Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion

xerid writes "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and the theatre was packed & sold out for each showing. Today, I read on Michael Moore.com about the movie breaking records. However, what I haven't seen was coverage on Slashdot, about the movie's opening day." I saw the film on friday and was really impressed. But while it speaks much truth, and has many funny parts as well as truly heartbreaking ones, I don't know how many votes it will sway. But since there is very little other news so far today, why not talk amongst yourselves!

Let the flamewar....COMMENCE!

[foidulus (743482)]

Seriously, although I saw this movie and liked it, this is not the place to discuss it. This site is supposed to be about technology I thought. The only really interesting technical tidbit of this film was that it was, IIRC, entirely created on a mac using Final Cut pro....
Let's get back to discussing robots and porn tech!

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE!

[by Anonymous Coward]

entirely created on a mac using Final Cut pro....

Now we have two subjects for the flame war! Cool!

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Not at all.

This place is and always has been about "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters to CmdrTaco". He's always posted whatever's of interest to him. I see no reason this should be different.

Personally, I thought differently...

[Pollux (102520)]

I do believe that Slashdot's slogan is "News for Nerds, stuff that matters."

Now, if you consider every single news flash regarding, oh say, SCO, more important than a movie that I believe will make a fundamental impact on the future of how politics are played out in America, the fine, avoid this thread. But personally, I think nerds should be just as educated about how their country is run politically as well as technologically.

And besides, one of the greatest lessons to be learned from this movie (though I would have thought it would have been learned much earlier than this) is as follows: Never try and forcefully hide information from the public. The more you try and supress it, the more intreaguing it becomes and the more demand there is for it. If you really do want to hide something, try to be as discrete about it as possible.

But as soon as Disney tried to put the movie away because of benefits they've received from the Bush family, the press pounced, and Moore had a documentary that was "scandalous", and just like Clinton has proved himself, people love a scandal (and I'm sure /.ers will as well...I'd wager this thread will get about 1200 posts...any takers?)

Re:Personally, I thought differently...

[kristofme (791986)]

Wise words: the impact of popular /. topics like SCO or software patents is minimal compared to that of the next presidential election and anything that might shape it. Not just for Nerds. Not just for the US.

Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ...

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

It's not just the fact that Michael Eisner of Disney did not want Disney to distribute the film. Fahrenheit 9/11 won the highest prize, the Palm D'Or, at the recent Cannes competition! It is only the second documentary in history to do so. The film received the longest standing ovation in the history of the Cannes festival!

This story in Fahrenheit 9/11 is relevant to Slashdot because the situation is far worse than Michael Moore says. I put together links to 2 other movies and 35 books that say there is an extremely serious problem: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org]. Slashdotted? Try:
http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm. Michael Moore is reporting things EVERY Slashdot reader and every person in the world needs to know. It they get their way, you WILL become poorer.

People like the movie because they like the movie! Fahrenheit 9/11 is selling out everywhere. Today in the Sports [!] section of the Kansas City Star is an example. The writer, Jason Whitlock, says:

"Fahrenheit is the most powerful movie I've ever seen. Not even Moore's heavy-handed, pro-Democrat slant could undermine his indictment of Bush's reaction to 9/11. The movie appears to have struck a chord with American moviegoers. I spent all Friday afternoon and evening driving from North Carolina theater to North Carolina theater trying to see the movie. The showings were all sold out. I snagged one of the last tickets to a mid-day Saturday showing."

Judging from the stories, other reactions in the U.S. are even more enthusiastic than this. A theater with 10 screens in Portland, Oregon scheduled 18 showings for today, Sunday, June 27, 2004, in reaction to the movie's popularity on Friday and Saturday.

(Reading the Kansas City Star commentary, 'Fahrenheit' powerful, persuasive [kansascity.com], requires free registration. Be wary, the company says it will send you email, so you might give a trash email address, or use a free trash email address at Mailinator.com [mailinator.net] or DodgeIt.com [dodgeit.com]. Judging from the registration information, if you give a real postal mail address, they may send you unwanted mail, also.)

