webnarc Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html '9/11': Just the facts? June 18, 2004 BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC A reader writes: "In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary." That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not. Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him. That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides. The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one. The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged. In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque. Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine. Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11." The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive. Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that. I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems. [line] "That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain." That's a really good point, if Bush is doing such a great job, why aren't there documentary films spreading that message? Instead of complaining about the liberal media, maybe the conservative media should get their act together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 its more fun for Scarborough to spend his whole show complaining about the media and showing covers of newspapers....then asking "Why don't they report the good stories?" Instead of actually doing it himself. American media...Liberal and Conservative love to ***** and moan.....its better for the ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 i dont' think they can finance a film that is pro-bush-- it's the liberal media who control everything we hear and say! duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I actually hope Kerry wins now, and it has nothing to do with Bush. I just see it as a way to pacify a good 40% of the country that now tends to reflexively disagree with any US policy because it is espoused by the Bush administration. I think Democratic America will go catatonic if Bush wins, and feel further alienated from America, feeling more in common with Canada and Europe. Also, if the Clinton administration is any indication, conservatives are much more effective and principled when they rally to resist a liberal president. Of course, this is assuming that the Repubs maintain control of the House and/or Senate. (If they don't, then a Kerry presidency would be an unmitigated disaster reminiscent of the Carter administration-- but I assume they will at least control the House.) I will further explain why I think that Kerry may be good for America in another thread. It's not because Kerry is a good candidate, or even because Bush is a bad one. It's the circumstances and the mood of the country I'm worried about. The liberals NEED a pacifier as they did during the Clinton years. They at least felt represented, even if they weren't (thanks to Clinton's moderate, even somewhat conservative policies during hist last 4-6 yrs). The funny thing is, many leftists (Democratic Underground) realize now that Clinton never had their interests in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 ehh, I never really knew much of politics til after Clinton left and Bush came in, really only started getting into politics in 2000, when in 10th grade. I do agree though, Clinton was pretty moderate, and as a result, he got along with everyone it seems. Kerry is too liberal and not very personable. My old roommate once said that if John Edwards had been nominated, the democrats may have had a better chance cause Edwards has a lot better personality and friendlyness. Many liberals like me will not like another Bush term, as you have said chiefhogskin48. Whatever the case, the political battles seem like they will only get more heated on this board til election time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Clinton was a jerk....but he did realize that if he wanted something.....he had to give alittle. It made more sense to be practical rather than ideological. Things can actually get done that way. The current White House would rather crash and burn for a cause that is proven wrong long ago. The most current example I can think of is the over pouring support for Stem Cell research...at least more than what's approved now. Nobody is saying to give Scientists a blank check. They're saying that it should be explored under strict rules...but not RESTRICTIVE. However, it will not happen with the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsonny Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 "W" will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. We will look back at these past years and be embarassed for our country...JUST LIKE WE ARE ABOUT "THE MULLET"..."W" needs to go...too bad the Democrats cant find a REAL canidate to run against the Christan Right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 I actually hope Kerry wins now, and it has nothing to do with Bush. I just see it as a way to pacify a good 40% of the country that now tends to reflexively disagree with any US policy because it is espoused by the Bush administration. I think Democratic America will go catatonic if Bush wins, and feel further alienated from America, feeling more in common with Canada and Europe. Also, if the Clinton administration is any indication, conservatives are much more effective and principled when they rally to resist a liberal president. Of course, this is assuming that the Repubs maintain control of the House and/or Senate. (If they don't, then a Kerry presidency would be an unmitigated disaster reminiscent of the Carter administration-- but I assume they will at least control the House.) I will further explain why I think that Kerry may be good for America in another thread. It's not because Kerry is a good candidate, or even because Bush is a bad one. It's the circumstances and the mood of the country I'm worried about. The liberals NEED a pacifier as they did during the Clinton years. They at least felt represented, even if they weren't (thanks to Clinton's moderate, even somewhat conservative policies during hist last 4-6 yrs). The funny thing is, many leftists (Democratic Underground) realize now that Clinton never had their interests in mind. I think I'm like you, although I explain my reasonings differently: I think things seem to work better in the government when the White House and Congress are under different parties. The way I think of it, I'm in favor of anything that makes it tougher for a government to get things done. I love gridlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by AJWatson3 i dont' think they can finance a film that is pro-bush-- it's the liberal media who control everything we hear and say! duh! :laugh: It is strange that they do so much complaining about the liberal media and little else. I hope the conservative documentary movie makes realize that they own their apathy and action paralysis. Ummm, no, they'll keep blaming it on the liberals. Funny how some many continue to allow others to control their destiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Didn't Good Morning America today completely trash the movie and sad it was all just a bunch of lies and quotes taking out of context?