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

[pitchman]

Yes, Chris, thanks! I definitely knew that. I don't know what I was thinking when I posted that. :b

 

[Terry St]

That was probably an auditorium that had been opened up to show F9/11 at the last moment. At the theater I went to all shows were sold out 2 hours in advance. My friends and I were about to leave when we noticed an extra showing was added. It's definately the craziest opening I've seen for a documentary. I will say this much though... For some strange reason, the fact that "White Chicks" did not hold the #1 spot this weekend gives me hope for the world.

 

[Steve Felix]

I don't know what's been deleted so far, but I'm impressed with the measured opinions. Hopefully mine is the same.

I think I laughed at all the right times. (My biggest laugh was at "We have a Wal-Mart...") The big audience I was with applauded, but they were cheering it on from the opening frames so I think that was a foregone conclusion.

Even though I think the ideas presented in the film are generally valid, it chills me to think that people will vote based solely on this tiny part of the big picture. Plus, I think the case was weakly presented for reasons other than the kite flying sequence.

First, I wasn't sold on the sinister nature of the Saudi connection. Moore's villifying of anyone Middle Eastern in this section is something I'm surprised more haven't called him on. He apparently believes that

1. All diplomacy and conversation with possible enemies should stop when fighting begins, and

2. No one recognizably Middle Eastern (i.e. with headdress) is innocent, and photographs taken with them imply evil conspiracy.

Second, Bush looked good during the My Pet Goat scene. He looked to be (gasp!) thinking about a grave situation. I'd call that cool-headedness, and Moore putting thoughts in his head came off with a completely opposite effect than what was intended. It was only a few minutes, and action was obviously in motion.

Third, too many cheap shots took advantage of Bush's self-depricating sense of humor. The "haves and have mores" speech was an edgy joke playing on perceptions (however correct or incorrect) of the Republican party. Unfortunately politicians are limited to only saying safe fluff.

Fourth, the humor of asking Congressmen whether they'd send their kids to war was dampened by the common sense detail that parents don't choose whether to send their kids to war. (Hitchens brought this up in his critique.) If I were approached by Moore, I'd have said, "My children make their own decisions, and if one decided to sign up, I'd support him (or her)." I probably wouldn't have been included in the film.

Fifth, as someone with a finance background, I don't automatically recoil at the word "business." This made certain sections of the film less effective for me. Businesses are a necessary fact and the involvement of the private sector is ultimately what is needed.

The strongest element, and I'd say this is true of BFC, also, is the attack on the media. The country's biggest problem isn't who is in power, it's that we have no access to the truth without endless hours of research on the Internet. Without the truth we're left with the fear that makes us give up liberty.

The supposedly liberal media is happy, through fear, to make the US seem justified in all its actions. Why? Because people like sports and they need to have clear teams. I say supposedly liberal because I doubt that the networks strongly care what their politics are as long as they're pressing the buttons of their chosen target market. Fox is successful because they are slick entertainers -- the Jerry Bruckheimer of cable news.

Edit: Thanks a bunch if you read this long post.

 

[Brian Kidd]

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal so it may come as a surprise to some folks that I don't think that the film is perfect. The first 1/3 of the film, detailing the connections of the Bush and bin Laden families seemed largely pointless to me. Yes, they have been business associates for many years. But you know what? The bin Laden family is HUGE! The majority of the family had severed ties with Osama years ago. Moore's point that this close business relationship is almost certainly the primary factor in the decision to help bin Laden family members escape the US in the wake of 9/11 is a good point in that it shows that Bush is always thinking about special treatment for those who are beneficial to him financially, but this point could have been made in a much more concise manner. I feel that the amount of time spent setting up the point in the end served to muddy its impact. It hurts the film.

However, the moment the film switches to the situation in Iraq, it becomes something more than a political rant. It becomes a vital piece of filmmaking. Moore puts a human face on war. Whether or not one supports action in Iraq is irrelevant. You cannot help but be moved by the plight, not only of the innocent Iraqi citizens who have been killed, but of our soldiers who are stuck in a land where death is a daily concern and the goals for which they were deployed are seemingly now shown to be shaky if not outright false. Because of the tendency of the television media to cite numbers instead of telling the human stories behind the dead and wounded, we have become a nation unaware of the human cost of war. The second part of F9/11 is important for every person, not just Americans, to see. It is the world we live in.

Is the information in the film new? Nope. There are a lot of us who keep up with current events and politics and are all too aware of the way things are run in Washington, on both sides of the political spectrum. However, there are just as many people who have no clue about the country they live in. They are the ones who especially need to see this film. Whether or not the film will have an impact on the upcoming elections remains to be seen. Either way, I feel that it will be a film long remembered for its poignant depiction of a country and a culture in chaos.

 

[Mike.B]

I just wanted to say one quick thing about the film. I thought the September 11th sequence was absolutely brilliant.

The screen goes black for maybe a minute, but you can clearly hear a plane flying by and then crasing into the Towers. Then, finally, the black disappears and the camera just shows people on the street's stunned reactions.


