|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 8, 2004 7:05:46 GMT -5
Just saw it last night. Here are some of the highs and lows I saw in it. Highs- Moore's research on the Bush/Saudi association is very thorough. For instance, I didn't know that Saudi-based companies had over 800-billion dollars invested into the American economy. I also hadn't realized how close Bush Sr and the Saudi royal family are. Wow, came to mind.
- While it isn't indicative of the American recruiting process as a whole, I had to shake my head over the recruiting tactics these two marines used in the film. See it and you'll understand what I mean.
- If Moore's information is correct, there can be little doubt that Bush Jr. lost the election to Al Gore.
Lows- Moore's attempt at humour didn't go over well with me. Either make a comedy or a documentary. While some of the humour was alright, there was no place for it in other areas of the movie. Combining the two didn't work IMHO.
- Moore might have left the audience to draw their own conclusions a little more. I found that he spoon-fed the audience with his own opinions at some points in the movie. It was so bad at one point that I remember saying to myself, "Alright ... let's move on now."
Moore has his conclusions well substantiated with facts; heck, no one is taking him to court. And he uses a lot of footage that John-Q-Citizen wouldn't have seen otherwise. However, as many have pointed out, it's one man's opinions. Given that though, I'm glad I saw it folks and I'd say if you're thinking about it, go see it. It is enlightening in a lot of areas. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Jul 8, 2004 20:41:59 GMT -5
I liked it, but it wasn't as good as the canadian made "corportation" documentary that came out 3-4 months ago. I've read both of moore's books, so there was no new information for me in the film. The price of admission is worth it just to see the film of bush sitting in that childrens classroom reading "my pet goat" while the twin towers were lit up.
Classic footage.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 31, 2004 16:05:10 GMT -5
I just saw it and I agree that the attempts at humour didn't work very well. While many in the theater laughed out loud, I found the humour somewhat distasteful, but at least it provided a relief from the graphic images of dead bodies and people with missing limbs or missing children.
All in all, it was a good movie, though not truly a documentary. There wasn't a lot of new information, but there was enough, combined with things I'd forgotten, to make it worth while. It's certainly not an enjoyable experience and I left feeling as though I'd been physically attacked, but I am glad I saw it.
I'd heard criticism that the movie was biased, and racist in the imagery and examples that it used, but I didn't think it was that bad. It was meant to appeal to the average person and it does.
I wonder if that bit was staged. I wouldn't put it past Moore, though I can certainly believe that tactics like that are used.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2004 18:54:36 GMT -5
I haven't seen it yet but I will see it very soon.
When watching I believe you have to take it with a grain of salt. Moore is a die-hard Democrat, and launching this documentary/movie just before the Democratic convention in an election year was no mistake. I found that "Bowling for Columbine" was very slanted, and I expect no less from this movie either.
Moore actually publically spoke against Steven Harper weeks before the Canadian election, so we know what sideof the line he stands on.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 31, 2004 20:00:25 GMT -5
Sure we know what side of the line he's on, but I don't recommend taking facts "with a grain of salt," and most of this movie is factual.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 1, 2004 10:49:21 GMT -5
Sure we know what side of the line he's on, but I don't recommend taking facts "with a grain of salt," and most of this movie is factual. There are two sides to every coin, even factual points can be slanted. Look at what we do to statistics on here. All I am saying is that the movie had a purpose, and any "facts" that didn't support that purpose were going to be left on the cutting room floor. But I will still watch.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Aug 1, 2004 17:09:40 GMT -5
There are two sides to every coin, even factual points can be slanted. Look at what we do to statistics on here. All I am saying is that the movie had a purpose, and any "facts" that didn't support that purpose were going to be left on the cutting room floor. But I will still watch. You're absolutely right. But Moore talks about some things that have been generally ignored by the American media, and I hope people don't think he just made it all up.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 1, 2004 17:22:43 GMT -5
You're absolutely right. But Moore talks about some things that have been generally ignored by the American media, and I hope people don't think he just made it all up. I don't think he made it all up. I do question how he became privy to this information, and the media did not report it. Surely, one news agency out of the thousands in the US could have found some of this out, leaked it, reported it, whatever. But some things I never heard of until this movie. I keep asking myself why is that?
