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

[OcieB]

let it be known: everything that is even close to a spoiler is marked.

i just saw it and dont know what to say.

i thought bowling for columbine was better film making, and that this was more for the general public, which is good

i thought moore did a wonderful job articulating what at least i have known since for a long time now, and i think it is great for the people to see it in simple terms. i dont want to give away anything right now, so i wont say much besides my feelings, which are all over the map. i am scared to the bone, shocked, happy, lonely, i feel that i am a petty person, i am ashamed; and my dad says vietnam was worse.

i encourage every single person to see this, republican, democrat, independent. to not see this is really denying yourself, whether you agree with it or not.

i dont think this is really a spoiler, just talking about 30 seconds of the film, but just for those who may not want to know anything:
-------------------------SPOILER-------------------------
i would like to point out that the only thing i didnt like was that before the "segment" on iraq, moore shows kids flying kites and people having a good time in iraq; people laughing and such. i though this part was for pure effect for what followed, and was definitely propaganda. i was actually disappointed with that.

-------------------------SPOILER-------------------------
the "segment" on soldiers returned, vets, was jaw-dropping, i didn't even realize............im so naive.


-------------------------SPOILER-------------------------
i was also shocked at how much real "sock" footage there was, which i think will make the film more serious. there is one part in front of the white house which almost seemed scripted at the beginning, but then became so powerful i dont think it could have been. also, moore's ambush of the senators was hilarious and also absurd. i dont think it took away from the power of the film by being too much of a crazy antic for entertainment.

-----END SPOILERS-----


this film deserved the r rating. it was almost too heavy for me, i closed my eyes many times. not the graphics so much, but the pure strength of it all combined. for once (more or less) the film deserved the r rating.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Wow is all I have to say. I saw it with my Wife Last night at the first evening showing. Was'nt expecting a sell Out so got there 5 minuits before. We sat in the third row. it was standing room only. The audience laughed at the right spots and I heard alot of crying at the right spots, especially at the end with lila. Filing out of the theater i looked at the faces I could'nt believe that mostly this was the crowd I thought would be going to see "White Chicks" it was decidely young. Alot of Discussing and alot of emotionally drawn faces.

When it came down to the bottom line I did'nt think the film was going to resonate with alot of people,I think the administration thinks this too. But I think I , and Fortunately the Bush administration, may be proven wrong.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Apparenly business for the film is booming. Like I said, I was shocked at how full the theater was at 11:50 am on Friday in the most Republican county in Indiana.

Demand in NYC was so high that one theater had to run it every 90 minutes for 24 hours last night.

Here's some photos of some of the sell-outs:

Sony Lincoln Plaza NYC

All sold out in Philadelphia

Showing all through the night to meet demand

More pictures of long lines can be found here

Even with all this, it'll probably only finish 3rd or 4th for the weekend due to the smaller number of screens, but the per-screen average will be huge.

Jeff

 

[Patrick Sun]

Is it true only 500 prints were made for this weekend's release? That's what I had read somewhere else. That number of prints was all that the distributor ordered at the time for theater bookings.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

It says 868 screens in this article. I'm not sure of the exact number of theaters since many theaters have it on multiple screens.

Jeff

 

[Ray Chuang]

Jeff Adkins, you wrote:


I don't expect this movie to be #1 next week, especially with the arrival of Spiderman 2 in probably over 3,500 screens with the fact Spiderman 2 has gotten rave reviews everywhere.

The reason why I mentioned Der ewige Jude was the fact Fahrenheit 9/11 threw a lot of "hot button" images on film in a highly manipulative manner like that infamous propaganda film from 1940. It makes you wonder did Moore see Der wiege Jude and use it for its inspiration.

 

[Michael Were]

My wife and I saw the first showing here in Tucson yesterday in a sold out theater. We loved the film. I laughed and cried. I am not going to point out spoilers because this is a discussion for people who have seen the film.

The black screen with just the sounds of the impacts on the world trade centers is so powerful. I find that I am numb to the imagery of that horrific event. Moore's purposful avoidance of showing the towers and focusing on the humans (crying, praying, running etc.) shows a new level of control and understanding in Moore's film making.

The contrast of the youthful soldiers selecting soundtracks to blow up people to (like I do with my Xbox) and the older soldiers' sense of personal loss and borderline self repulsion shows the bipolar effects of war on the people involved.

I love the facts that Moore presents: Following money trails, Bush's vacation time, number of soldiers involved in the Afghan war and the number of Congressmen's sons involved in the wars. These things can't be disputed; however, Moore's interpretation is so obvert that an intelligent person can see through them and make up their own minds on what these data mean.

