|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Right Wing |
|
Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
Current rating: 0 |
by smann
Email: smann (nospam) stu.parkland.edu (verified) |
14 Jun 2004
Modified: 05:54:21 PM |
|
Want to see Michael Moore's important new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", be a success across the country? Theaters everywhere need your encouragement, as they come under fierce attack from right-wing front groups like Move America Forward (MAF). |
MAF maintains a website (registered to the PR firm of Russo Marsh & Rogers) from which they run StopMichaelMoore.com, which calls Moore's latest film "Anti-American". They list multiple email addresses for theatres across the country and urge people to tell them not to screen "Fahrenheit". Some have already added the film to their lineups, and the rest are undecided. When I emailed some of these theaters in support of the movie, they were very grateful for the encouragement; they had received intense pressure not to show it.
If "Fahrenheit 9/11" is going to reach a wide national audience, it is essential to support these theaters! Send an email to those on the list at http://www.moveamericaforward.org/MichaelMoore/ and tell them you want to see "Fahrenheit" on their screens. (Don't forget to support the Boardman's Art Theatre, which will open the film in Champaign on June 25).
Here are the letters I sent, one for the undecided, the other one thanking the theaters who will screen "Fahrenheit 9/11":
**************************************************
Hello,
As an American and a moviegoer, I am writing to encourage your theater to screen the new film by Michael Moore, “Fahrenheit 9/11”, winner of the Golden Palm Award at the Cannes Film Festival. It is disconcerting that a few Americans, supporters of the current war in Iraq and the Bush administration, are urging theaters to boycott this important film simply because it opposes the war and Bush’s policies. They claim that “Fahrenheit 9/11” is “Anti-American” because of its political nature. In fact, the film is neither worthless nor un-American because it takes a contrary stance to our current president and our current war. The truth is that many Americans are eager to see this highly praised piece of filmmaking, created by an Oscar-winning director, which took the top award at Cannes. Please support the American ideals of free speech and the free flow of political ideas by playing this film at your theater.
Sincerely,
(full name here)
Urbana, IL
**************************************************
Hello,
As an American and a moviegoer, I would like to thank your theater for its courageous decision to screen the new film by Michael Moore, “Fahrenheit 9/11”, winner of the Golden Palm Award at the Cannes Film Festival. It is disconcerting that a few Americans, supporters of the current war in Iraq and the Bush administration, are urging theaters to boycott this important film simply because it opposes the war and Bush’s policies. They claim that “Fahrenheit 9/11” is “Anti-American” because of its political nature. In fact, as most Americans realize, the film is neither worthless nor un-American because it takes a contrary stance to our current president and our current war. The truth is that many Americans are eager to see this highly praised piece of filmmaking, created by an Oscar-winning director, which took the top award at Cannes. By playing this film, you are supporting the very American ideals of free speech and the free flow of political ideas.
Sincerely,
(full name here)
Urbana, IL |
Comments
|
Put up or.... |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jun 2004
|
Please provide the source for your assertions of factual errors in unreleased movie.
Get Him!!: As Moore's Critics Suit Up for "Fahrenheit 911," Liberals Need to Figure Out the Game
Andrew Christie
Few recent books and movies have been subjected to as high a degree of public scrutiny as the works of Michael Moore. As a fallible human being producing fact-dense works, often citing equally fallible reporters and researchers, his work has an error ratio that is probably comparable to that of everyone else's in print or film media, but everyone else is not the world's most visible and provocative critic of our government's policies, hence their work does not receive a line-by-line, shot-by-shot analysis, animated by a feverishly determined purpose to discredit.
The forthcoming documentary "Fahrenheit 911" is likely to set records in that regard. The stakes could not be higher. Moore's foes get it. Moore gets it, too, and he has retained the services of Bill Clinton's rapid response team from the 1992 election to refute attacks.
The only ones who may not get it: Liberals. When the conservative right and its corporate media handmaidens have throw down dubious "factual challenges" to Moore's high-profile works, many on the left have proven willing to go along.
The classic case in point: Seemingly within hours of the release of Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" in October 2002, the alleged deceptions of Michael Moore were circulating through the zeitgeist at a markedly stepped-up pitch. They coalesced into a hit list printed in Forbes' December 9, 2002, issue, becoming a trumpet call for right-wing bloggers. Then Moore's dour critics in the groves of liberal academe took up the cudgel, with Dissent publishing "The Perils of Michael Moore" in its Spring 2003 issue, solemnly including the litany of Moore's alleged "Columbine" transgressions.
The classic life-cycle of a manufactured political smear is not difficult to detect as it travels across the public spectrum. The goal is to build up enough critical mass that ordinary folks on the street get wind of the target's alleged mendacity and deceit and simply accept it. Many of those normally astute enough to consider the source when a campaign of vilification is based on obvious political disagreement do not make such allowances when presented with what looks like simple mendacity. Pointing out "errors" and acts of deceit seems value-free. Target isolated, credibility compromised, mission accomplished.
But manufactured charges tend to fall apart on examination. Chief among the "Columbine" charges was the "free gun" scene in the bank that gives away guns to new customers.
Here's how it went in Forbes' authoritative-looking bullet points:
"BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, 'if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun.' He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun. ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check."
Compare this to Moore's account of what happened, as posted on the "Bowling for Columbine" website:
"North Country Bank (with branches throughout Northern Michigan) offers you a wide choice of guns when you open up a certificate of deposit account.... The bank is also an authorized federal arms dealer so they can do the quick background check right there at the bank. I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, walked out with my new Weatherby-just as you see it in the film. (I did have a choice of getting a pair of golf clubs or a grandfather clock, but they didn't have either of those hanging on the wall like they did those three rifles)."
Tellingly, the differences in these opposing accounts are not a matter of blunt contradiction but of details omitted and included, respectively. The omissions necessary to trump up the "Moore staged it" story become visible in the light cast by the details included in his personal account:
He would've had to open a long-term CD! (...and he did.)
You have to get a background check! (...which he did, on the spot.)
Even more tellingly, that Forbes piece claimed that "Bowling for Columbine" also perpetrated the following "falsehood:"
"WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare [sic] program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him. ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns. "
Anyone who even casually followed Moore's commentary during the 2000 presidential campaign, two years before "Columbine," knows that among the top 5 charges he leveled against the career of Al Gore was Clinton-Gore's championship of welfare "reform," the draconian measures Moore held responsible for forcing that woman to get on a bus to make an 80-mile daily commute to two minimum-wage jobs, thereby also forcing her to leave the son she could no longer care for -- day care or baby-sitters not an option -- in the hands of her brother and in the vicinity of those drugs and guns, as Moore related in painful, vivid detail. Forbes made his point for him.
Last year, an enterprising Alternet freelancer interviewed North County Bank's marketing director, who confessed that "she worked with Forbes magazine to put out an article discrediting the movie."
"Dissent" fell for it -- eagerly -- and was not alone among liberal deep-thinkers who frown on Moore's barnstorming tactics. Needless to say, those on the left who repeat the smears of ersatz "debunkers" and parrot their conclusions without running down the source or performing a reality check do the work of the opposition. The attack-&-discredit strategy of right-wing media organizations, think tanks and PR consultants is as old as the created image of the beastly, nun-roasting, baby-bayoneting Hun, concocted to draw the U.S. into the First World War.
It never gets old, because the credulity of the target audience stays forever young. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jun 2004
|
5,
You posted that, He would've had to open a long-term CD! (...and he did.) and You have to get a background check! (...which he did, on the spot.)
The point in the movie isn't that he did or did not legally get the gun, it is that the bank was supposedly "giving away guns" to "anyone and everyone". Think about it, IF he really did receive a state police background check and met the criteria for receiving the gun, why would there be any need to even talk about it in a movie? After all, you can go into any gun or sporting goods shop, or even most Walmarts, and legally obtain a gun. So what difference is it that the bank offered a free gun to people who opened the required account? The only people getting the gun had a legal right to it, so it was no different than giving away golf clubs or anything else. The fact that it was portrayed in the movie as some dastardly evil thing the bank was doing wrong was the point...get it? |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jun 2004
|
5,
>"Anyone who even casually followed Moore's commentary during the 2000 presidential campaign, two years before "Columbine," knows that among the top 5 charges he leveled against the career of Al Gore was Clinton-Gore's championship of welfare "reform," the draconian measures Moore held responsible for forcing that woman to get on a bus to make an 80-mile daily commute to two minimum-wage jobs, thereby also forcing her to leave the son she could no longer care for -- day care or baby-sitters not an option -- in the hands of her brother and in the vicinity of those drugs and guns, as Moore related in painful, vivid detail. Forbes made his point for him."
And this is a perfect example of why Moore's films are flawed. Fact is that it is NOT the "fault" of "welfare reform" OR "Gore Clinton policies" that caused the death, the fault lies in the fact the illegal guns, not to mention illegal drugs, were in the possession of criminals whom the boy was left with. It isn't the mothers fault, it isn't the "welfare reform's" fault, it isn't the guns fault, it is the people who allowed the boy access to the gun's fault, which happened to be criminals with illegal weapons. Moore tried to spin the story to lay blame where it dies not exist. That's what he does in his attempts to sway opinion...change the truth. |
|
Stop the Censorship of Fahrenheit 9/11 |
by MoveOn.org
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jun 2004
|
Last night, I got a chance to see a sneak preview of Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit 9/11. It is an incredibly powerful movie that lays bare the cynicism and greed behind Bush's war policy. And the astonishing and revealing footage in it has the power to change the course of the 2004 election. (There's a full review below.)
