Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018) (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

The controversy is the fact that Moore played the scene for laughs and that it is only a couple of minutes long.

The controversy is that he presented a scenario that would not have occurred if he hadn't had a film crew in tow,

So, literally the aspect of the Moore clip that upsets people, buying a gun in seconds, really happens all the time...just not in a bank.

That's what makes the scene so frustrating: there are lots of ways that it genuinely is ridiculously easy to get a gun in America, so there was no reason to cook up a scene through deceptive editing.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

That's what makes the scene so frustrating: there are lots of ways that it genuinely is ridiculously easy to get a gun in America, so there was no reason to cook up a scene through deceptive editing.

I agree with you, Adam. I think he chose that particular scene because he saw humor in a bank giving away guns. Is it the best way to show the ease of getting a gun, certainly not. I don't think he was looking to mislead people though, just to throw in a funny moment. He plays the whole thing for laughs from filling out the background check to clowning around with the rifle in the bank.

 

[Tommy R]

The controversy is that he presented a scenario that would not have occurred if he hadn't had a film crew in tow,


That's what makes the scene so frustrating: there are lots of ways that it genuinely is ridiculously easy to get a gun in America, so there was no reason to cook up a scene through deceptive editing.

I've also wondered for years what their response was to his question about if it's safe having guns in a bank. I can only guess it was something that wouldn't gel with Moore's narrative. I imagine it could've been something like "Well Mr. Moore, you requested the rifle to be here, so..." And perhaps it's something that Moore could have cleared up if he'd allowed himself to be interviewed for the documentary "Michael Moore Hates America". I'm sure we'll never see the unedited footage.

Regardless though, I am interested in seeing this new movie, as long as I take it with a grain of salt. I think in general he's tackling important questions.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm Colorado born and raised, and I've lived here for all but about a dozen of my 54 years. I'll never forget sitting in my office, watching Columbine unfold on live TV.

To see that 20 years later, the main takeaway from Bowling for Columbine is harping over the miniscule detail of whether a bank promotion allowed opening an account and walking out with a firearm at that moment, or using a certificate to get one a day later is positively hellish. It's two minutes out of a movie about Columbine. This is one of my complaints about Moore, which I already stated. By making a joke out of it, he detracted from the very topic of his movie.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

To see that 20 years later, the main takeaway from Bowling for Columbine is harping over the miniscule detail of whether a bank promotion allowed opening an account and walking out with a firearm at that moment, or using a certificate to get one a day later is positively hellish. It's two minutes out of a movie about Columbine. This is one of my complaints about Moore, which I already stated. By making a joke out of it, he detracted from the very topic of his movie.

I honestly don't blame Moore for this. As I said before his films are commentary or as other people said editorializing. He is letting you know how he feels about current events. The audience may or may not share his feelings but he is going to let you know what they are. So, in his films he does not just document things he comments on them making his films obviously not "pure" documentaries.

I don't think the idea with the bank scene is to make a joke out of kids murdering their classmates. The bank scene is about the absurdity of our culture and that a bank would give out free guns when you open an account. It is meant to highlight how common it is in our country to acquire a firearm that even a bank would hand them out like a calendar or free doughnuts and coffee. I believe he plays that for laughs specifically because what follows is not funny.

The thing is in today's political climate the response to any person, paper, media outlet, whatever that speaks out on an issue is to KILL THE MESSENGER. So, there must be a response that generally always begins with "Well, this person is dishonest you can't trust them!" and/or the other favorite "They are just saying that to make money!"

I don't think the fact that he makes a joke about the bank (which I think comes at the beginning of the film) detracts from the message of the film and how he addresses the topic at hand, particularly if you watch the entire film and see it in context.

I blame the people that latched onto that scene to try to label him as dishonest to detract from the reality the film portrays. They used that 2 minutes in a manipulative way to intentionally make that 2 minutes what sticks with people and to essentially KILL THE MESSENGER so they would not trust Moore. This is what lobbyists do, they smear people who tell you things they don't want you to hear.

I've only watched Bowling for Columbine once because honestly the film depresses me. It would depress me even more to watch it again now because these type of shootings have kept happening and as a country we do nothing about it.

My wife is a teacher. Each time this happens and children die it is a devastating thing in my house and I don't know about other people here but it feels like we are always just waiting for the next one. And like some horrible nightmare the next one always comes. That's the personal side of things for me not political. Frankly, it really hurts.

I think it hurts for Michael Moore too as I am sure it does for many people. So, I understand why the bank scene is there and what it means. We can certainly debate if it was a good choice to include it...you would be right to say that having it there gave NRA lobbyists an opening to attack him and distract from the real message of the picture. Still, I blame them for attempting to do that far more than I blame Moore for including it.

 

[atfree]

It made $3 million opening weekend.....not even enough to pay for Moore's annual Burger King budget. He will be one person I'll be glad to see someday fade into the ether.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...ion-nation-and-life-itself-bomb/#493ef7d65f51

 

[JohnRice]

I honestly don't blame Moore for this.

I'm not blaming him. I'm saying that by doing it, he undermines what I thought was the purpose of the film. I wish he was more interested in making a compelling argument without giving his detractors so much ammo (pun intended) to use against him.

 

[RobertR]

I'm not blaming him.

You don't hold him responsible for his actions?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'm not blaming him. I'm saying that by doing it, he undermines what I thought was the purpose of the film. I wish he was more interested in making a compelling argument without giving his detractors so much ammo (pun intended) to use against him.

I don"t disagree with you really. The truth is though no matter how he makes his points detractors will find fault with them. He can come off as smug at times, I really don't think that helps him. I think the sarcasm and jokes are just part of who he is and how he expresses himself. I don't think all of the ways he tries to approach the people in power are the best ways to do so either. I think he can't help himself though and when people act in such an openly horrible way a lot of people want to shame them...and that's what Moore does and that gets under people's skin if they are the ones getting shamed and it gets standing ovations from the people that want to see these people shamed.

I mean let's face it if you take two guys with bullets in their bodies to the corporate headquarters of the store that sold the bullets that are in these guys...well...they are not going to roll out the red carpet for you.

Is he getting any results? Well, probably not. I mean since Columbine and his film we have seen no improvement. We just see the same mistakes being made over and over again and the list of victims just continues to grow. Nobody wins and as a country, as a people we grow further and further apart.

We seem more separated as a country and a society than ever. So, I would not look to Michael Moore for answers but at least he is asking the questions the lobbyists don't want asked and exposing things they don't want exposed.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I have just deleted a number of posts in this thread.

Someone made the point in one of them that the subject had veered dangerously close to our "no politics" rule.

No. Those posts easily crossed the line.

First off, this thread is not about Bowling for Columbine (except in the tenuous sense that both are Moore films and one may make a point about one that impacts their view of the other). And this is NOT the thread in which to discuss:

--gun control

--gun rights

--the NRA

--school shootings

This IS a thread to discuss Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 11/9. And this thread discussion will proceed without political comments. Good luck!

You've already had one moderator say that if the references to current political issues continue the thread will be closed. Consider this warning to be Strike #2.

 

[SamT]

Just saw this. Loved it. It surprised me. It surprised me because it did not show things I was expecting. It approached it from a different angle. Things are often complicated and need to be seen from different angles.

In summary this is about forget who did this and blaming others, let's look at why this was allowed to happen.

For other subjects, watch also Active Measures (2018) (Jack Bryan), also excellent.