Very, very powerful. Also, I would have preferred a tiny bit less of Moore talking to normal people (like in Flint) and a tiny bit moore of his investigative type reporting. But, overall, I highly recommend it. A-

 

[Eric Fisher]

I find it disturbing that certain people are dragging explicit political propaganda and agitprop onto the big screen. All we need are political manifestos every month in our theaters :frowning:


Actually, Richard Clarke personally cleared the Bin Ladens in leaving the U.S. As we know, Clarke is not a Bush lackee. This makes this assertion of Moore's completely wrong. This is typical of Moore filmmaking. Naturally, the silver screen is not a media format conducive to rebuttal or debate which is why explicit politics needs to vacate this format.

 

[Chris Harvey]

Not true -- Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission was that he checked up the food chain for approval, got it from the higher-ups, and so then gave the word to let the planes fly. It's another example in Moore's general thesis of those with good business connections to the government getting favorable treatment.

Yes, Clarke has said he didn't see a problem with this. Moore disagrees. There is evidence on both sides. I see no reason why two conflicting viewpoints can't be debated in a variety of media.

Ironically, there's enough material in each section of the film for a film in and of itself -- a FAHRENHEIT trilogy, if you will.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Eric, you're straying beyond this thread's bounds. Have you not seen the film? If not, please do not post in the thread.

 

[Eric Fisher]

chris: not according to this:

Article in "The Hill"

 

[Eric Fisher]

Fine. I'll stick to assertions made in the film.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The article in The Hill responsibly points out apparent inconsistencies in Clarke’s accounts given at different times. "This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.”, is only one of several points made in the story.

The article presents quite a bit of information, most of which is open to some interruption and none of which appears to be definitive at this time. This is probably best expressed in a quote from a member of the 9/11 committee, former Representative Lee Hamilton (D-Ind), included in the article: “He cautioned that this is “a story that could shift, and we still have this under review.””

I find that when citing a source, it helps to read the whole article, including points raised (in this case) by those doing the investigating.

 

[Joseph S]

This doesn't make any sense either. Moore himself is pictured in the film with a middle eastern man with headress, he shows the infamous kite flying scene, and the additional scenes of families in confrontation with the effects of and under investigation by the soldiers. Neither of these instances led me to believe that. He did show numerous Saudi's at nice palaces, exclusive dinners, coming off Air Force 1 or 2, etc.

I wouldn't confuse any of this and I'm not sure why anyone else would given the contexts. People can't afford to be ignorant about this issue given the number of Americans who practice the Sikh religion, wear headresses, and ARE NOT MUSLIM not to mention the fact that being muslim does not equal terrorist.

 

[Brian_J]

Just saw it and as moving film it is effective. Much the same way JFK effected me. Thank goodness I am older this time though. My problem with the movie is it represents what politics has become in this nation. If you disagree with your opponents then it is easier to paint his motivations as evil than to disagree and debate what he believes.

So, we went to war in Iraq and it was because Bush is corrupt and Cheney was head of Halliburton and it makes them rich. And we let OLaden go because we are old chums with his family. So simplistic.

Could Iraq not be because:

1. Bush really believes Saddam was a threat to America in the making much the same way Afghanistan/Taliban were just a few years back and we only tossed a few missiles there way? This is debatable of course but it takes effort on both sides. I myself go back and forth.

2. Bush Admin believed there were WMD? The whole world believed it. Again, this can be debated. We cant though because if we assume he believed it then that puts his motives in a positive light. I also wonder how our and the rest of the world's "intelligence" could be so wrong.

3. Bushes religious beliefs allowed him to see himself as Jesus or a martyr freeing 50 million people. We cant assume that though, as that again sheds a positive light for now he would be a humanitarian. It could also make him a nutcase.

4. He believes putting a democracy with free people in the middle of the Middle East will create a safer world long term due to the inherit yurning of the human spirit and the natural tidlewave created. No, again that is a positive belief.

All these can be argued and debated but they do not put your target in the most negative light. You must paint your opponent as evil and corrupt. Its too easy...

The other problem though is just like Chistopher Hitchens I cannot separate Moore's stated world views in the past from those he chose to put in his movie. I see a very sly man indeed.


Brian

 

[Jon Mahoney]

This is false. The whole world did not believe this, remember when they went the UN and the UN told them they were wrong? The investigators found nothing to say they had them. Many in the US didn't even believe it. I don't really think I was the only one who didn't believe this. As more showed, the numorous quotes from pre-9/11 saying that Saddam didn't have them. Some of the world believe this, but from what i have seen/heard/read it wasn't even 50% of the world, unless the whole world is the US and the UK

That being said, I thought the film was just OK. I didn't really get any new information from it, but that seems to make me in the minority. I've read almost everything in there, but I know most people don't. I also found the final half pretty slow. But overall it was pretty good

 

[Michael Reuben]

But not here. As it says in the guidelines, this thread is for discussing the film and its contents -- not alternative contents that someone else might have offered.