Given how devastating the movie is to President Bush's carefully crafted facade, it's hardly surprising that right-wing groups who call Moore a "domestic enemy" are using censorship and intimidation tactics to try to get it pulled from theaters. That's why we've got to do everything we can to make the opening a huge success.
Today, we're asking MoveOn members to pledge to see the film on the opening night -- Friday, June 25th. (If you can't make it on Friday, pledging to go on Saturday or Sunday is fine, too). It'll be fun, of course -- you'll be watching the movie with lots of other MoveOn members. It'll also send an unmistakable message to the media and theater owners that the public is behind this movie.
To see the Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer and pledge to see the movie on the opening weekend, go to:
http://www.moveonpac.org/f911/?id=2948-1039338-N91sFVTvi8cyCMCWIK.ZUA
Then please pass this message on to your friends, family, and co-workers.
Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't just the most powerful and complete indictment of the Bush administration that I've ever seen - it's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It's a knockout blow: a poignant, darkly funny film that deftly interweaves footage of the President, his allies, and the Americans his policies betrayed. As Fox News' reviewer put it, the movie "is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty - and at the same time an indictment of stupidity and avarice." (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html for the full review.)
Despite years of television coverage on Iraq and the war on terror, most of the movie consists of footage you'd never see on TV. There are heart-breaking interviews with troops in Iraq, chilling scenes of the civilian consequences of that war, and footage of Bush so candid and revealing that it's hard to imagine how Moore got his hands on it. In one unforgettable scene from the morning of September 11th, Bush blithely reads a children's book to a classroom of kids for seven long minutes after his chief of staff quietly informs him that the second plane has hit the World Trade Center and "we're under attack." The film is filled with this stuff, and it's hard to imagine seeing it and not being moved, shocked, and outraged.
Fahrenheit 9/11 opens with footage of Bush administration officials putting on their TV makeup. Paul Wolfowitz sticks his comb in his mouth, slathers it with spit, brushes it through his hair, and grins a toothy grin. Colin Powell eyes the camera nervously as a makeup artist dusts his face. And, moments before President Bush goes on TV to somberly announce the beginning of the Iraq war, we see him goofing around, making funny faces at the folks behind the camera.
These candid portraits encapsulate the genius of Moore's documentary. Compared to his other films, there's little pranking or moralizing. Moore basically stays out of the picture: he doesn't have to indict the Bush administration, because with powerful and indisputable video, Bush and the rest indict themselves.
As Moore unravels Bush's story, he joins it with the stories of the real Americans who have shouldered the burden of the post-9/11 war policy. In Flint, Michigan, we hear from a group of inner-city kids whose only option for education and a better life is to enlist in the Army - and then, in a scene that's both humorous and deeply creepy, join two Marine recruiters as they case a local mall for possible enlistees. We watch a California peace group that was infiltrated by the local police department under the Patriot Act. And, in the final heartbreaking scenes, we witness the pain of a mother who lost her son in Iraq.
In the hands of other directors, the content could easily feel exploitative. But Moore is grounded by a patriotism that rings through every frame of the film. Compassion and love of country give the film its striking authenticity: it's clear that what stings most about the President's behavior, for the subjects of the film, is Bush's betrayal of our country's soul.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film with the power to change hearts and minds. It's brilliant, funny, moving, and authentic. And together, we can make it a huge success.
Watch the trailer and pledge to see the film opening night at:
http://www.moveonpac.org/f911/?id=2948-1039338-N91sFVTvi8cyCMCWIK.ZUA
Sincerely,
--Eli Pariser
MoveOn PAC
Wednesday, June 16th
P.S. Fahrenheit 9/11 has already reaped widespread praise from critics. Here are just a few samples:
Roger Ebert, "Less is Moore in subdued, effective '9/11'," Chicago Sun Times, May 18, 2004
"Despite these dramatic moments, the most memorable footage for me involved President Bush on Sept. 11. [Ebert goes on to describe the scene.] The look on his face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting."
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-cannes18.html
Mary Corliss, "A First Look at "Fahrenheit 9/11," Time Magazine Online, May 17, 2004
Corliss calls the film, "Moore’s own War on Error."
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,638819,00.html
Frank Rich, "Beautiful Minds and Ugly Truths," International Herald Tribune, May 21, 2004
"'Fahrenheit 9/11' is not the movie Moore watchers, fans or foes, were expecting. (If it were, the foes would find it easier to ignore.)"
http://www.iht.com/articles/521066.html
http://www.moveonpac.org |
|
Fahrenheit 9/11 |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jun 2004
|
NRA said:
"The point in the movie isn't that he did or did not legally get the gun, it is that the bank was supposedly "giving away guns" to "anyone and everyone". Think about it, IF he really did receive a state police background check and met the criteria for receiving the gun, why would there be any need to even talk about it in a movie?"
Actually, the point of the movie is to examine the the question: What's responsible for the exceptionally high level of killing in America? And the bank segment, I believe, is meant to demonstrate the attitudes towards guns in the US---they're just like a pair of golf clubs....
As for the rest of your comments, they are your opinion.
I, of course, want to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" and, along with many others, I eagerly await its release. I'm not sure about the large theater chains, but at least one theater targeted by "Move America Forward" is not bowing to this attempt at silencing Michael Moore. The Avon Theater in Decatur is plugging the opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" on their website with "The movie they don't want you to see."
In addition, the distributors of "Fahrenheit 9/11" are attempting to get an appeal of the R-rating it has received and get a PG-13 rating instead. According to Reuters:
"It is sadly very possible that many 15- and 16-year-olds will be asked and recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years," Moore said in a weekend statement. "If they are old enough to be recruited and capable of being in combat and risking their lives, they certainly deserve the right to see what is going on in Iraq."
...
IFC Entertainment President Jonathan Sehring speculated that the R rating stemmed in part from graphic images of war causalities in the film. But Ortenberg added: "There's nothing in this film that is any more disturbing than what people see on the nightly news." |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jun 2004
|
5,
>"Actually, the point of the movie is to examine the the question: What's responsible for the exceptionally high level of killing in America?"
I'd say it was the evil that resides in peoples hearts. Add to that our revolving door joke of a judicial system, and you have repeat offenders preying on an innocent society.
>"And the bank segment, I believe, is meant to demonstrate the attitudes towards guns in the US---they're just like a pair of golf clubs..."
A gun is a tool. In the hands of a responsible law abiding citizen, it is no more a danger than a golf club is. In the hands of a criminal, both are deadly.
>"As for the rest of your comments, they are your opinion. I, of course, want to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" and, along with many others, I eagerly await its release. I'm not sure about the large theater chains, but at least one theater targeted by "Move America Forward" is not bowing to this attempt at silencing Michael Moore. The Avon Theater in Decatur is plugging the opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" on their website with "The movie they don't want you to see."
I don't really care if theaters show it or not. The people that will go to see it are the Bush haters, and the people who won't waste their money on it are the people that will re-elect Bush in November. For Bush haters, it is just more fuel for their fire, they thrive on it. For everyone else, it is basically propaganda from an apparently socialist liberal that they will ignore.
>"In addition, the distributors of "Fahrenheit 9/11" are attempting to get an appeal of the R-rating it has received and get a PG-13 rating instead."
I'd agree, it is probably rated wrong.
>"According to Reuters: "It is sadly very possible that many 15- and 16-year-olds will be asked and recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years," Moore said in a weekend statement. "If they are old enough to be recruited and capable of being in combat and risking their lives, they certainly deserve the right to see what is going on in Iraq."
Isn't that just more of Moore's hyperbole, since what Reuters stated was that IN A COUPLE YEARS they might be fighting somewhere...IN A COUPLE YEARS when they are old enough. Moore then changes that to "IF THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH" blah blah blah...well, that's the point, they are not "old enough" for a few years yet, but Moore has changed the truth, as usual, to suit what HE wants to say instead, and has then made a statement based not upon the truth, but his mistakenly spun non truth. That's how most propaganda works. |
|
Some People Still Don't Want You To See My Movie... |
by Michael Moore
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jun 2004
|
June 17, 2004
Friends,
We're a week away from the nationwide opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and not a day goes by where we don't have some new battle to fight thanks to those who are still working overtime to keep people from seeing this film. What's their problem? Are they worried about something?
A Republican PR firm has formed a fake grassroots front group called "Move America Forward" to harass and intimidate theater owners into not showing "Fahrenheit 9/11." These are the same people who successfully badgered CBS into canceling the Reagan mini-series a few months ago. And they are spending a ton of money this week to threaten movie theaters who even think about showing our movie.
As of this morning, a little over 500 theaters have agreed to show the movie beginning next Friday, June 25. There are three national/regional theater chains who, as of today, have not booked the movie in their theaters. One theater owner in Illinois has reported receiving death threats.