I couldn't handle the images of the dead and near dead soldiers and civilians. Each time I saw a bomb explode on CNN, I already knew what the results were and I PERSONALY don't need to see the results. I realize that it is important for some people to see the results of our actions because they don't think about them.

The Orwell quote at the end rocked.

Things I would like to address that have already been mentioned:

As far as the bias of documentaries,Terry St. has intelligently pointed out the bias of pointing a camera at a subject. Every documentary that I have ever seen is biased. Even the first documentary filmed, Nanook of the North, is biased (to a point of staging shots).

I agree with OcieB and Ravi K on the scene of Lila Lipscomb's encounter with the ignorant women in front of the White House was raw and incredible. One of the many things that made me cry.

I have to disagree with Derrek on the Patriot Act scenes (although my wife completely agrees with you). For me it plays into the psychology of fear that led up to the war against Iraq and is a necessary piece of the puzzle that Moore presents. Moore always brings the film to the most basic human level. This film and Bowling for Columbine show that (for whatever reason we personally believe) Americans are afraid of their neighbors.

I feel like I might start getting outside of the HTF guidelines. I still have to say that I love that everyone is being so controlled in this thread.

Keep it up.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Disclaimer: I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Moore's opinions of President Bush, so obviously this documentary felt like it was preaching to my choir.

But even putting my personal viewpoints aside, I think F911 is a very enlightening and entertaining movie. Is it objective and even-keeled? Nope, and there's no law that says a movie must be those things.

What I saw was a filmmaker who was sick to death of our government's bullshit, so he went out to make his point in the most accessible style possible. If Moore resorts to cheap shots, I think he's justified because our President completely deserves to be raked over the coals for his actions. A more kind-hearted approach would not make the same impact.

I honestly believe that Moore cares a lot about where our country is headed. He might be seen as a tacky muckraker to some (and I certainly wouldn't argue with you if that were your opinion) but I think his venom originates from an admirable place.

As I was telling a friend of mine after seeing the film, I believe that the segments of F911 that are the most damaging to Bush...are the segments in which he opens his own mouth and offers a litany of truly ignorant statements. (His speech about 'the haves and the have-mores' makes me want to puke.)

Obviously there's two (or more) sides to every story, and I would understand why a Bush supporter would actively dislike this movie, but ultimately it's a film that will spark debate and discussion. It will actually lead to a situation where people will start doing some research on their own, if only to find out if Moore's full of crap or not. Ultimately, I believe a film like F911 does an absolute good; anyone who makes their vote based solely on a movie is not thinking clearly, but the amount of topics that Moore brings to light should undoubtedly lead to a more informed base of voters.

Criticisms that the movie is perhaps too scattershot, all-over-the-place, or unfocused are IMO quite valid. Much of the movie feels like it was put together via dartboard. But Moore makes his arguments so convincingly (and colorfully) that it's tough not to be entertained.

I believe that any movie which sparks intelligent debate about the U.S. Government is absolutely a good thing. Sure, if I were a Bush supporter, I'd probably detest Michael Moore. But even then - I'd never be able to honestly say that F911 is a bad film.

Call me nuts, but I sincerely believe that Michael Moore has his heart in the right place. And in this day and age, that means a whole lot.

Plus that Dragnet clip was hilarious!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Just Lincoln Plaza. It's an independently owned arthouse, and not part of the Loews chain (which, BTW, is no longer owned by Sony). The other theater with early showings was the Loews 19th Street.

M.

 

[Chris Harvey]

Friday's box-office was estimated at $8.2 million, meaning a weekend total in the low- to mid-twenties is highly likely. (BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE grossed $26 million its entire theatrical run.)

Although screens will be tight with SPIDEY opening this Wednesday, I wouldn't be surprised if theatres found ways to add prints and screens, much the same way they did when THE PASSION opened so huge.

 

[Chris]

Ok, I will go in off the top of the bat saying as a die hard libertarian, I vote neither party and largely disagree with Moore's sentiments.

I watched the film in a small showing limited to a set number of people held within a distribution office on Wednesday.

Moore does a fair job of presenting a case in which he plays out the "anti-Bush" argument, but I don't find a lot in the film to make those who will vote for Bush change their mind, this is somewhat of an "amen choir" type film.

The greatest problem I had with F911 is that, unlike previous Moore documentaries, the film has a problem with internal consistency of argument. That is to say, many arguments are presented that bash the administration or actions, but they are presented in such a way that not all of them can be true.. let me put it this way: if you accept concept X, concept Y can't be true, or vice versa. This is very much played up with the manner in which the Saudi connection is made and then the follow through.