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Aug 1, 2004 17:28:17 GMT -5
I guess the major American networks/papers have their own agenda, and what doesn't make it to CNN, Fox, etc. is easily forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 1, 2004 17:50:59 GMT -5
I guess the major American networks/papers have their own agenda, and what doesn't make it to CNN, Fox, etc. is easily forgotten. Maybe. Not all the networks push the Republican agenda though. One has to have a Democrat somewhere in power. I know Bush wanted the news pretty tight-lipped during the war, but news agencies will only do that for so long. That is the thing that eats at me ...... not one leak. Now I don't profess to know all there is to know about 9/11 or Iraq. But I kept up on the news quite the bit, and nothing. Agenda or no agenda one news agency would've cracked just for the ratings and being the first with the story. So what makes Michael Moore so special to get ahold of this unreported information. A film-maker can report the news/gather news better than the reporters/journalists? There is still something not right here and maybe I will never be able to understand it properly. But this is why I said my "grain of salt" comment.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 3, 2004 7:59:17 GMT -5
Maybe. Not all the networks push the Republican agenda though. One has to have a Democrat somewhere in power. I know Bush wanted the news pretty tight-lipped during the war, but news agencies will only do that for so long. That is the thing that eats at me ...... not one leak. Now I don't profess to know all there is to know about 9/11 or Iraq. But I kept up on the news quite the bit, and nothing. Agenda or no agenda one news agency would've cracked just for the ratings and being the first with the story. So what makes Michael Moore so special to get ahold of this unreported information. A film-maker can report the news/gather news better than the reporters/journalists? There is still something not right here and maybe I will never be able to understand it properly. But this is why I said my "grain of salt" comment. What items did you find strange that only Moore was able to "discover?" I have not seen the movie, so I honestly don't know. But what I have found in the past, is that often, if a little research is done, one finds that this information was readily available beforehand, but largely ignored. Surprisingly so. Do you have any examples? I'm curious...
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Aug 3, 2004 9:38:04 GMT -5
What items did you find strange that only Moore was able to "discover?" I have not seen the movie, so I honestly don't know. But what I have found in the past, is that often, if a little research is done, one finds that this information was readily available beforehand, but largely ignored. Surprisingly so. Do you have any examples? I'm curious... OT: This also applies to hockey statistics. As you were.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 3, 2004 11:01:16 GMT -5
What items did you find strange that only Moore was able to "discover?" I have not seen the movie, so I honestly don't know. But what I have found in the past, is that often, if a little research is done, one finds that this information was readily available beforehand, but largely ignored. Surprisingly so. Do you have any examples? I'm curious... Your reference to having readily available information ignored caught my interest, BC. I found that the news media will often take what facts they need in order to substantiate the position their editorial staff supports. In short, we only read what the editor of that newspaper, TV station, radio station, et al, wants us to read. As I was saying in the original post, Moore drew his conclusions from the facts he uncovered and, I think, from other news sources. We were talking about it in the office earlier this morning and many of the facts he cited, aircraft departing with Saudis (while the remainder of aircraft were grounded) for example, was cited on The Fifth Estate a few months back as well. There was a lot of other information Moore used that was publicized earlier, but as you suggest, was largely ignored. Interesting that this information also that, 1/7th of the US GDP, is via Saudi investments. It might have been cited earlier elsewhere, or if it were just a deduction from facts, it was the first time I had heard of it when watching Farhenheit 9/11.All that aside, Moore could have scored major points had he just dropped his poor attempts at humour and stuck to a documentary format. In fact, his humour lessened his credibility IMHO. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 3, 2004 11:10:07 GMT -5
I wonder if that bit was staged. I wouldn't put it past Moore, though I can certainly believe that tactics like that are used. I don't know Moore's history, MC. To stage something like that would be on a Jerry Springer-level of entertainment, and I use the word "entertainment" loosely. I really hope he didn't stage that, because I've seen recruiters in action. I know how some of the recruiting centres operate here in Canada. And, they can be manipulative if only to try and fill the holes they have to. I've had young soldiers approach me both before and after my military service citing the recuiting centres were less than honest with them. As a result, the Canadian military be losing some expertise when the contracts of these young soldiers come up for extention. The price of lip service. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Aug 3, 2004 18:03:41 GMT -5