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 I don't know JB. I think they post a transcript of most morning shows. You should check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Didn't Good Morning America today completely trash the movie and sad it was all just a bunch of lies and quotes taking out of context?? Wouldn't suprise me, but by the same token I havn't seen it or heard the exact contridictions to certain parts of the movie. As far as the movie itself, I tend to agree that a documentary can and should be slighted to one particular side, I guess it makes it more captivating in that sense.........as long as the facts are straight. Hey if you have FACTS that point to a particular line of reasoning, then even if you don't like that line of reasoning atleast it has some basis. It's another thing entirely to bend, take things out of context, or flat out make something up in order to push your own personal objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by The Wicked Wop It's another thing entirely to bend, take things out of context, or flat out make something up in order to push your own personal objective. The WP liked the movie but did say that in the movie they mentioned that Bush let some Saudi's leave after the ban, the WP said this something they can't prove or disprove. The film also claims that, after planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, and there was a moratorium on all commercial flights around the country, the Bush administration helped many members of the wealthy bin Laden family evacuate the country -- by plane. The strong implication is that these evacuations were performed during the flight ban. This may be the film's iffiest moment, in terms of accuracy, but there's no easy way to verify or discredit this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 The WP liked the movie but did say that in the movie they mentioned that Bush let some Saudi's leave after the ban, the WP said this was completely false and should have not been put in the movie. Thats part in what I was trying to get at. I'm not going to go ahead yet and slam the movie yet.....I'll wait till its disected to see the validity of facts presented in it. However, given Moore's track record of distorting certain facts, and then spinning it as evidence in a documentary format.......I could see this movie being alot of smoke an mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 can you post a link to that JB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 There are pro Bush documentarys. There are anti Michael Moore documentarys. They just dont have the star power of Moore and the vitriolic hatred of the Hollywood Left to fuel their engines. Ebert knows that. But he's such a blatant partisan that he feigns ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. D Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 the Sad part is allowing the polarization of American sensibilities to continue. Time to stop thinking like a label and start thinking for onesself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 They just dont have the star power of Moore and the vitriolic hatred of the Hollywood Left to fuel their engines. Or is it that they don't have the support of the right to keep them in the main stream? Can anyone name any of these films and has anyone seen any of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by Dr. D the Sad part is allowing the polarization of American sensibilities to continue. Time to stop thinking like a label and start thinking for onesself. Clinton said the same thing the other day, and hope that he was being honest because he is correct. Polarization is destroying this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Or is it that they don't have the support of the right to keep them in the main stream? Absolutely. There isnt an organized right wing effort like there is on the left in Hollywood and the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. D Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 its intellectually lazy. Most of the vociferous have no idea what the words(read labels) actually MEAN anyway. Yet spout the party line as if it were gospel. Bias? a quick study in logic renders moot discussion in the political realm. Yet, the Jerry Springer (watching the car wreck) mentality of sensationalism feeds the hunger and reinforces the behavior I find most terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Or is it that they don't have the support of the right to keep them in the main stream? Absolutely. There isnt an organized right wing effort like there is on the left in Hollywood and the media. So the right won't support the right? Why not, too busy counting all their money ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 The right in hollywood doesnt have the leverage or power to support right wing films. And those on the broad spectrum of the right wont spend the money to do so because they know it wont have any affect on elections. This film will do a great job of energizing the base of the left. But it's not going to change anybodies mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted June 25, 2004 Author Share Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The right in hollywood doesnt have the leverage or power to support right wing films. And those on the broad spectrum of the right wont spend the money to do so because they know it wont have any affect on elections. This film will do a great job of energizing the base of the left. But it's not going to change anybodies mind. I think Moore's hope is that it will incourage the non-voters to come out to the polls in November. If they show up and vote for Bush, then American is only going to be a stronger democracy because of it. If they vote Kerry, the same applies. Democracy works best when all participate. But it's a good point, most of us already know what we'll think about the movie before we've even seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Here are some clips for those who care. http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/fahrenheit911.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.