Fahrenheit 9/11

ArphaRima

Just watched Farenheit 9/11.

I was disappointed. Nowhere near as good as Bowling for Columbine. Unless the standard at Cannes was particularly poor, the film does not seem to have merited the Palme d'Or.

If you have kept abreast of the news in the last 3-4 years, there will be little uncovered in the film, and in fact it will seem outrageously propagandic. Humorous in parts, but mostly a piece of documentary with one aim; the downfall of Bush in the Election campaign.

Some great footage of pre-interview an pre-speech antics by Bush and his colleagues, and raw footage or bush making an ass of himself, but there are also some extremely racist undertones in the film.
The Saudis are portrayed as an evil regime for a start. Corrupt they may be, but enemies of America they are not. Also the list of countries supporting the "Coalition of the Willing" was backgrounded with pictures of savagely stereotyped pictures of those countries. If Ireland happened to be in the coalition I'm sure he would have portrayed us as drunk, lucky, and fighting leprechauns eating potatoes and shovelling dirt.

The film is pretty unapologetic for its propagandic nature though, seeing as the mainstream american media is equally so, but it is not a film for anyone up on their current affairs, who knows the background to the facts, figures, and events he gives us on screen.

As for the films primary objective; getting bush out of office, I really hope it does work.

-also posted on Film-

DublinWriter

I have a bit of a problem with Micheal Moore.

He's great as a focal point and a bit of a poster child for the left in America, but he's an entertainer, not a serious investigative journalist.

A lot of his material is based on Greg Palast's and Thierry Ackerman's work.

Graham Norton, of all people, hit the nail on the head when he critisied Moore for basically lashing out at security guards and receptionists in his films when he should be confronting CEO's and people at that level.

Still, I'd prefare to have him around rather than not have him around.

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by fluffer
but mostly a piece of documentary with one aim;

That's the problem I have with Moore's work, he seems to try to portray it as unbiased fact when a lot of the film is manipulated and doctored to damage George W. Bush. Unfortunately, many seem to be taking everything that Moore says as truth.

Sparks

Thing about Moore is, he's the liberal/democrat version of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. And as such, a rather necessary evil. If US media was less radically biased (thank you Clear Channel and Fox News), then Moore probably wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as he is. But with Coulter and her ilk out there...
Well, are theirs the only voices you'd want heard?

bonkey

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
That's the problem I have with Moore's work, he seems to try to portray it as unbiased fact

Not any more, I believe.

I've seen two interviews with him in the past week (one on CNN) where he came out and said words to the effect of "This is not a balanced view. This is not an unbiased view. This is my view, which I accept is completely one-sided, but its the view I happen to believe is correct".

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Thing about Moore is, he's the liberal/democrat version of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

They seem to be more, ummm, liberal with the truth, though.

Maybe I'm just reading the wrong critiques, but Moore seems mostly to use fact to imply something which may or may not be true, whereas Coulter et al more often seem to reduce themselves to screaming hissy-fits of decrying whoever their target of the week is as the spawn of Satan, with only a nod in the general direction of factual accuracy.

But like I said...maybe thats just me.

jc

Hobbes

Disney have released the anti-moore movie for those who think Moore is unpatriotic. :rolleyes:

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/07/02/ae_americas001.cfm

heart and soul.

BaZmO*

Originally posted by bonkey
Not any more, I believe.

I've seen two interviews with him in the past week (one on CNN) where he came out and said words to the effect of "This is not a balanced view. This is not an unbiased view. This is my view, which I accept is completely one-sided, but its the view I happen to believe is correct".

jc

Yeah, I really think that he's trying to cover himself this time, making sure that people know when "Facts" are "Facts" and when "Opinions" are "Opinions" after he was fairly slated for his factual errors and the crossover of Facts to Opinions in Bowling for Columbine.

From his website

This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.

B.