The movie is breaking all-time theater records all over the United States.

Re:Personally, I thought differently...

[daniil (775990)]

The film received the longest standing ovation in the history of the Cannes festival!

I remember once reading about a (17th century) playwright who had (proudly) measured the success of his play by the fact that four ushers had been killed at the premiere.

Parent is an Idiot.

[KrisHolland (660643)]

"this is not the place to discuss it"

The film is classified as a documentary. Who sees documentaries, kids? No. Nerds do.

Demographics

[fo0bar (261207)]

Who sees documentaries, kids? No. Nerds do.

I saw a 10:30PM show friday; particularly because the 7:40PM (and all previous) shows were sold out. And you know what I noticed?

Nearly everyone in the theater was aged 18-30, from all walks of life. The exact demographic that the issues in f9/11 affected.

I was impressed.

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE!

[MoodyLoner (76734)]

If you think politics isn't "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" you must still have a job.

Longtime Michael Moore Follower

[by Anonymous Coward]

Before the number of comments goes through the roof, I'd like to comment on this topic from a non-political perspective.

I first studied Michael Moore in college, in a film class, when the only major work he had done was Roger and Me. This was at it's nature a political film, but the political venom was many notches below his last two movies (Columbine and 9/11).

The prime point that EVERYONE should remember is that Michael Moore can be used as a case study of why to be wary of 'documentaries'. His style as a director is textbook in the art of time manipulation for the purpose of making a point where one would not have existed before.

I will provide an example: In Roger and Me, he had a clip where Ronald Reagan visited Flint Michigan, promising to bring economic properity that did not exist during the end of the 1970s. The film then explained that GM immediately closed a plant and laid off thousands of workers.

This example implies that one led to another directly. In fact, there was a gap of 7 years between the two events; one when Reagan was a candidate in 1979...the other in 1986 when the cuts were announced.

Just remember: he is manipulating to make a point, but to say it is true would be untrue.

This is just one example; I'm surprised no one has written a book on Michael Moore, because there is a lot of evidence that could be covered.

Personally, it's entertainment. If you are spending your hard earned money looking for truth or fact, please look elsewhere.

I like how Penn of Penn and Teller put it...

[DaedalusLogic (449896)]

In his show bullshit on the Showtime Network, the topic was the overblown emphasis on safety and terrorism in our world today. It was something to the effect of:

"There will always violence and suffering in the world, and Michael Moore will always be there to make a buck off of it."

I liked Michael Moore's work in "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" made some good points at times. I just do not agree with him on most of his views and I think his personal political conduct has been reprehensible lately. For one, he canceled an interview with Fox News at the last minute. The station is certainly conservative, but shouldn't that mean he should be big enough to stand up and take his case to the other side? Of course he couldn't use any slick editing and he wouldn't be the only one talking, so that might hurt him.

Ok, let's try to be rational

[fermion (181285)]

The movie is an opinion.

Of course it presents a specific point of view. It is made by a person taking into account his audience.

He uses a specific set of fact patterns. Other people use other sets of fact patterns. Be an intelligent person and try to get a wide variety of fact patterns before you decide what you will consider the most likely truth. If anyone believe that any single source is going to use an objective set of fact patterns, then that person is naive beyond any help.

And please, don't confuse the office of the President with the person holding the office. Confusing the two, and inducing confusion of the two, is the first step to a dictatorship. The former is an institution. The later is a person who was elected to guard that institution. The former is something that must be protected. The later is someone who should be willing to give his reputation and life to protect and serve. This means that criticizing the person is not treason. Sometimes that person needs to be criticized. Sometimes that person is a liar. Sometimes that person is sex addict. Sometimes, for example, that person is drug addict, and we know the TV has told us that drug addicts support terrorists.