The right wing usually wins these battles. Their basic belief system is built on censorship, repression, and keeping people ignorant. They want to limit or snuff out any debate or dissension. They also don't like pets and are mean to small children. Too many of them are named "Fred."
This new nut group is the Right's last hope in limiting how many people can see this movie. All of their other efforts have failed. Let's recap:
1. Roger Friedman at FOX News reported that the head of the company which first agreed to fund our film “got calls from Republican friends” pressuring them to back out. And they did. But... Miramax immediately picked up the film! Except...
2. Michael Eisner, the chairman of Disney, then blocked Miramax (a company owned by Disney) from releasing the film once it was finished. But... public attention and embarrassment forced Disney to let the Weinstein brothers of Miramax find another distributor! But...
3. Instead of a new distributor stepping right in -- as all the media predicted would happen -- it took another month to find distributors who would take on this movie. A number of other distributors, thanks to various pressures, were afraid to get involved. It looked for a while that we would be distributing this ourselves. But then Lions Gate and IFC Films rode in to the rescue!
So, we have beaten back all attempts to kill this movie, and the only thing in the way of you now seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" is this Republican big-money front group trying to force theaters not to show the movie.
Please, contact your local theaters and let them know you want to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." Tell them that some people don't know that this is America and that we believe in freedom of speech and the importance of ALL voices being heard. (The members of MoveOn.org—an ACTUAL grassroots organization—have done a very cool thing. They are pledging to send a message to theater owners and are planning to attend a showing of the film on its opening weekend.)
I appreciate their efforts, but you don’t have to be a member of MoveOn to help stop this effort to keep “Fahrenheit 9/11” from making it to screens across the country. If a theater in your area is planning to show the film, just give them a call and thank them for standing up for the freedom of speech. If your local theater isn't showing the film, call them and let them know that you would like to see it and you'd like them to show it.
The White House and their minions in our media have presented one distorted version of the truth after another for the past four years. All we are asking for is the right to show what they HAVEN'T shown us, the real truth. The truth that ain't pretty (and is, sadly, damningly hilarious).
On top of all this, the MPAA gave the film an "R" rating. I want all teenagers to see this film. There is nothing in the film in terms of violence that we didn't see on TV every night at the dinner hour during the Vietnam War. Of course, that's the point, isn't it? The media have given the real footage from Iraq a "cleansing" -- made it look nice, easy to digest. Mario Cuomo has offered to be our lawyer in appealing this ruling by the MPAA. Frankly, I would like to think the MPAA is saying that the actions by the Bush administration are so abhorrent and revolting, we need to protect our children from seeing what they have done. In that case, the film should be rated NC-17!
However it turns out, I trust all of you teenagers out there will find your way into a theater to see this movie. If the government believes it is OK to send slightly older teenagers to their deaths in Iraq, I think at the very least you should be allowed to see what they are going to draft you for in a couple of years.
Finally, some very sophisticated individuals have been hacking into and shutting down our website. It is an hourly fight to keep it up. We are going to find out who is doing this and we are going to pursue a criminal prosecution. I'm preparing lots of cool stuff for the site so watch for new items on it next week (www.fahrenheit911.com and www.michaelmoore.com).
Thanks again for your support and I hope to see you at the movies on opening night, June 25.
Yours,
Michael Moore
PS. I am sponsoring a number of benefits around the country next week for local and national peace and justice groups, including Military Families Speak Out and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Please check your local papers and my website next week for further details.
PPS. Also, I am going to be on the “Late Show with David Letterman” on Friday night. It's on CBS at 11:35 PM Eastern and Pacific. And on Monday morning (June 21) I will be on “The Today Show” on NBC. Next week, Jon Stewart and Conan. I'd go on O'Reilly but, like a coward, he walked out on a screening we invited him to (with Al Franken just a few rows away!). I personally caught him sneaking out. Embarrassed, he tried to change the subject. He said, "When are you coming on my show?" and I said, "Turn around and watch the rest of the movie and I will come on your show." He walked out. Fair and balanced. |
|
Conservatives Have Feelings Too About Fahrenheit 9/11 |
by repost from SF IMC
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jun 2004
|
LOS ANGELES - While the White House and the Republican National Committee have taken an official "no comment" approach to Michael Moore and his new anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," some conservatives have mobilized a letter-writing campaign and crafted ads that slam the film and its maker. On the other hand, the film critic of the Christian Science Monitor likes the new trend toward documentaries, away from sugary fairy tales:
By ANTHONY BREZNICAN, AP Entertainment Writer
"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, attacks President Bush's rationale for the war in Iraq and accuses him and his administration of manipulating the Sept. 11 terror attacks and fostering fear for political gain.
The film will be shown at two New York City theaters starting Wednesday before opening June 25 on at least 500 screens nationwide. It's scheduled to expand to hundreds more in the coming weeks.
One of the organizations rallying against Moore is Move America Forward, a pro-Bush group that evolved months ago from the letter-writing campaign that led CBS to drop its controversial TV movie "The Reagans."
The group has received several thousand e-mails of support for its Moore campaign, said executive director Siobhan Guiney, a former Republican lobbyist. But she did not know how many were sent to the various theater chains.
"Since we are the customers of the American movie theatres, it is important for us to speak up loudly and tell the industry executives that we don't want this misleading and grotesque movie being shown at our local cinema," the group says on its Web site, above a listing of phone numbers and e-mails for various cinema companies.
Said Guiney: "(Moore) is critical of what's happening right now, and there's no problem with being critical — but his movie is not a documentary, it's a piece of propaganda."
So far, however, Move America Forward's letters about "Fahrenheit 9/11" haven't changed anything.
"There has been some communication, but not an overwhelming amount. And we do intend to play the film," said Dick Westerling, spokesman for the theater chain Regal Entertainment Group, which has 6,020 screens in the United States.
Move America Forward is funded through private donations, not the Bush campaign or the Republican National Committee, Guiney said.
Who is behind the group?
Howard Kaloogian is the chairman, a former California Assemblyman who helped organize the Gray Davis recall campaign and made a failed bid for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination.
And who is behind Moore?
One of the filmmaker's press strategists is brass-knuckles political operative Chris Lehane, a former press secretary to Vice President Al Gore and frequent Democratic aide who worked on the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Wesley Clark. Lehane earned a reputation in 2000 for gathering information on political enemies and bringing it to reporters.
Neither Lehane nor Moore would comment for this story.
Another independent conservative group, Citizens United, is crafting video ads for television and the Internet that slam Moore.
The group's head, David Bossie, is a former Republican congressional aide who was one of President Clinton's harshest critics. He was fired in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich for withholding the public release of testimony transcripts favorable to the Clintons in a campaign fund-raising probe.
Bossie said the ads would target Moore and George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who donated nearly $13 million to various groups seeking to defeat Bush.
"Look, this guy (Moore) is simply producing and advertising this movie at this time to try to affect the election," Bossie said. "And so clearly organizations like mine ... it seems to be left to us to make sure that the media is educated, as well as the American people are educated, as to just what they're up to."
The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org is trying to counter the conservative campaign with mass mailings asking members to "pledge to bring their friends, relatives and neighbors" to "Fahrenheit 9/11" on opening night.
Supporters also are sending letters to theaters on Move America Forward's list, urging them not to give in to pressure to block the film.
"My guess is that their efforts will backfire and only rally support for the film, which will be terrific as far as I'm concerned," said Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films, which is distributing the movie. "We need less censorship in this country, not more."
___
On the Net:
http://www.citizensunited.org/
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/
http://www.moveon.org
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
&&&
MICHAEL MOORE: In May, the director's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' won the Palme d'Or at France's Cannes Film Festival. The film, to be released June 25 in the US, is part of a wave of controversial documentaries.
JOHN SCHULTS/ REUTERS
&&&
Christian Science Monitor:
A perfect storm of issue films
'Fahrenheit 9/11' is at the forefront of a slew of political documentaries.
By David Sterritt | Film critic of The Christian Science Monitor
Here's a free sample of dialogue from "Fahrenheit 9/11," the new Michael Moore documentary: "Governor Bush, it's Michael Moore," says the filmmaker. "Behave yourself, will you?" answers George W. Bush, the Texas governor soon to become the American president. "Go find real work!"
That exchange - though it took place long before Sept. 11 - shows how Mr. Moore could raise hackles even then by simply approaching one of the men of power he's made it his business to question.
Moore has been doing "real work" for years, first attracting attention worldwide in 1989 with "Roger & Me," a crusading documentary about big business and joblessness. It sparked plenty of controversy, but not as instantly as "Fahrenheit 9/11," a polemical film against Bush's domestic and foreign policy since the terrorist attacks.
The film, which won the highest prize at this year's Cannes Film Festival - and was promptly disavowed by Walt Disney Pictures, which forbade its Miramax subsidiary to release the picture - opens next Friday, thanks to Lions Gate Films.
For months "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been a subject of heated discussions in op-eds and talkshows, but it isn't the only documentary (a term that applies here in its broadest sense) to tap into today's political anxieties. Several other "impressionistic" documentaries, all with a dissident touch, are in theaters or on their way. They include "Control Room," about the Al Jazeera TV network; "The Corporation," a look at corporate policies and everyday American life; and "The Hunting of the President," which asks whether there was a vast conspiracy - or a series of little ones - to destroy the Clinton administration.