No further debate on WMDs, please. It's not even a major point in the film.

M.

 

[chris rick]

First--A good film but nothing new to those who are informed about the Bush Administration.

One thing I really did admire was the way in which Moore seemed pretty even-handed about discussing the delicate issue of troops who- on the one hand fight to defend us- and on the other hand are sent to do that by an adminstration hellbent on American Imperialism.

The film will probably illicit some incredibly strong reactions from those who are somewhat jaded about this Administration (and for that matter of American Government in general). It is no understatement to say that the vast majority of Americans are uniformed and ignorrant about what really goes on in Washington.

I think Moore's film is a poignant call to arms because of the real human issues that we face with this adminstration's policies.

Being a Poli Sci Grad Student, I have known everything this film had to tell me--but I highly doubt that most in the audience did. I am extremely thankful to Michael Moore for spreading the word in a medium that we can all relate to. Let's face it, most people just don't make politics an important part of their lives. While I am no elitist, I think I can safely say that I am more informed than most Americans about politics given my background.

But with that in mind I was extremely proud to see the huge turnout for this film over the weekend--there may be hope still for we cynical Americans.

I think the film shows that now more than ever, there are and always will be human issues involved during the course of a Presidency.

I'm gonna stop now as I have probably went too far for the HTF anyway. I could talk forever about this rather sour subject.

Edited by administrator for comments substantially beyond those permitted by the guidelines.

 

[Steve Felix]

You took my quotes from the part of my post that was addressing the segment linking the Bushes to the Saudis. In this part of the movie there is a quick montage of photographs that is meant to top off the point that Bush and co. have an illicit relationship with people who want to harm America. Since Moore does not identify the Middle Eastern men in the photographs, he is using only their obvious visual profile and expecting viewers to assume that they are all evil. He has faith in the ignorance you mention, and encourages it for his convenience.

That he later treats Middle Easterners with humanity is a contradiction.

If you are actually able to identify the people in the photos as they fly by and see that that they all deserve Moore's implication, that's very impressive. However, Moore knows that less than one percent of his audience will be that sharp and the rest will accept his visual shortcut.

If I'm remembering something wrong about this sequence, let me know.

 

[Vickie_M]

Several people have mentioned Christopher Hitchens' editorial. I won't discuss it here, but I think it's only fair to point out that it's been refuted. Anyone who's read the Hitchens should read that.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Thanks, Vicki, that link was provided two pages ago.

M.

 

[Doug R]

I saw F911 even though I think Moore is reprehensible. I actually think it is a better movie than Bowling for Columbine, mainly because BfC has been tainted by its numerous embellishments. But then again F911 doesn't really say much. Half of it just lets us know war is bad, a concept that not many would disagree with. It certainly would have been nice to see one or two soldiers with something positive to say or an Iraqi who is happy Saddam is gone, but I know that's not the film Moore intended to make and that's his business.

It had a few hits and a lot of misses I think. Rehashing the 2000 election was unneeded. It was amusing blaming Fox News for "their part" in it. Moore's Washington Post 42% vacation time number has already been called into question in places (assuming you believe a President gets some weekends off). The shot of him and Tony Blair under the voice-over "vacationing at Camp David" seemed like bad editing...was that work or vacation?

The entire "Why did Bush stay with the kids??" sequence was as hollow as they come. As many have pointed out, there was no win here. First, calling the event a photo-op is a bit arrogant. Nice way to degrade the kids, Moore. Second, as many have stated, if Bush just ran out he would have been dragged through coals for tramatizing children.

The biggest hit of the movie, though it did contain an oversight, was us flying out the Bin Laden family. I agree 100% they should have been at minimum questioned. I can only assume they weren't since the movie states it. As for the oversight, Moore seemed to neglect to mention Dick Clarke authorized it. I can see why he's overlook it given Clarke's contribution to the movie.

The elaborate Bush-Saudi connections were certainly an interesting point but also particularly one-note. Painting the Bushes as only caring about money is a bit weak. Plus the numerous images with Bushes and Saudi's plays like "Hey, Bin Laden is a Saudi so they're all EVIL. Look at the Bushes meeting with EVIL!" Quite misleading and bordering on racial profiling, something that Moore, I would assume, would abhor.

The remainder of the movie about Iraq also has its hits and misses. Obviously it's not been going as planned. But obviously there is a lot more to what's happened than is being presented, as Brian pointed out. But again, not the film Moore wanted to make.

The sequences regarding the recruitment of the poor into the military also has a flipside that isn't touched upon. First, not every single person in the military is from a poor background. Second, many of the poor that have been recruited into the military flourish and rise out of their poverty. Isn't that important too?

Even as someone who dislikes Moore, I found some of F911 to be an interesting examination of certain topics but, not surprisingly, an incredibly slanted one. Someone looking for answers won't find any. You could make an equally compelling film painting the Bush administration as doing the right thing. It's all about what you leave out and Moore certainly knows what to leave out.