So, no hitting below the belt. No calling people traitors for exercising constitutionally protected free speech. As we used to say, if you don't like it, go to Russia. Or, in other words, if you can't take the heat, get you wussy ass out of the kitchen. So no invoking war scenarios for a war that congress never declared. And remember, all sides are torturing humans, and everyone loves their kids equally.

opinion from a canadian

[VoiceOfRaisin (554019)]

first off the film is incredible. the theatre here showing it was selling out every showing, including the matinees, something ive never seen. at the end the audience gave some nice loud applause.

its always odd as an "outsider" to watch americans. anyone that speaks out about the government is branded a radical, an extremist. round here in canada this is absolutely normal, the evening news has all sorts of people saying all sorts of critiques about the government and its not odd for people to talk about it on the street. and its not a group of people that do, EVERYONE does. no one looks at you funny, no one says you are anti-canadian. a term that is not used at all, either is unpatriotic. this is a states thing, its used to shut you up, make you feel bad. its wrong. moore isnt an extremist, he is a hero. exposing truths is patriotic. dont listen to the shills that call you names. the amount of brainwashing you poor people get is also astounding. i dont claim to live in some perfect society but its night and day with some things and i hope this movie wakes up many people to reality.

Fahrenheit 9/11: A Conservative Critique

[usurper_ii (306966)]

Fahrenheit 9/11: A Conservative Critique
by William Norman Grigg

I just returned from viewing Fahrenheit 9/11 here in Appleton, WI. I went to the 1:30 PM showing, which was - astonishingly - sold out. The crowd was overwhelmingly white and middle-class (this IS Wisconsin, remember), ranging in age from early teens to retirees. The people were polite, friendly, well-mannered (something we shouldn't take for granted on the part of contemporary theater crowds). There was tumultuous applause at the end, punctuated by a moment of reflective silence as we read the dedication card invoking those murdered by terrorists on 9/11, and those murdered through state terrorism in the aftermath.

The film itself very much reflects its creator: It's shaggy, flabby, occasionally witty, and frequently infuriating. It will have a HUGE impact because Moore - his facile leftist economics notwithstanding - has nailed his case against the Bush regime flush to the plank. It will be all but impossible for anybody who sits still and watches this film to view Bush the Lesser as anything other than a petty, spiteful, dim-witted, bloody-handed little fool - and the figurehead of a murderous power elite. This explains why the Bu'ushists are threatening to go Abu Ghraib on Moore: They're busted.

The most powerful moments in the film are those that humanize U.S. troops, several of whom are shown on-screen criticizing the regime. A major arc of the film is devoted to a Flint, Michigan housewife from a military family whose son, just prior to being killed in Iraq, wrote a letter condemning "George 'I wanna be like my Daddy' Bush" for staging this useless, unjust war. Moore himself, who narrates the film (and makes himself too much a part of the story, incidentally) observes that the largest immorality of this entire enterprise is the actions of a dishonest president lying our country into war and forcing decent young men (and women) to do immoral things.

It should be pointed out as well that the film - despite being lambasted as an exercise in unalloyed Bush-bashing - doesn't spare Democrats who acquiesced in Bush the Lesser's power grabs and his criminal war against Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle comes off particularly poorly, which in his case merely requires a recording device of some kind.

An interesting encounter immediately after seeing the film underscores its fundamentally non-partisan nature. Some poor schlep had positioned himself outside the theater with a clipboard soliciting signatures on a nominating position for a would-be Democrat congressional candidate. A couple of people seized the petition and started to sign. Impertinent sort that I am, I asked, "What's this fellow's position on the war?"

The scribbling stopped, and several sets of eyes focused intently on the hapless volunteer. "Well, um, ah, he thinks we should do something," he began, stammeringly. "Ah, he just thinks we should be more careful." On hearing this, a lady looked at her husband, who had signed the petition, and snapped, "Scratch off your name." I told the volunteer that I'm what most people would regard as an "ultra-conservative - not just a `conservative' - but if your guy came out against the war I'd vote for him, and knock on doors." "Well, I can't really address all the details of his positions," the increasingly flustered guy responded. "Just let him know what I said," I suggested, telling him that there are a lot of people who have the same point of view.