Nonfiction films have been growing in popularity of late, but this season's batch is joining a chorus of already raised voices. Some observers see a renewed interest in political ferment in today's media, extending from bestselling books on the Bush administration by journalist Bob Woodward, to the strongest flood of protest songs in 30 years, to the rise of talk radio on both the left and the right.
"Popular culture is embracing politics in a way it hasn't since the 1960s," says Joel Bakan, cowriter of "The Corporation" and author of the Free Press book on which that movie is based.
More of what one newspaper labels "docs populi" are imminent. (As with most films labeled "documentaries," filmmaker objectivity isn't necessarily implied.)
"The Yes Men" depicts pranks by an anticorporate group. "Metallica: Some Kind of Monster" touches on the rock band's lawsuit against Napster musicsharing. "Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train" profiles a renowned historian and peace activist. "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War," opening in theaters in August, has already sold a reported 100,000 video copies on the Web.
Some of these movies are debuting at the annual Human Rights Watch Film Festival, celebrating its 15th anniversary of political programming this month at the Lincoln Center here. And expect even more activist fare in cinemas if any of these films approaches the unprecedented $21.5 million take of Moore's 2002 movie, "Bowling for Columbine," or the $6.2 million gross of current release "Super Size Me," in which a filmmaker eats nothing but McDonald's products for a month to see if his McDiet will make him fatter. (It does.)
Perhaps it's not surprising that there's a hunger for movies with a strong point of view, given the huge sales of books by Ann Coulter, Al Franken, and other politically passionate pundits. Michael Moore's most recent book, "Stupid White Men," has been a bestseller for more than two years.
Some say the current spate of political culture stems from nothing more complicated than the fact that a highly polarized United States is heading toward another hotly contested election. If so, or if other considerations intervene, it may not last.
"Corporation" codirector Mark Achbar says it's a temporary blip rather than a long-term trend.
Then again, multiple factors may underlie the surge in political pop culture. "The ownership of mass media by giant conglomerates makes independent film one of the few places where criticism of corporate chicanery can reach a large audience," says Kevin Lally, editor of Film Journal International. "And remember Michael Moore has been doing this sort of thing for 15 years, surely influencing younger filmmakers - particularly with 'Bowling for Columbine,' one of the most successful documentaries ever made."
It's not just documentary filmmakers willing to take jabs at the administration. John Sayles, a director who has made movies such as "Lone Star" and "The Secret of Roan Inish," recently finished filming "Silver City," a movie that reportedly criticizes the Bush administration.
Why are so many filmmakers so eager to take on the establishment these days? One reason is George W. Bush himself, Mr. Lally says. "The aggressively pro-big-business stance of the current administration has spurred a lot of righteous anger," he asserts, "especially in the creative community."
Moore also points a finger at President Bush, as in a widely reported Cannes press conference after the "Fahrenheit 9/11" première. "I wanted to say something [in this film] about post-9/11 in America," he said, "We have a president asleep at the wheel."
Mr. Bakan is another who feels Bush policies have propelled dissident documentaries for the past few years. "He has done a service for political authors and nonfiction filmmakers," says the "Corporation" cowriter.
"I remember that [a Marxist theoretician] used to talk about heightening the contradictions of capitalism," he says. "I think [Bush] has done a good job of that, and has created a market of critical people. They have a thirst for political stuff."
Bakan started writing "The Corporation" in the mid '90s, when he decided that "globalization, deregulation, privatization, [and] relaxation of merger and acquisition laws" were leading to "our democratic institutions being subsumed to the corporate agenda."
The movie is catching on, he says, because people increasingly sense that the the world is facing real problems. Yet when they watch the news and read the paper, they don't have a sense of why it's happening the way it is happening. Documentaries try to make sense of the big picture, he says, and viewers welcome the engagement such films provide even if they don't always agree with a film's conclusions.
Does this mean a mere movie can actually affect the way Americans think? Documentarymakers certainly think so.
"It definitely can," Moore told me in one of the interviews I've done with him over the years, asserting that "Roger & Me" had "tremendous impact on ... the way people thought about corporations." People are "much smarter ... than you'd think," says the "Fahrenheit 9/11" director.
Mr. Achbar, whose political documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" won numerous prizes in 1992, agrees.
"Dissident documentary-film culture ... is kind of like jello," he says. "The more you try to suppress it and push it down ... the more it's gonna ooze out between your fingers. "There's no stopping it." he adds. "There's so little of this kind of analysis in the mainstream that when it does become available, people pounce on it!" |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by smann
smann (nospam) stu.parkland.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 Jun 2004
|
From the Tallahassee Democrat:
Political groups heated over 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
By Anthony Breznican
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOS ANGELES - While the White House and the Republican National Committee have taken an official "no comment" approach to Michael Moore and his new anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," some conservatives have mobilized a letter-writing campaign and crafted ads that slam the film and its maker.
"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, attacks President Bush's rationale for the war in Iraq and accuses him and his administration of manipulating the Sept. 11 terror attacks and fostering fear for political gain.
It is set for release June 25, debuting on at least 500 screens, and is planned to expand to hundreds more.
One of the organizations rallying against Moore is Move America Forward, a pro-Bush group that evolved months ago from the letter-writing campaign that led CBS to drop its controversial TV movie "The Reagans."
The group has received several thousand e-mails of support for its Moore campaign, said executive director Siobhan Guiney, a former Republican lobbyist.
"Since we are the customers of the American movie theatres, it is important for us to speak up loudly and tell the industry executives that we don't want this misleading and grotesque movie being shown at our local cinema," the group says on its Web site, above phone numbers and e-mails for various cinema companies.
Said Guiney: "(Moore) is critical of what's happening right now, and there's no problem with being critical - but his movie is not a documentary, it's a piece of propaganda."
So far, however, Move America Forward's letters about "Fahrenheit 9/11" haven't changed anything.
"There has been some communication but not an overwhelming amount. And we do intend to play the film," said Dick Westerling, spokesman for the theater chain Regal Entertainment Group.
Behind the controversy
Move America Forward is funded through private donations, not the Bush campaign or the Republican National Committee, Guiney said.
Who is behind the group?
Howard Kaloogian is the chairman, a former California Assemblyman who helped organize the Gray Davis recall campaign and made a failed bid for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination.
Who is behind Moore?
One of the filmmaker's press strategists is political operative Chris Lehane, a former press secretary to Vice President Al Gore and frequent Democratic aide who worked on the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Wesley Clark.
Neither Lehane nor Moore would comment for this story.
Another independent conservative group, Citizens United, is making video ads for television and the Internet to slam Moore.
The group's head, David Bossie, is a former Republican congressional aide who was one of President Clinton's harshest critics. He was fired in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich for withholding the release of testimony favorable to the Clintons.
Bossie said the ads would target Moore and George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who donated nearly $13 million to various groups seeking to defeat Bush.
"Look, this guy (Moore) is simply producing and advertising this movie at this time to try to affect the election," Bossie said.
However, the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org is trying to counter the conservative campaign with mass mailings asking members to "pledge to bring their friends, relatives and neighbors" to "Fahrenheit 9/11" on opening night.
"My guess is that their efforts will backfire and only rally support for the film, which will be terrific as far as I'm concerned," said Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films, the film's distributor. "We need less censorship in this country, not more." |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Jun 2004
|
In some ways one has to admire Michael Moore. He is the quintesential capitalist espousing leftist thought and has all you guys paying the price of a ticket to see it.
As for obstacles, he never lets the truth get in the way of entertainment. He even has the stones to call it a documentary.
Although I disagree with him throughly, I do have to hand it to him for taking all of the left's limited funds that they receive from someone else's efforts and he keeps the profits.
Michael, how many old ladies will eat cat food, or not get their proper prescription drug so they can pay 8.00 to 10.00 bucks to see your fiction labeled as truth?
If you really cared about your message, perhaps you should just ask for donations?
Jack |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by Ed
frozenthought (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jun 2004
|
Moore Film Title Angers Author Bradbury
Jun 19, 5:52 AM (ET)
By PAUL CHAVEZ
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.
"He didn't ask my permission," Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. "That's not his novel, that's not his title, so he shouldn't have done it."
The 1953 novel, widely considered Bradbury's masterpiece, portrays an ugly futuristic society in which firemen burn homes and libraries in order to destroy the books inside and keep people from thinking independently.
"Fahrenheit 451" takes its title from the temperature at which books burn. Moore has called "Fahrenheit 9/11" the "temperature at which freedom burns."
His film, which won top honors in May at the Cannes Film Festival, charges that the Bush administration acted ineptly before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, then played on the public's fear of future terrorism to gain support for the war against Iraq. It opens nationwide next Friday.
Bradbury, who hadn't seen the movie, said he called Moore's company six months ago to protest and was promised Moore would call back.
He finally got that call last Saturday, Bradbury said, adding Moore told him he was "embarrassed."
"He suddenly realized he's let too much time go by," the author said by phone from his home in Los Angeles' Cheviot Hills section.
Joanne Doroshow, a spokeswoman for "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the film's makers have "the utmost respect for Ray Bradbury."