What items did you find strange that only Moore was able to "discover?" I have not seen the movie, so I honestly don't know. But what I have found in the past, is that often, if a little research is done, one finds that this information was readily available beforehand, but largely ignored. Surprisingly so. Do you have any examples? I'm curious... Moore gave a lot of details about the business relationships between the Bush family, the Saudis, and the bin Ladens. I would imagine such information isn't too hard to uncover, but I'd never heard it reported in that much detail before. Actually, it's a bit strange that the Democrats didn't use it to attack Bush during the last election, but I guess people weren't interested before 9/11. The movie looks at Bush's presidency with a much more historical mindset than your average news program or most newspapers. He avoids a lot of the rhetoric that both the Republicans and the Democrats employ, and which most journalists seem to buy into. This isn't to say that the movie is unbiased or tells you the whole story, but it results in a story that would "shock" a lot of people because it gives a lot of background that is usually only read by historians after the fact. In order to generate the buzz he has, Moore had to make sure the movie wasn't too academic, which I think is why he attempts to make it humourous.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Aug 3, 2004 18:17:08 GMT -5
This is a transcript of an interview between Moore and Bill O'Reilly. It's quite rediculous and not on the same level as the movie at all, but I thought it was interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 3, 2004 18:23:44 GMT -5
What items did you find strange that only Moore was able to "discover?" I have not seen the movie, so I honestly don't know. But what I have found in the past, is that often, if a little research is done, one finds that this information was readily available beforehand, but largely ignored. Surprisingly so. Do you have any examples? I'm curious... Like I said I haven't seen the movie either. I do intend to see it soon. But I hear the water-cooler talk at the office from people who have seen it. I barely knew prior to 9/11 who Osama was. But after 9/11, I read about him and it didn't take much effort to find/hear the links Bush had with the Saudis, the bin Laden's, or how dependent the US economy was on Saudi Arabia. But no where did I read, hear, watch that George Bush ordered the relatives of Osama bin Laden to be flown out of the country irregardless that no other plane was allowed to fly. There were alot of little things covered up when 9/11 happened, and not only by the US. But they all filtered out. Canada had to admit that a great many planes were diverted to Newfoundland that were intended for Montreal and Toronto because the risk of losing lives and hitting strategic targets was less in Newfoundland. They basically said "we don't care if a plane crashes in Newfoundland, but we sure as hell can't have one crashing in Toronto." It was a calculated risk, the right decision as far as I am concerned, but one that you wouldn't want leaked, but yet it got out. But I never heard anywhere until this movie that Bush got bin Laden's family out of the US, ASAP after 9/11. It dumbfounds me that he would do that and not hold them, or somehow use them against Osama. Was he protecting the "innocent until proven guilty" bin Laden's or was he "protecting his interests" in Saudi Arabia? I haven't seen the movie but it seems Moore uses it as a "black mark" against Bush and does not explore the reason behind why Bush did that, from what I hear.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 4, 2004 7:43:55 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken, the bin Laden family disowned Osama after the first World Trade Center bombing. So in all fairness it very well may have been an attempt to spirit innocent people away from "guilt by association."
Pure speculation on my part though.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 4, 2004 11:16:34 GMT -5
I could be wrong, BC, but I think that happened a few years before 9/11.
Also, guys ... I've come across some information that may contradict some of Moore's findings/conclusions. I'm reluctant to post them here without creditable sources, but as soon as I do, I will.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Aug 4, 2004 16:16:52 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken, the bin Laden family disowned Osama after the first World Trade Center bombing. So in all fairness it very well may have been an attempt to spirit innocent people away from "guilt by association." Pure speculation on my part though. They still had some contact with Osama. When looking for the prime suspect in a serious crime it is standard procedure to question any family members that you can find, and the FBI wanted to interview the bin Ladens, but were not allowed to do so. Considering how many people were questioned or detained indefinitely without being charged based on little more than the colour of their skin, it's very odd that the bin Ladens were allowed to leave.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 9, 2004 19:51:32 GMT -5
Perspective is everything, no? Moore isn't really a filmmaker, he's a full-time campaigner. The camera and editing suite are simply his weapons of choice. I held off seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, his anti-Bush screed, for as long as I could, knowing I'd like a lot of it and hate myself for sitting through the rest. Which is pretty much how it worked out.
At one point Moore invites his audience to have a chuckle at the expense of the good folk of Tappahannock, Va., who briefly worry through a terrorism alert. What could terrorists possibly attack, he asks. "We have a Wal-Mart here," one woman offers. The lady sitting in front of me at the movieplex cackled appreciatively. Silly Yankees!