The movie lacks a strong through-line, and some of the moments meant, I suppose, to be the most damaging I felt added the most humanity to the administration (the long sequence of his reaction in a school house reminds me most of Truman saying he "cried for the better part of a day" after Pearl Harbor) I felt as though that scene represented a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" and had the subject jumped up and done something immediately, the argument RE: Saudis, etc. would have played into "of course he lept to quick action.. he knew in advance!"

As mentioned above, the scenes regarding the Patriot Act seemed superfluous, and out of place with a lot of the rest of the film.

I think you can make a good case for the left - and there are many authors and writers who do - but I'm not sure if Moore's film is that; "documentaries" and I use that loosely here, made so close to the medium in which they study lack the lens of history as an evaluative tool.. too many of the arguments presented are difficult to know, in the terms of history, what they really mean or if either side is correct. I am oft reminded of this article

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

to show us that history can change things.. and sometimes being so close to something can blur our view of it's place in history.


I think no matter what your political background, it's a film you probably should watch and get an eye for. If you agree with the content of the film, it gives you an argument. If you disagree, it provides you with the basis to argue against the film, it is difficult to argue something if you've never watched it.

I think Christopher Hitchens sums up my opinion best in his review of the film:
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

I think it will have a good run at the theaters. Some of the moments were utterly compelling, fantastic filmmaking which deserve to be seen. As a whole, it felt rushed and a documentary with a decided conclusion before it began.

(BTW, in a funny aside, protestors outside of a theater showing it here in Kansas City turned it into a fund raiser for Republican Candidates and are reporting in today's news that they raised slightly over $32,000.. so, I guess if you were the administration, you'd hope this film plays wide and long )

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Well said, Chris. I disagree with some of your viewpoints but you make your arguments quite well. My friend Chris Parry actually penned a blow-by-blow dissection of that Hitchens piece, which you can read right here, if you like:

Defending Truth: Slate's Chris Hitchens does a hatchet job on Michael Moore

That piece got a mention alongside Hitchens' at Movie City News, and I know that Chris is particularly proud of that article.

 

[Chris]

*laugh* Obviously, I would seriously disagree with your friend, but will not go into a political diatribe here on the errors made by both authors.

 

[RobertR]

Thanks for your review, Chris. It closely coincides with my views in general and of the film and Moore in particular.

 

[George See]

Dunno how good the box office could possibly be, it was only showing on 2 screens in my area and that's out of at least 8 different theaters all of which have 2-10 screens.
The passion as a point of comparison opened on a lot more screens in my area.

 

[Matt Stone]

The Passion opened on a lot more theaters period. It opened in 3,043 theaters, and F9/11 opened in 868. Obviously it won't make as much as The Passion, but the per screen average will be up there.

 

[Johnny_M]

maybe these movies are a new trend for presidential campaigns. why spend millions on commercials when you can just have a movie? raise attention to your cause and make money at the same time.


Johnny

 

[Michael Reuben]

Someone didn't read the guidelines. Appropriate action has been taken. Please continue.

M.

 

[Bill Parisho]

Like his three other films, I enjoyed it a great deal. Michael Moore has a very entertaining style that still makes its points. However, I think he should start realizing his strong ways from his weak ones. When he starts confronting people ala 60 minutes it's entertaining but not real effective. But when he films "regular people" and lets them go on talking, not only is it usually effective, it can frequently be very touching.
Bill Parisho

 

[Kirk Tsai]

As someone who is on Moore's side of the political spectrum, I found this Fahrenheit 9/11 to be too limited in its targeting. I understand that one of Moore's primary concern for making this film was to oust Bush from the White House, but perhaps the focus on Bush the individual is insufficient.

To me the argument that is most interesting in the film is that those stuck in the lower stratas of society also take the burden of possibly losing their lives for their country. In this, Moore comes closer to explaining the tragedy of a society than individual lives, which we see everyday on local television. In Bowling For Columbine as well as Roger and Me, there were indeed "villains" of the movies, just as in F9/11. But they were unfavorly looked at because of their position; the individual figure could change--it is the social position that makes Moore's criticism of them sound.

Here, Moore's view of Bush as an incompetant and/or corrupt is treated more as a personality trait. As Moore had tried to articulate in Bowling For Columbine, our foreign policy could be damaging to others, whether the Republicans or Democrats were in office. Why is this? What does it mean to be the head administration of a powerful nation? These are the more interesting questions in this broad subject to me. To Moore, they were not.