"Mr. Bradbury's work has been an inspiration to all of us involved in this film, but when you watch this film you will see the fact that the title reflects the facts that the movie explores, the very real life events before, around and after 9-11," she said.
Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."
Moore's film needed new distributors after Disney refused to let its Miramax subsidiary release it, claiming it was too politically charged. The documentary was later bought by Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who lined up Lions Gate and IFC Films to help distribute it.
The movie's distributors are appealing to lower its R rating to PG-13 and a screening has been set for Tuesday by the Motion Picture Association of America's appeals board.
Bradbury's book was made into a 1966 movie directed by Francois Truffaut. A new edition of the book is scheduled for release in eight weeks, Bradbury said, and plans are in the works for a new film version, to be directed by Frank Darabont |
|
Fahrenhet 9/11 - Inform the people of CU |
by Matt Evans
tr4nqued (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jun 2004
|
 f911.doc (21 k) |
I think more theaters in Champaign should show "Fahrenheit 9/11," and if they did, something should be done to get more people to see it (one suggestion being for a group to canvas moviegoers, suggesting they see it). However, as the movie is only showing at one small place for one week, it is still important that more people see the film. As a reminder, tickets must be purchased in advance at www.boardmansarttheatre.com, and at that website you can see exactly how many seats have been sold. They should all be sold.
To this end, I have liberally distributed a flyer about the film on all the bulletin boards in a couple of buildings on campus and on the benches and in the male bathroom at Beverly Cinema (I also went to Savoy 16, but I got scared and ran away...). I called WEFT and asked them to announce where the film is showing, and they did it (They're cool) (I also called 107.1 The Planet and asked them to, but I don't think they ever did (They're not cool)). Monday night, I plan to distribute my flyer in Borders, Pages for All Ages, and Barnes & Noble on the tables scatterd around the stores. I will also rehit the cinemas.
If you know of a place a flyer needs to be posted, I have attached the one I made so you can download it, change it if you like, and put it up where you see fit (ATMs would be good). If you have concerns about the legality of the flyers, please let me know. |
|
Jack Ryan will lose |
by illinois voter
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jun 2004
|
Is that you Jack Ryan running for Senate? There are so many famous people writing in to this Indymedia site! Jack, you will lose in November!
Your comment about a typical capitalist espousing leftist views was ridiculous considering your resentment for all of the Social reforms that Michael Moore has been devoted to for his entire public life. Moore is less of a capitalist than yourself, why, because he has commited himself to promoting social programs that help the poor and disenfranchised. He is commited to promoting popular participation in power...democracy. These are the ideas that capitalists like yourself hate.
Maybe you should blame poverty among the elderly and the young in America on the dismantling of the New Deal. Maybe you should blame our poverty on a minimum wage that is too low, on welfare deform, on the lack of access to affordable health care (44 million w/ no health insurance) etc. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by Matt Evans
tr4nqued (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jun 2004
|
|
I agree voter, that's why more people should see the film. Efforts should be made throughout the land to rally the people to the film to educate them, anger them, and make them seek change. Rally the people to the lecture! |
|
No, Illinois Uninformed Voter, I am not the Senator Elect from Illinois |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Jun 2004
|
Dear Illinois Voter,
My point was, that Mr. Moore is a capitalist who has managed to strike a nerve of every leftist out there. He complains about the "right wing" yet takes advantage of everything it has to offer. This is brilliant. Is he giving away tickets to this event to the poor and the needy? How about the guys who push a shopping cart around town? Are the profits going to the very items that you mentioned. I bet he could pay for alot of Health Care for the poor with the profits from this movie. Think about it brother, he does not seem to be lacking for food or anything.
He has found a niche in the market. The angry leftist whose ideas have'nt won the day since the Johnson administration. In the words, of Bill Clinton who ended welfare as we knew it, I feel your pain. I only wish I could come up with a scam that I could charge 8.00 bucks to every angry uniformed leftist. Hell, in Champaign, Urbana one could make a fortune.
The essential element to Moore's success is that he does not seem to have answer to facts in anyway. Again I say brilliant to the "large one".
BTW, the minimum wage is nothing more than a tax on small business and hurts the very people it intends to help. How much of an hourly wage would keep you happy?
Have a great time at the movie, and try not to consider the facts and I am sure you will have an enjoyable day.
Jack |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jun 2004
|
I've bought a couple tickets -- for me and my son -- for this weekend. The Friday showings are already pretty tight; the Saturday showings a little less so. The decision whether other CU theaters will show it or not after Boardman's Art will depend on one thing primarily -- is it making money nationwide? As it stands, it's already getting a larger initial release than any documentary in history. If it makes money, it won't fade from the screens.
@%< |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jun 2004
|
Gehrig wrote: "If it makes money, it won't fade from the screens." We call this market supply and demand. It is capitalism at it's finest and I believe makes my point exactly.
Jack |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jun 2004
|
|
Kind of like Air America, right? |
|
Re: "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Jun 2004
|
go see it bring a camcorder tape it, give away copies every one you know
movies should be free! |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by tr4nqued
tr4nqued (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
23 Jun 2004
|
Good idea. The fact that the powers are working so hard to limit and discredit this film makes me think they think the film could be detrimental to their interests and that they are afraid of it. It should therefore be as widely distributed and easily accessed as possible.
This is a chance to get a message, distorted though it may be, into the mainstream, into the center of the public square, instead of keeping it hidden in the corners of the internet on radical websites and dusty old books and lectures that most poeple (with most of the votes (this is key)) find too tedious and effortful to even find, much less read (but still, reading and resources lists could be distributed at the film if the movie makes them want to know more). Keeping the message locked up in a select group of people is self-defeating.
The fact that this film will not be a local lecture, but a national one, further empowers it to educate, but also necessitates that the masses in all those places be hearded to the theaters (or that individuals record the film and distribute it, or both). |
|
'Fahrenheit' Sets Single Day Sales Record in NYC |
by Reuters
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jun 2004
|
 |
Film Opens in 868 Theaters Nationwide Friday, Breaks "Men in Black" Single-Day Sales Record, Right-Wing Efforts to Discourage Viewers Are Complete Failure
NEW YORK - Director Michael Moore’s controversial documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” turned on the box office heat in its first day in theaters breaking single-day records at the two New York City theaters where it played.
The movie, which aims a critical eye at President Bush and his prosecution of the war in Iraq, sold $49,000 worth of tickets at the Loew’s Village 7 theater, beating the venue’s single-day record of $43,435 held by 1997’s "Men in Black,” according to distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.
At the Lincoln Plaza theater, “Fahrenheit 9/11” took in more than $30,000 to top the $24,013 set by “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” in 2000.
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 — publicity ahead of the wide debut Friday when it plays in 868 theaters in all 50 states.
The film has caused a storm of controversy because director Moore, whose past work includes Oscar-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine,” makes a case that the Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq following the Sept. 11 attacks.
The movie links Bush family members and business associates with wealthy Saudi Arabian families, including that of Osama bin Laden, and Moore clearly wants to see the president fail to win reelection in this fall’s presidential campaign.
Groups have organized support for and against the movie, and audiences appear to be keen to see it.
Online ticket service Fandango.com Wednesday reported that “Fahrenheit 9/11” was making up 48 percent of advance ticket sales for the weekend ahead, compared to 11 percent for current box office champ “Dodgeball” and 9 percent for ”Spider-Man 2,” which opens June 30.
© Copyright 2004 Reuters Ltd |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by tr4nqued
tr4nqued (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jun 2004
|
The film is doing quite nicely, but we should still do what we can to make sure this movie is as widely viewed as possible. Again I post my list of possible actions that could be taken. I have been posting this around the internet and sending it to organizations and prominent individuals, hoping to get something started on this. Please let the group know what you plan to do to help.
1. Encourage theaters to show the film.
2. Tell friends, family, coworkers, employees, employers, customers and everyone else about the film and where it's playing.
3. Make homemade flyers advertising the film and place them where people will see them in college classrooms, bookstores, libraries, public restrooms, cinemas, beside ATMs, at churches, and wherever else you think they would be most effective and seen by the greatest number of people. Handing them out to individuals can waste resources, but just placing individual flyers or small stacks of them in prominent places does better.
4. Call public radio stations and cool commercial radio stations and ask them to announce where the film is playing.
5. Contact prominent individuals and organizations (e.g., Bill Clinton, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Zinn, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Amy Goodman, commondreams.org, moveon.org), and ask them to advocate the film once it comes out.
6. Hang out at cinemas where the film is playing and induce people to see the film. This could take the form of making a t-shirt that advertises the film and wearing it around the ticket booth of the cinema, walking up to people outside the theater and telling them about the film and suggesting they see it, or hanging out with a group of people with picket signs advertising the film. There are many other things along these lines that could be done too, and the more the merrier.
7. After showings of the film, distribute a small list of books and resources that people might find useful in answering the questions the film raised for them.
8. Distribute this list (with your amendments and additions) in email groups and on message boards. The more people who do these suggested actions, the more people will see the film, and the more powerful it will be as an influence on the election. |
|
350 Pound angry white man... the weight at which the truth breaks... |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jun 2004
|
Call it a movie, call it a critique of bush, call it whatever you want...
Just don't call it a documentary.
Michael more does a good job at telling a story, but I would think it would be a stretch to say he actually can examine the facts in a non-biased, or even a biased but fair basis.