I chatted with several other people as they left the theater, all of them roughly my age (early 40s) and of similar economic and cultural background. Each of them indicated that he or she would urge friends to see the film - which means that it will have "legs" even if the GOP and FEC were to choke off advertising somehow.

There were no screaming Bolsheviks (one viewer had an anti-animal rights T-shirt) or marijuana-scented bohemians in the crowd. This wasn't the sort of crowd you'd see at a Phish concert, or storming McDonald's at an an

Re:Fahrenheit 9/11: A Conservative Critique

[usurper_ii (306966)]

The night before last, the Independent Film Channel played a 30-minute press conference with Michael Moore that he gave at the Cannes Film Festival. I was really impressed with what he had to say and I think the movie might be worth watching. Rather than being just about Bush, he spent a lot of time talking about how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (a.k.a. the truth) and how public opinion was manipulated to stir up support for the war. I'm kind of wanting to see it, surprisingly. The reviews are already in:

IMDB User Comments: Michael Moore is a traitor to his country

I had a lot of driving to do at work the last couple of days and listened to a lot of WBAP 820. There was a lot of talk about Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore. Every single bit of it was venomous and hate filled. From Rush to Hannity, to every single person on there, there is no way to support our troops while attacking their mission or their commander in chief. And if you happen to do so, you are considered a traitor to the country.

It's so weird because on every other topic, I usually agree with the majority of what these guys have to say. But they make me so mad on the war issue that I feel like some kind of left-wing liberal. I was actually wanting to e-mail them all yesterday and give them a piece of my mind, but decided not to because they would probably turn me in to home land security.

One thing I will say, though, Rush was out and Walter Williams took his place for the day. I still like him.

Usurper_ii

Thanks fot the explanation...

[polyp2000 (444682)]

A spokesman for Lions Gate Films said the company debuted the movie in the two theaters to help build good word-of-mouth -- friend telling friend --

Are Americans really that stupid as to need an explanation for what the term "Word-of-Mouth" means?

"Michael Moore Hates America"

[linuxwrangler (582055)]

I heard an intersting bit on the radio the other day interviewing a guy who is making a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America" [michaelmoo...merica.com] which is due out later this year. In it he tries, in Michael Moore style, to interview Moore himself while documenting the errors, and more importantly, the ommissions in Moore's films.

Check out their links page for plenty of sites by people working to track down inaccuracies in Moore's works and an article about how Ray Bradbury is annoyed that Moore stole the title from his similarly titled book without asking and without returning his calls to Moore.

Rush Limbaugh...

[DrRobert (179090)]

does the same things everyday on his show. Conservatives seem absolutely apoplectic about this movie, but I don't understand why. You CAN'T be upset with the things that are said. You MUST be upset with the approach to "news"; the approach is to carefully select issues and facts that may border on truth and then construct them into an argument while leaving out all mention of the other side. If you want to complain about Michael Moore... fine, but complain equally loudly about Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly (O'Reilly doesn't even belong in this group because he came from Hard Copy and he has been busted by many sources for out right lies). Complain about the approach, complain about the system, but DO NOT complain about the tactics just because someone does not agree with you.

To add a note of technology to this /. discussion.... A few months ago I read a lot of political book from both sides of the fence. Many of the authors claimed their opposite was simply lying and then "proved" it. I began to do some checking into what kind of information/technology was available for me to examine the any available facts and derive an opinion independent of the talking heads. Most of the online research services and transcript companies that can provide original documents (facts) cost thousands of dollars per month. My conclusion... It is IMPOSSIBLE for a common individual to be properly informed about issues that they must vote on. This is a very sad conclusion because our system of government is founded on the principal that the voting public is educated about the issues.

So what can open source do to correct the strangle hold that talking heads have on primary information sources?

Re:Truth?

[bokkepoot (143872)]

That's why i always watch Fox news with a bucked of popcorn

Re:Truth?

[Trespass (225077)]

That's why I always read Slashdot with a bucket of popcorn.

Re:Truth?

[Sanity (1431)]

Please don't confuse entertainment with truth.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you have specific issues with the facts in this film them lets hear them.

