at a registered dealer. The clip clearly shows the woman saying they are both a bank and a registered firearm dealer with a vault of at least 500 firearms. Maybe the complaints were that the movie didn't show the background check period delay to actually receive the firearm. In any case, the complaints that this was a lie seem to be more nitpicking about minute details rather than the real point being made.

 

[Tommy R]

Now I'm confused. As I recall, the complaints of "lying" involved the fact that you didn't actually walk out of the bank with a firearm, but that you were given a certificate to pick one up at a registered dealer. The clip clearly shows the woman saying they are both a bank and a registered firearm dealer with a vault of at least 500 firearms. Maybe the complaints were that the movie didn't show the background check period delay to actually receive the firearm. In any case, the complaints that this was a lie seem to be more nitpicking about minute details rather than the real point being made.

Just going off memory in what I remember, their vault isn't even at this bank location and Michael Moore called ahead and specifically asked for his rifle to be at this bank location for when he shoots this segment. I don't know what else he told them in regards to tricking them into this trap, but that bank definitely walked into it and made themselves look foolish. My problem with what I remember from Bowling For Columbine is Moore manipulating the audience by painting a picture that he just randomly decided to walk into a bank with no notice, opened an account, and then they just hand him a rifle from a stock they have right there in the bank. I'm sure Moore isn't the only documentarian who pulls tricks like this, but I have since decided to not trust anyone of this sort without a tremendous grain of salt and no argument will get me to think that this sort of manipulation in a documentary is okay.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Now I'm confused. As I recall, the complaints of "lying" involved the fact that you didn't actually walk out of the bank with a firearm, but that you were given a certificate to pick one up at a registered dealer. The clip clearly shows the woman saying they are both a bank and a registered firearm dealer with a vault of at least 500 firearms. Maybe the complaints were that the movie didn't show the background check period delay to actually receive the firearm. In any case, the complaints that this was a lie seem to be more nitpicking about minute details rather than the real point being made.

There were two issues: Normally for that promotion there is at least a 24 hour delay while the background check is processed, and then after the background check you're directed to pickup the firearm at a nearby gun shop. The bank was a licensed firearm dealer, but the impression that Moore gave (that you could walk into a bank, sign up for an account, and then walk out with a gun) is misleading.

 

[WillG]

“How the f—- did we get here? And how the f—- do we get out?”

This is tempered? The title and the premise is already insulting to anyone who might think Trump is doing an OK job.

And Moore was very critical of Trump, and not in a necessarily substantive way, before and during the election. So am I to assume he put his biases aside and assessed the Trump presidency fairly thus far?

This film reeks of him trying to belabor a point. Which is his right, and if he can get funding for such an endeavor and there is an audience for it, more power to him. (By the way, he can do this because of capitalism and free market principles. Kind of ironic since his film boasts Ocasio-Cortez in its cast.)

I will say, at least from my point of view, is that I have yet to see the signs of the doomsday scenarios a lot of people have predicted. At least from a marketing standpoint, this film seems to be very suggestive of impending doom.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I enjoyed the film. I'll just say this......

It's much closer to his earlier work of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling For Columbine than his more recent films. The last few I found to be somewhat forgettable, but this is a return to form.

 

[RobertR]

It's much closer to his earlier work of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling For Columbine than his more recent films.

If that's meant as praise, it has the opposite effect on me.