Moore bashes bush for sitting for seven minutes after being told of the attacks, but offers no account on what bush should have done.
Moore calls the terrorist threat overblown, and makes fun of false alarms, yet like too many Americans seems to forget about the 3,000 Americans (including friends and co-workers of my family members) who were killed on the day he brushes off as "the temperate at which freedom burns"
Moore shows dead (and mostly white) US soldiers, and then runs around Flint MI claiming black men are Bush's next victims.
Moore then claims that because money from Bush can be traced to the Bin Laden family (Osama isn't exactly the favorite child...), that somehow Bush was in on 9/11....
Forget about Sadaam too... according to Mr. Moore, everything was just super in Iraq until we came bullying through...
forget about the 1,000's of bodies found in warehouses in Iraq after Sadaam was kicked out. Forget about the tens of thousands killed by Sadaam’s wars for oil. Forget about his own people, killed by the thousands for daring to speak against him...
...according to mike... Iraq was a great place...
Throw in of course a few dozen Nazi comments, and that is pretty much the total of Michael Moore’s rhetoric.
The sad thing is... Michael Moore’s tactics are more reminiscent of Nazi tactics.
Moore uses race and class conflict to try and steer us against ourselves. Instead of using facts... Moore once again resorts to childish tactics and name calling.
I think anyone who has watched TV in the last year knows where the evil is in the world...
Was Iraq the wrong target? Perhaps. I personally feel the jury is still out on that... There is no question though, of the brutality of the Hussein regime. There is no question of the hate and fanaticism that motivates the militants who wish to kill any hope for democracy in Iraq.
Moore has no use for this... because it might shed some light on bush... instead of disputing the other side... he completely ignores it in hopes that he will reach enough gullible voters who will easily be swayed by flashy cartoons and 3rd grade humor.
the cry's of Kim Sun-il begging for his life haunts me... it shows an enemy with no remorse. No regard for human life. People who don't care about the person who's head they sawed off.
At least Nick Berg didn't have panties shoved in his face... because us American’s would do something cruel like that...
at least that is what Michael Moore would have us believe |
|
A Review When You Haven't Even Seen It? |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jun 2004
|
"I think anyone who has watched TV in the last year knows where the evil is in the world..."
Yeah, krushed, there has been way too much of Bush and his cronies trying to explain away their lies in the last year in the media. Why don't you complain to them?
As for your movie review and complaints about Moore's use of the facts... you sure seem to know a lot about a film that hasn't even opened locally yet. My guess is you're making up most of your critique by pulling it out of the crack of your ass. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by tr4nqued
tr4nqued (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jun 2004
|
How about if I call it something Bush, the neocons, and the corporations are very afraid of and are responding to like cornered kittens?
Moore makes a film to dispel some of the fog of Bush's propaganda machine, and the powers respond by calling his film propaganda. I wonder if anti-propaganda efforts have to be propaganda themselves. Anyway, it probably helps.
These powers do not want people to see the movie and make up their own minds because the powers know what side the people are likely to come down on. So they try to discredit 1% of the film so that people will not go see the rest of the film. I hope their efforts to keep the movie under wraps fail miserably, and I'm going to do what I can to help them fail. Moore has done his part, now we should do ours. It is a great opportunity to get a message to a great number of people. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Jun 2004
|
What if Rush Limbaugh made a 2 hour feature film on how the mideast problems stem from Bill Clinton getting the presidential jewels spit-polished by Monica Lewinsky at the same time Yasser Arafat was in the rose garden, and how John F’ing Kerry has corporate America in his back pocket because of his family ties to a 500 million dollar ketchup fortune. Maybe it would go a step further and show the hundreds of migrant workers that have to pick tomatoes for John’s father-in-law in unbearable heat and for almost no pay.
Furthermore… the film would look at the thousands of Americans who have serious health problems because of the fast food giants that serve unhealthy food, including millions of J F’ing K’s ketchup packets… all part of a plot to dupe the American people into paying billions of dollars for federal healthcare…
Of course this is a stupid argument… but its the same logic that Michael Moore has applied to both Fahrenheit 9-11, and Bowling for Columbine.
--------------------------
here is the entirety of the review that I based most of my remarks on... the person who posted this seems to be fairly liberal... but like me, doesn't agree with the way that Moore tries to convey his message...
Watching Michael Moore
: As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East Village of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already sold out all night, surely even here they wouldn't fall for all his obvious, visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the cheapest tin-horn demagog.
Take this scene: Moore shows dead American soldiers in Iraq, many of them, the more blood the better. Then hed says we need to replace them and he asks where they'll come from. He takes us to his favorite man-of-the-people populist playground, Flint, MI, and says that we'll find soldiers "in the places that had been destroyed by the economy." He focuses on poor black men as Bush's next victims -- not even acknowledging that virtually every soldier he has just shown -- and ridiculed -- in the film is white. It's all so convenient: anti-war-pro-poor-multi-culti-heartland. The rhetoric is as obvious as the gut on the guy.
But as I leave, I hear an older woman behind me, with a voice as loud at New York traffic, saying to someone who's passing her on the escalator, obviously a stranger: "Don't you sign up, now! Don't you join!" I turn around. She's saying this to a black man, just because he's black: After all, Michael Moore said those people are all conservative cannon fodder, didn't he? The man and the woman with him are polite enough to wait until they're out the door before they laugh and then sadly shake their heads.
Hoo boy.
: One of the many things I've learned from blogging confrere Jay Rosen is that you have to stand back and investigate the assumptions that underly a media enterprise.
Moore's assumption is venality. He assumes that President Bush and his confreres are venal, that their motives are black, that they are out to do no good, only bad, and that the only choices they make in life are between greed and power.
That's inevitably a bad analysis. It's the exact same analysis Bill Clinton's enemies made of him. If they were wrong about Clinton, well then, Michael Moore is wrong about Bush. Life is never that simple, never that obvious, unless you're a propagandist or one who believes propaganda. I especially can't buy that analysis when we are a under attack as a nation, when we need to decide who the "us" and "them" are. The war on us as well as the dialogue among my confreres here online has made me question that assumption of venality in American politics.
Oh, you can argue Bush is incompetent; sometimes I do wonder. You can disagree with his policies; I disagree with many. You can question his intelligence; jury's out still. I didn't vote for Bush the last time and don't plan to this time. But I don't buy Moore's Bush. To say that he's the dark force of the universe only leads to simple-minded over-generalizations and bilious caricatures.
Like Fahrenheit 9/11.
: The real problem with the film, the really offensive thing about it, is that in Fahrenheit 9/11, we -- Americans from the President on down -- are portrayed at the bad guys. If there's something wrong about bin Laden it's that his estranged family has ties with -- cue the uh-oh music -- the Bush family. Saddam? Nothing wrong with him. No mention of torture and terror and tyranny. Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it's a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, "Why did yo have to take him?" Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, "insurgents") in Iraq or killed him -- or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier's father says the young man died and "for what?", Moore doesn't show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.
He doesn't try, not for one second, to have a discussion, to show the other side -- and then cut that other side down to size with facts and figures and the slightest effort at argument. No, he just shows the one side. And that, really, is a tragedy. It would be good if we had a discussion. It would be good to have a movie that made us think and reconsider and talk.
But polemics don't do that. They're only made of two-by-fours.
: The cheap tricks keep on coming, mostly in what is not said. At the start of the movie, Moore fuzzes the video of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, et al to make it look as if it were recovered World War II film from Hitler's Berchtesgaden: the bad guys in happier days. The trick is unintentionally appropriate: He's trying to say that these guys are Nazis but he's also using the Nazi propaganda motif to say it.
He asks the same questions, streteches out the same memes, we've seen on the Web regarding Bush and 9/11: Why did he sit there in that school another almost seven minutes after hearing that the second tower had been hit? The implication was that he could have done something. But how often do we hear anyone ask -- certainly Moore does not -- what he would have done? What if he had popped up in a panic and ran off? How would that have looked on TV to a nation and a world in such a moment of disorder? Is there some order he could have given in those minutes that the vast federal power structure could not -- and, in fact, was not better equipped to handle than Bush? And if you think Bush is such a frigging idiot, isn't it better that he sat there? The question keeps getting asked. The ellipsis carries the message. But that's no answer.
He goes after Bush ties to the Saudis again and again but never enumerates the Saudi sins. They're there. It wouldn't be hard. It would be helpful. Why not? Just laziness? Or is it easier to end with another ellipsis? Conspiracies are spiced with silence.
We know that Moore opposed even the war in Afghanistan but here he doesn't say that. Here he says we didn't bring enough force to Afghanistan and thereby gave bin Laden "a two-month headstart." Moore doesn't say that Bush, with his family ties to bin Laden's family, wanted that to happen. But the ellipsis whispers it.
He ridicules the terror threats and alerts, showing goofy stories about poison pens and model airplanes and goofier guys from the canned-bean crowd showing off their terror shelters. He gets a congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott, to downright say that the alerts are all engineered to keep us on edge. The implication is -- the sllipsis says -- that we're not in danger. I watch this scant blocks from where almost 3,000 Americans were killed that day. Oh, yes, Moore, we are in danger.