Re:Define truth.

[Sanity (1431)]

TRUTH is a non-biased, exhaustive analysis of a topic.

No, truth is the opposite of lying, which is stating things as facts which aren't true. I have yet to see a single fact in F911 that has been proven false.

The fact that you think there is any such thing as a non-biased analysis suggests naivity. Everything is biased, the only question is whether you are biased in the same way.

Re:Truth?

[div_2n (525075)]

While there is a bit of this movie that isn't really informational and is meant to appeal to emotion, there are some VERY disturbing pieces of infomration given:

-21 members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country on special chartered flights on September 13 while all other flights were grounded. They were NEVER questioned on Osama at all and there is no clear reason why they were given free flight out without interrogation.

-Prior to the war in Afghanistan, there were plans on the board to put in a gas pipeline through the country. Members of the Taliban visited Texas regarding the issue. The project was abandoned after the US bombed Afghanistan in 1999. After the recent war, Hamid Karzai was made the leader. The papers were signed giving the green light for the pipline. Prior to being the leader, Karzai was a consultant for one of the companies trying to build the pipeline.

-Prior to 9/11, Bush had been on vacation over 40 percent of his time in office. During one of those vacations, he was given a security brief that outlined Osama bin Laden training his agents to fly planes in the US as tools of terror. Condi Rice talked about that memo in some of the investigations. Nothing was done about it.

-Pre 9/11, many Bush administration officials are ON THE RECORD as saying that Saddam Hussein didn't have any weapons of mass destruction nor was he capable and wasn't a threat. AFTER 9/11, their tune was exactly opposite. Why?

-Condi Rice is on camera saying "There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11." We now know that isn't true.

There are many more points he made that I think MUST be addressed by the Bush administration. If they cannot dispute them, then in my opinion any person with one ounce of thought ability should never consider voting for him.

Re:Truth?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Lies? Like what? Name one lie in Fahrenheit 9/11. Just one, that's all I ask. You can blame the movie for being biased. You can blame it for being a poor source to form an opinion from since it only gives one side. You can blame it for sensationalism and a number of other things. But I don't think you can claim it contains lies.

Re:Truth?

[Algan (20532)]

While your comments are probably true, please note that they pertain to Bowling for Columbine. Do you have any such remarks related to the subject of our discussion, which is Fahrenheit 9/11? If so, I guess we'd all be glad to hear them.

Anyway, it's obvious that F9/11 is not a balanced documentary, in fact it doesn't even claim to be. It is a film with a very specific agenda, that is to make Bush loose the elections. In that regard it is more of an op-ed piece than a documentary. However, Moore claims that all the facts presented in the movie were double checked and he's ready to stand by them even in court if necessary.

computers

[mnemonic_ (164550)]

Think about it... you could easily convince some computer-illiterate person of the superiority of Windows over Linux, or vice versa, without telling a single lie. It's all about withholding the right info, and presenting it in the desired light.

Re:Extreme views

[paroneayea (642895)]

I'm no american, so american political views be damned; I just want to see the guy piss over several people!

And from the standpoint of someone who is an American, I think many of us would like to see that too... if only because it would be a great change of pace after having our civil liberties pissed on by.... certain individuals.

Re:Extreme views

[spj524 (526706)]

Don't copy other people's opinions; listen to both sides of the story and make your own.

Exactly. Don't believe what anyone tells you without going out and doing some research yourself. If what you find confirms what you are told, then and only then can you consider it as fact. I see too many people on both sides pick up quick buzz-phrases and run with them only to be made a complete fool by someone who is more informed. Do your homework.

/wow. this took 4 'Previews'... HTML is rusty

Re:Extreme views

[Egonis (155154)]

Whoa, EXTREME Leftist???

On a political scale within the United States, although it may not appear that way to American Citizens, all parties are on the far right as compared with other nations.

We Canadians have a Liberal Government, literally named, far beyond the left Americans consider acceptable in their political campgains, etc... yet, we have an extreme leftist party called the NDP -- it's a matter of perspective.