Not 10 minutes later, Moore asks us to sympathize with state troopers in Oregon who haven't been given enough resources to guard against a terrorist attack. Why is the prospect of terrorism silly in Virginia and terrifying in Oregon? Because Moore isn't applying fixed principles. He's just throwing everything he can find at George W. Bush. In 1982, Northrop Frye wrote that propaganda "adopts a highly characteristic shuffle derived from a desire to reach certain conclusions in advance, whatever the evidence suggests." Moore's work, no less than Bush's, is a perfect example of that.full Paul Wells commentary
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Aug 13, 2004 5:31:27 GMT -5
I barely knew prior to 9/11 who Osama was. But after 9/11, I read about him and it didn't take much effort to find/hear the links Bush had with the Saudis, the bin Laden's, or how dependent the US economy was on Saudi Arabia. But no where did I read, hear, watch that George Bush ordered the relatives of Osama bin Laden to be flown out of the country irregardless that no other plane was allowed to fly. But I never heard anywhere until this movie that Bush got bin Laden's family out of the US, ASAP after 9/11. It dumbfounds me that he would do that and not hold them, or somehow use them against Osama. Was he protecting the "innocent until proven guilty" bin Laden's or was he "protecting his interests" in Saudi Arabia? I haven't seen the movie but it seems Moore uses it as a "black mark" against Bush and does not explore the reason behind why Bush did that, from what I hear. buy/borrow Moore's book "Dude, where's my country?". in there, you'll find that same story but you will also find sources that Moore used to write it. you can check it out and see what it's all about. cheers, R.
|
|
|
Post by IamCanadiens on Aug 13, 2004 18:20:11 GMT -5
Not 10 minutes later, Moore asks us to sympathize with state troopers in Oregon who haven't been given enough resources to guard against a terrorist attack. Why is the prospect of terrorism silly in Virginia and terrifying in Oregon? Funny how this author puts his own spin on that situation. I question his grasp on the bigger picture. I believe that the Oregon and Virginia scenarios were juxtaposed to demonstrate many different things including the hypocracy of the Bush administration, the media spin on terror alerts, and living in fear of alets, etc......If the threat of terror was really legit, ie. yellow, or orange or red or whatever the flavour of the day is don't you think that the US would spend more time and money on guarding their border and a little less on promoting fear?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 14, 2004 8:36:25 GMT -5
Funny how this author puts his own spin on that situation. What a concept! Someone -- anyone -- looking at a situation and spinning it in his direction. Moore, the great defender of all things right (or is that left?), would never stoop to such a thing, would he? I went to university with a guy who had an interesting philosophy when it came to term papers: start with your presuppositions and find material that will back it up. A lot easier to research that way, and you never have to think. If the threat of terror was really legit, ie. yellow, or orange or red or whatever the flavour of the day is don't you think that the US would spend more time and money on guarding their border and a little less on promoting fear? I loved Moore's animated segment in Bowling for Columbine where he so aptly pointed out that the US thrives on the culture of fear!
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Aug 14, 2004 9:06:03 GMT -5
Fear-mongering tends to paralyze the general population and makes them more malleable and easier to control.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 14, 2004 12:36:51 GMT -5
I htink that Moore was suggesting that fear made the American population at large more aggressive and led to the philosophy of justification of the first strike (get 'em before they get us) for self-protection.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 14, 2004 15:40:10 GMT -5
If so, Franco, I think they only got to half of the population. If I remember correctly, everyone, including Canada, was on line with the Afghanistan campaign. Going after those who were responsible for 9/11 was fully supported.
However, I think the USA was split right down the middle as to whether going into Iraq was a good thing. At least that's what I remember from the polls.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 14, 2004 16:41:52 GMT -5
How well was "The Satanic Verses" read in Iran and Iraq and was Salmon Rushdie hailed as a pulitzer prize nominee by the Ayotola? Michael Moore is fortunate to be allowed to make his film with half the country opposed and half supporting. The US (and by extension Canada) are not so bad after all.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Aug 14, 2004 19:29:01 GMT -5
Which leads to more interesting reading. I was considering starting another thread on this, but instead will just say read this here:
The Trouble With Islam (subtitled: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change) by Irshad Manji.
|
|