But Moore wants to pooh-pooh the danger and make it into a conspiracy: "Was this really about our safety or..." [pregnant ellipsis] "...something else?" He adds (and I can't read one word of my scribbled transcription): "The terrorism threat wasn't waht this was all about. They just wanted us to be fearful enough to get behind their plan."
Of course, it was all about Iraq.... Wasn't it?...
: If you don't believe that, well, says Moore, you're an idiot. You're Britney Spears, shown in all her ditziness saying, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our President." There's your spokesman for the other side: Britney.
Or you're a bloodthirsty American goon, which is how Moore portrays soldiers who rush into battle hopped up on rock 'n' roll. He spares us the obvious napalm, morning, smell thing.
In Moore's view, you're either with him or against him. Hmmm, who else looks at the world that way?
Yup, Moore is just he mirror image of what he despises. He is the O'Reilly... the Bush of the left.
: After leaving the theater and walking by the black man now shaking his head at what Moore had wrought and the people with bring-down-Bush clipboards, I made my way back to New Jersey through the PATH train at the World Trade Center where, most of you know, I was on 9/11. And now I was shaking my head. Michael Moore did not present bin Laden and the terrorists and religious fanatics (from other lands) as the enemy who did this. No, to him, our enemy is within. To him, our enemy is us. And that's worse than stupid and sad and it's most certainly not entertaining. It's disgusting.
: Later, I read Christopher Hitchens' wonderful fisking of the film.
And then I read A.O. Scott's mealy-mouthed review in The Times. He points out that the movie is full of crap in many ways: "...blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery..." Hey, blurb that!
[Fahrenheit 9/11] is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy.
But then Scott lets Moore off the hook -- and himself off the hook with that audience that applauded the flick in the East Village, which is Times Country, too -- with this: "He is a credit to the republic."
I guess he'd say the same thing of Rush Limbaugh, then.
Scott keeps going. On the one hand:
After you leave the theater, some questions are likely to linger about Mr. Moore's views on the war in Afghanistan, about whether he thinks the homeland security program has been too intrusive or not intrusive enough, and about how he thinks the government should have responded to the murderous jihadists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
Right. But on the other hand:
At the same time, though, it may be that the confusions trailing Mr. Moore's narrative are what make "Fahrenheit 9/11" an authentic and indispensable document of its time. The film can be seen as an effort to wrest clarity from shock, anger and dismay, and if parts of it seem rash, overstated or muddled, well, so has the national mood.
Crap. It is not creditworthy only to attack and call that discussion and democracy; to insult our intelligence with half, quarter, and untruths; to stifle debate with polemic rather than provoke debate with facts; to mock the people he exploits on film; to gloss over his own outrageous opinions for the sake of convenience; to turn his guns on his own people, letting those who attacked us off as free as birds.
No, this is no more good democracy than it is good filmmaking.
: EPILOGUE: The movie was Topic A in Howard Stern's opening this morning and the discussion there demonstrates exactly what is wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11: Moore provided no facts for an honest discussion. He provided only fuel for the fire, bullets for bombast.
Granted, this ain't exactly the Algonquin Round Table; it doesn't pretend to be. Stern switched sides so completely that he tries not to acknowledge his former support for the war and for Bush as command-in-chief against the terrorists. Stern wasn't fooled about WMD as he tries to argue now; he was -- like me -- a Tom Friedman war supporter who believed that we had to do this somewhere, we had to bring democracy to somewhere in the Middle East and Iraq was a good place to do it because Saddam was a tyrant and his continued rule was, in good measure, our fault. It's possible to be against Bush in this election and still be for the war and at the same time think that we've messed up the aftermath; it's still possible to support Bush as the sitting president while wanting to unseat him. As Bill Clinton said on Today today when asked whether the release of his book would distract voters: "The American people can walk and chew gum at the same time." Nonetheless, I grant that Stern is hardly trying for a nuanced argument. And the only person to argue against him is his TV director, a graduate of Glassboro State, which ain't exactly Yale.
Still, the argument that raged for 20 loud minutes on Stern this morning will be replayed by water coolers all across America. And you could say that is good for Democracy. You could say that if the people arguing were armed by the film that causes the arguments with facts and intelligent views of the issues. But, instead, they're armed only with one side, half-facts, and bile. That doesn't make for good dialogue or democracy.
: BY THE WAY: The commercials for the film are still saying it's not rated. It has been rated R because of the copious gore and the appeal of that rating lost, even with Mario Cuomo arguing the case. So the commercial isn't quite, well, telling the truth. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by tr4nqued
tr4nqued (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Jun 2004
|
|
Well, if Rush thinks he can get a movie made by November, he's welcome to it. I'm afraid he may be too late though. So is Rove. Oops, someone fell asleep at the wheel. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Jun 2004
|
what i find kinda funny is the lawsuit that was brought against moore and his benefactors for using corporate and foreign money to fund a film that is obviously a political ad.
while i doubt the suit would have much success... moore does seem to be in violation of the campaign finance laws. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by tr4nqued
tr4nqued (nospam) aol.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
26 Jun 2004
|
|
As long as the film is not pulled from theaters, its legality is moot. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Jun 2004
|
Michael Moore is a guy who once attempted to end the practice of Home Coming in high school because he could not get a date. He is a bitter lefist who has done well with the capitalistic principles he so often shuns.
Moore has a right to be heard. If you folks want to use some of the change you receive from your food stamp purchases to go see this film, fine, but don't come crying to me when you need a prescription drug filled or are need of some health care treatment. Truth is, I would probably give it to you anyway and the pattern would continue.
So, what can we conclude by this movie. The people who would never vote for Bush are going to see it in droves and the people who see it will split their votes between Kerry, Nader and Corn on the Cobb. (He's the Green Party Candidate) You guys who not going to vote for Bush should give him a second look. He's almost as bitter as Nader and he's a better speaker than Kerry.
Jack |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 Jun 2004
|
From BowlingForTruth.com....
the truth about the "get a free gun at the bank scene"....
Michael At the Bank
Moore ridicules a bank for giving customers a free gun
Gunowners.org (a pro-gun source obviously) summarizes this scene accurately and eloquently saying "After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite's snobbery toward American gun owners."
It's an accurate depiction of the intent of the scene. The scene, dubbed “Michael at the Bank” is a good example of what can be brushed off and casually justified as what has been called 'artistic lying.' The scene opens in a branch of the North Country Bank, with Moore supposedly receiving a free gun in exchange for opening an account. North County Bank — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years. The scene has Moore discovering an ad in a local Michigan paper touting that if you open an account at North Country Bank & Trust, the bank (“more bang for your buck!”) will give you a gun.
Moore goes to the bank, is greeted by a customer service representative and moves on to an unnamed teller who goes through the necessary paperwork (which looks ridiculously simple) for Moore to open an account. Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the only thing we see is Moore filling out a form where he says he is not crazy, or a criminal - and of course, that he's white; although he stumbles on spelling the word 'Caucasian' (which I actually had to just fix on spell checker) to further paint the process as unofficial and unsafe while feeding his 'Stupid White Men' theme in the same punch.
The audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle. Moments later, Moore is handed his new rifle in the North Country Bank & Trust lobby, at which point he asks another unnamed bank employee, “Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?”
Before the employee can respond, Moore turns his inquiry into a punchline by immediately cueing Teenage Fanclub’s rendition of the song “Take the Skinheads Bowling,” the tune to which he marches out of the bank, to be followed by the opening credits featuring black and white footage of silly white folks bowling.
It is a dazzling opening, full of energy, irony and Strangelovian absurdity. Only one problem plagues it's cleverness: It was staged.
Staged scene
Indeed, there's more, a lot more, to this story. In an interview, Jan Jacobson, the woman at this bank shown in the movie, says they were filmed for about an hour-and-a-half during which she explained everything to Moore in detail. But, the way things were presented in the film, Jacobson says, it looks like "a wham-bam thing." She says she resents the way she was portrayed as some kind of "backwoods idiot" mindlessly handing out guns. She says Moore deceived her into being interviewed by saying of their long-gun-give-away program: "This is so great. I'm a hunter, a sportsman, grew up in Michigan, am an NRA member." She says: "He went on and on and on saying this was the most unique program he'd ever heard of." This is the first example of how Moore completely deceives and manipulates his subjects to be made to look stupid in his film. Unfortunately, it is not the last and more unfortunately, an ignorant audience plays patsy to Moore's dishonest depiction.
Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped.
In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. But wait a second... Didn't I see some long guns sitting right there on the rack above her shoulder? Yes - you're not going crazy - those guns you saw (as shown in the picture up the page) are models.
She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check.
Jacobson says the bank's so-called "Weatherby Program" has "absolutely" been a smashing success. She says their corporate office was braced for some possible criticism because of BFC. But, they got only two calls -- and these were from people wanting to know the details of the "Weatherby Program" so they, too, could get their long-guns!
A non-issue point in the first place
So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's careless craziness. Yet, aside to the falshoods the audience isn't aware of, just a moment's reflection on the given information shows that there is not the slightest danger. Aside from the thorough legal background check and paperwork we didn't see, there are fundamental common sense flaws to the scene. The process of getting a 'free gun' isn't quite as easy as Moore wants you to believe, and it's not dangerous unless the person tries to use the gun as a club and wants to be quickly caught by the police.