I think that Michael Moore takes his own reality, and the facts to back it up to make his point... it's not to say that he fabricates anything, but it's all about how the information is presented, and in his case... 'left-wing' for Americans. Like any editorial, documentary, etc, it's all about how the viewer perceives the information.

Re:Extreme views

[Moridineas (213502)]

That's simply not true, and is perhaps a sympton of the relativism (moral and otherwise) that pervades "liberal" thought today.

For one thing, if you insist on classifying the entire world as left/right you miss a huge degree of differences. What's the difference in right/left terms between hitler, stalin, mao, and gandhi? Probably not as much as you think. Not to mention that right and left mean very different things in Britain (where I *believe* the terms originated) mainland Europe and America. Not to mention, Republicans wouldn't even fit in with most Right wing parties in Europe, many of which aren't classicaly liberal at all. Besides which, saying America is far-right is pretty ridiculous. We may not be as bad a social state as mainland Europe, but it's only a matter of degree.

question, where do the classical liberals fall? The Austrian economists? Popular Swiss ideology? Norwegians? What about Nationalist socialist parties?

Making the US to be some extreme right wing country is nuts.

sorry for rambling.

Re:Extreme views

[fredrikj (629833)]

Extreme left-wing? Wouldn't that be revolutionary communism? Moore is more accurately characterized as a social democrat.

Re:Dishonest

[glsunder (241984)]

Regardless of his politics, the man is basically dishonest, so you are left with the task of trying to sort the bullshit from the truth. Good luck!

What's funny is I'm not sure whether you were replying to a post about gwb or it was a post on moore. That statement could pretty accurately apply to 90% of people in politics.

Re:Dishonest

[pyros (61399)]

IT's called editorial spin. Every reporter does it, every journalistic media in the history of human communication has done it, and it will always be done. The thing is, he openly admits he uses editing to suit his agenda. He has, on television, said of this film "no, I'm not fair. I have an opinion. The facts are true, but they presented to support my opinion." I don't know about you, but I think somebody who will admit that up front carries more credibility than someone who staunchly sticks to the same rhetoric which has been proven false, rather than admit having made a mistake (and yes, I'm talking about almost the entire Bush administration).

Holocaust revisionists can make the same claim

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just because your details are largely factually correct does not make the whole true.
Just leave out relevant facts,take things out of context and contiuosly draw an opinion not supporeted by the facts you have presented.

Re:Dishonest

[Bri3D (584578)]

OK... He claimed Bush let some Bin Laden family members out of the country during the air lockdown. This is not true. They were clearly let out of the country after the air restrictions were lifted. And yes, they are the same Bin Laden family is the infamous Osama belongs to, but just because one family member is evil doesn't have to mean the rest are evil.

As a side note, the Bin Ladens are a family of oil tycoons, just the people Bush would want to slowly corrupt.

Re:Dishonest

[by Anonymous Coward]

and here [kuro5hin.org] is a rebuttal to Hardy Law.

Re:Dishonest

[jd142 (129673)]

Why do people think that a documentary must be a completely objective, facts only movie? Some of the greatest documentaries in film and print have been made from a social or political motive. Silent Spring and The Jungle spring to mind. Even something as seemingly innocuous as the Cousteau documentaries on sea life had an agenda.

The problem is that in dealing with social events, presenting events with no spin at all makes the report virtually worthless. Take these hoary old examples:

1) 10 men killed 100 men.
2) 10 patriots successfully defeated a horde of barbarous invaders, killing 100 of them.
3) We regret to report that 100 freedom fighters were killed by government thugs today. 10 members of the government's death squad brutally murdered 100 loyalists.

All three of those statements are true and they all describe the same event. But the most purely objective tells us nothing about what really happened.

Re:AMAZING mov[i]e

[xxdinkxx (560434)]

sorry, never post before being awake(corrected text): My wife and I saw this movie two days ago at 11 am, and I was floored by it for the rest of that day, the following day, today, and probably will be for a good while. This movie really shouldn't be seen just as a "we hate bush movie" although many will interpret it as that. Rather it's more along the lines of here is _all_ the corruption ( on the oil side of the equation... no mention of drug money) that goes on in our lovely government, even under other admins ( yes iirc clinton's admin wasn't made to look very good either...though to be fair, wasn't demonized like the bushes (and shouldn't be for that matter) ). I must add that while everything is the movie has been checked, I found it interesting that he really didn't try to make the democrats look all that much better then the republicans.. the feel I got was that republicans and saudi(es) are evil and the democrats are clueless-- and not there when you need them... in the best case senario. This move is not for the light hearted, but everyone should see it (as it will be the source of much controversy). I can see why this movie was a winner of the canies award. Regardless of if one thinks that Michael Moore is a crackpot or not, the actual footage speeks for its self ( and in some cases quiet amusingly (if that's a word) so).

Re:Uh there's a reason for that

[squaretorus (459130)]

I can't see how this comes even close to News for Nerds,

I have to disagree - that a DOCUMENTARY (admittedly an sensationalist entertainment led documentary) is opening on so many screens in intellectual backwater that is mainstream US multiplex is pretty damn good news for the nerdy populace!

This is a fact / interpretation of facts based movie, with a relatively minor distributor, beating 'the man' to an extent by even being released.

If some shit Mangaporn going to DVD is news, then Im sure as hell that a major documentary opening is. That said - if the /. editors could come up with a more refined presentation of the article - ie give it some POINT - we'd be discussing the movie, the distribution, the SOMETHING instead of just discussing wether this is okay to discuss!

Re:Farenheit 911

[Sanity (1431)]

I'm sure there are exaggerations and perhaps outright lies in the movie

Why would you assume that? This is one of the most fact-checked movie in history, it had to be or the right wing would have the perfect excuse to dismiss it as lies. I haven't heard a single criticism of the facts it states that hasn't been effectively rebutted by Moore.

Re:Moore's history of dishonesty

[torpor (458)]

Like it or not though, many people are just not intellectually up to the challenge of dealing with Cato Institute, or any of the other instruments of social introspection that may allow commoners to understand the issues with the American coup d'etat currently under way.

Michael Moore is a pop-culture 'documentarist'/'entertainer'. If you want to wake up the masses, don't give them countless reams of reports and articles to attempt to wade through. Save that for the courts.

Remember, America is not the most literate nation on Earth.

Many peoples literary skills stop at the ability to change the channel whenever they see something on TV they don't understand.

While it may be 'popular' to counter the Michael Moore marketing machine with elite intellectual discourse on the condition of the American Empire, most MTV-riddled minds are not up to the task. They just aren't. 50 years of Television programming have brainwashed the American public beyond caring about it if they can't understand it.

Michael Moores' delivery methods serve a very key, very important, very significant demographic.

A very, very important demographic: those who are unable, or unwilling, to peer behind the curtain and try and work out what is going on with their society, while those who are intellectually, corporately, and politically able, engage in nefarious deeds.

Michael Moore, for all his failings (and yes, he does have quite a few), will get to the common man ... where Cato Institute will not.

If you truly believe that an understanding of the nature of the conspiracy against American society is important, you won't discount the actual value of Moore's level of work.

It is just as vital to reach the proles as it is the intellectuals...

Re:Moore's history of dishonesty

[Willard B. Trophy (620813)]

Cato receives funding from the oil industry [disinfopedia.org], and had Fox News head honcho Rupert Murdoch as a director. Now that's what I call fair and balanced reporting!

Real research?

[gorbachev (512743)]

There's a fundamental problem in US politics. It's that there are only 2 parties.

Everything and anything is always black or white.

There is never anything that even remotely resembles honest exchange of ideas on the Senate or House floors, never mind the White House, because things are run through majority politics.

If Republicans rule, they steamroll their ideology down everyone's throat at all costs. If democrats rule, they'll do the same.

The same polarity on political issues is so prelevant on all mass media that you just can not get any independent research on any issues from any source, foreign sources excluded (BBC tends to be kinda ok, most of the time).

While we are on this subject, I find it extremely dishonest of George W. Bush to have claimed in his election campaign that he would unite the American people. The damn fool has done no such thing. Americans are more divided now than ever.

Moore's history of honesty

[gubachwa (716303)]

Skimmed through some of the links above to know they're nothing more than lies. Example:

From the http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/s chlussel_014.htm [politicalusa.com] link:

He stages an event at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan's Traverse City, claiming that opening an account would entitle one to walk out of the bank with a gun in hand. The film shows him doing just that. But the key word is "staged." In reality, the bank does not provide guns for opening accounts, and you can't walk in or out of the bank with one--unless you're a security guard employed by the bank. The gun is one of several "giveaways" that can be chosen by customers in exchange for opening a CD account. In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.

See How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine" [michaelmoore.com]. He addresses the above criticism about half-way down:

So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for Columbine?" Here are my favorites: "That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"

Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country - "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle.

Re:First few comment

[garcia (6573)]

Our media coverage of the war has been very one sided and this movie points it out very clearly.

Well of course it was (and as you said he showed specific quotes of reporters saying, "well yes of course I am biased.") because if they weren't biased they would be boycotted, they would have conservative groups trying to get them expelled from TV, they would be labelled un-American by the president and his staff, and they would probably lose a portion of their viewership to channels that were pro-war.

As far as Michael Moore being this or that... I don't think of that at all. I think of the MOVIE being this or that. Bowling for Columbine was a much better movie than this one. I found this one to be "ok". It certainly didn't show me anything that I didn't know already (and it shouldn't if you are an American with half a brain and you watch/read the news for yourself).

The second half of the movie was not good. It was almost as if he ran out of stuff to rant about and decided to half rally behind the troops overseas. It was poorly done and nearly bored me to sleep (I saw the 12:01am showing on Friday morning).

On a personal note: I don't think it deserves the media attention, the conservative's attention, and I certainly don't believe it deserved multiple standing ovations (LA, NY, Cannes, etc).

Re:First few comment

[Apreche (239272)]

There is something you have to understand about Michael Moore's movies and truth. Everything he shows on video is true. He doesn't photoshop it, it actually happened that way. But if you pay attention to the filmography and the context in which he shows this true footage he implies other things. What happens is that people go and say "you said this, it isn't true!" when in fact he technically only implied it. The only facts in his movie are the ones you hear him say outright.

"According to XXX inserst statistic Y here".

Often he asks questions in his movies like

"If X is true and Y is true, does that make Z true?"

People will sall him a liar if Z is in fact false. But he never said Z was true, he only asked. I met this man at U of R just after he won his oscar. He is extremely meticulous in the details and the information. Nobody is going to slip one by. For every fact he actually stated as fact he has evidence to back it up.

How he gets you is that the average american ingoramus who walks away from one of his movies believes that Z is true. He never said it was, but the masses will walk away believing it like the sheep they are.

Now, I don't agree with Moore. He is really a socialist green party hippy type underneath. Let me tell you, I like my Adam Smith. Even before this movie I was determined to vote against Bush. And after I get this movie in a format where I can watch it piece by piece I can extract the facts from the implications and get a lot more ammo to use against that corporate asshat.

Response to Hitchens

[Sanity (1431)]

There is a pretty good response to this article here [anthropik.net]. Not sure if Moore himself has responded yet.

Re:We have a free market of ideas in this country.

[dago (25724)]

"For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. "

Which means that you have to think for yourself and search where is the truth in what you've been told ! What a disgussing concept !

Re:What out for Michael Moore lawsuits through....

[DragonMagic (170846)]

Uh, libel isn't protected by the First Amendment and isn't free speech. If someone can truthfully say something bad about the film or Moore, there's little he can do about that.

However, if someone's going to go out and say that Moore made up the camcorder version of the kids' reading in Florida, or that it happened on another day and Moore spliced it in under lies, that's what I believe Moore is saying is reason for a lawsuit.

Remember, slander and libel are *NOT* protected free speech in America.