To take possession of the gun, the depositor must:
Produce photo identification; making it inescapably certain that the robber would be identified and caught.
Give the bank at least a thousand dollars -- (an unlikely way to start a robbery) (1).
Spend at least a half hour at the bank, thereby allowing many people to see and identify him, and undergo an FBI background check, which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery.
The label of this process being ridiculous is in fact ridiculous itself. A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred bucks on the black market, with no identification required, and would want to zip in and out of the bank as quick as possible.
Also - the bank is a licensed firearms dealer - not shooting range. They don't hand bullets to you. Moore had to buy them later, as seen in the barbershop scene. If Moore brought his own bullets and tried to load them into the long-gun right there in the bank, it would be obvious and he'd be immediately stopped.
The 'artistic lying' illustrates the genius of Bowling for Columbine, in that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists.
This theme is developed throughout the film. Don't be fooled. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Jun 2004
|
the truth to yet another scene.....
Lockheed Martin Missiles.
Moore misleads on weapon manufacturer
Bowling contains a sequence filmed at a Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility near Columbine. Moore places a Lockheed Martin executive, right in front of a mammoth, menacing-looking rocket and asks:
"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.' What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"
Dave Kopel from The National Review comments on this argument by Moore:
Of course the connection is nonsense. While one killer's father once served in the Air Force, neither family worked in the defense industry. The other killer's parents were gun-control advocates — so much so that they forbade him to play with toy guns — unlike the many children who are shown with toy guns elsewhere in the film. One of the killers' gun suppliers was the son of a Colorado anti-gun activist. Thus, Moore might just as well have asked a spokesman for a gun-prohibition group if "our kids say to themselves, 'Well, gee, mom and day say that guns are just for killing innocent people. So if I have a gun, I guess I should use it for killing innocent people.'
Moore continues. The next shot is of a safety slogan banner displayed at the plant that reads "It has to be foreign-object free"
The banner of course refers to outside objects that could be detrimental to the operations within the plant, but the implication (by Moore) is that Lockheed Martin employees not so hidden objective is to obliterate actual foreigners. Clever.
He also darkly observes that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep." Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of "mass destruction" were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters.
So just to review so far: Moore says that it's ridiculous to say Columbine killers infatuation with glamorous empowering song lyrics attributed to acts of glorifying violence had any part in their actions, but thinks it perfectly plausible to blame national defense weapons that - by Moore's own words from his own argument - the kids probably never even knew existed. BUT - whatever your opinion on that be - the facts in the scene aren't even correct.
David Hardy found out that after Bowling was released someone checked and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant in the interview does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes weather and communication satellites there. In response to one Moore detractor, McCollum (the interviewee) wrote: "Although other units of Lockheed Martin Corporation elsewhere in the country produce weapons to support the defense of the U.S., we make no weapons at the Littleton-area facility Moore visited." Wups! Pretty embarrassing revelation huh? I wonder what Moore has to say about this terrible fumble?
Moore's BFC website has his response to the uncovering of this information, casually inserted into his FAQ list:
" [T]he Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them). "
As Hardy exemplifies, a quick review of the film reveals a big back peddle on the issue that still...doesn't even hold up:
1. That some are spy satellites which might be "used to direct the launching" (i.e., because they spot nukes being launched at the United States) is hardly what Moore was suggesting. Review the quote from the movie:
"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"
2. One of that plant's major projects was the ultimate in beating swords into plowshares: taking the Titan missiles which originally had carried nuclear warheads, and converting them to launch communications satellites and space exploration units (a).
So what were those big scary 'mass destruction'-esque looking things populating the background of the interview at Lockheed then?? The giant missile in the film is a refurbished Titan 2 rocket used to launch one such pre-mentioned satellite.
Moore almost gets away with this scene on a technicality. To be fair - review his original words: "So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.' Note the word "our" in Moore's question. Moore is not from Colorado -- his question is of a wider scope, grammatically not referring specifically to the Lockheed Martin plant in question. Since Lockheed makes weapons, just not in that plant - Moore's comment would be accurate and people like me would have nothing to write about on a page like this.
But as always - Moore shoots the premise in the foot and goes on with the bit about 'missiles being trucked through the town in the middle of the night' - an argument that, with the correct information, doesn't make a bit of sense.
Mooreover, as Anthony Zoubeck (b) learned from a Lockheed spokesman, the company moves the rockets at night because they are so large they need a convoy -- not, as Mr. Moore insinuates, because anyone is trying to hide the awful dastardly truth about weather satellites. { insert dramatic music here }
"But what about the argument"
But Moore fans don't care if they were mislead about the factory in Colorado, either by mistake or by Moore intentionally lying. The point is the important thing. That's what I keep hearing. So lets ignore the facts and take a look at that then...
Moore is saying it is bizarre for a society to openly embrace the production of destructive weapons, but on the other hand see no connection of this to everyday violence. After all, children learn by imitating adults.
McCollum (the PR person) says "I guess I don't see that specific connection because the missiles that you're talking about were built and designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us." Very true, and very much what our kids our taught. So how could this argument possibly hold up through any stretch of the imagination?
I don't know. Moore doesn't defend it. His only response to this is to claim that we (America) use our weapons to just carelessly go around blowing up other countries as he drifts into the cleverly spun Wonderful World segment. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Jun 2004
|
so right there is two seperate scenes (and there are many more) with in Bowling for Columbine where he intentionally lied and misled the american public (ironically, the same thing he claims bush has done)
and what about Moores supposed "life-time membership in the NRA" ?
moore bought it for $700 a couple years ago so he would be eligible to run against Heston for the NRA president... but decided against that when he figured it would burn too many calories....
once again... the truth has no place within michael moores "documentaries" |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Jun 2004
|
just one more...
'Wonderful World' Montage
Moore slams past American policy; blames U.S. for murder throughout history
Ending the scene at the Colorado Lockheed Martin plant:
"The missiles that you're talking about were built and designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us. Societies and countries and governments do things that annoy one another but we have to learn to deal with that annoyance or anger or frustration in appropriate ways. We don't get irritated with somebody and just cuz we're mad at em, uh, drop a bomb or shoot at em - or fire a missile at em."
Seemingly a pretty obvious statement made by Evan McCollum, the spokesman for Lockheed Martin that Moore interviews. But right after McCollum simply says that America just doesn't go around blowing up countries we're ticked off by - Moore immediately fades into this brief scene as if to say "Oh really??" and prove quite the opposite with persuasive success. The sequence shows a montage of supposed instances where America does just that - bombing countries who annoy us. The sequence purports to illustrate American hypocrisy and double-standards in foreign policy under Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World but is extremely misleading and mostly flat out false.
Winning with emotion...
The background score is a powerful one, and in fact, as a young aspiring film maker, I got the idea myself to create a film scene where it played over visuals of violence, hatred and war. In 6th grade. I immediately put the storyboard in my "things to make when I get famous" file, but years later I scrapped the idea when I saw it was already taken in Good Morning Vietnam. That didn't stop Michael Moore however, and the scene is actually quite good -- possibly the most clever, most moving and persuasive scene in the movie. It would be a superb piece and damning argument if actually it was in any way honest or accurate.
The montage paints a hard hitting idea of bullying and ridiculousness. The gist of each point is something like "1942 - America allies with Russia to kill Nazi's.... 1955 - America fears Russia killing Americans." Few people would ever accept this as a point of American policy ridiculousness, so Moore uses instances less familiar with the public to make the same "this is what we did then, and look what happened - America has all these peoples blood on its hands" point that he eventually uses to blame 9/11 on the United States in the end shot.
Below are some facts behind the most important shots of Moore's trickery in the scene:
1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
The clip of the tired old man stumbling about would lead one to think that Mossadeq was unfairly targeted and subsequently bullied but in reality this very beginning panel is a gross misstatement of fact, and a blatant attempt at what can only be described as revisionist history. What Moore fails to mention in his two sentence summary is that Mohammed Mossadeq was a power-hungry wannabe socialist dictator who had come to power through dubious means. Originally appointed Prime Minister in 1951, Mossadeq was dismissed from office a year later for unconstitutionally trying to take control of the armed forces.
After being fired, Mossadeq took control of Iran's elected parliament and ordered Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran's constitutional monarch, to re-appoint him as Prime Minister, to which the Shah obliged. Once back in power, Mossadeq openly declared himself to be a communist and moved to implement a series of foolish nationalization schemes that threw out western investment and badly crippled Iran's economy, creating tripple-digit inflation. As time went on, Mossadeq began to greatly consolidate his power, ramming a bill through Parliament that granted himself dictatorial powers, and forcing the Shah to grant him full control over the armed forces. He proceeded to hold a blatantly rigged referendum to "ratify" his actions, and claimed he had obtained victory with 98% of the vote.
Finally, when the Shah tried to intervene, Mossadeq exiled him, and seized absolute control over the nation.
NATO, led by the United States and Great Britain, were clearly distressed at the antics of Mossadeq, both for his illegal seizure of western assets, and his clearly-stated intentions of transforming Iran into a radical socialist republic, presumably with close supervision from Moscow. Iran had great oil wealth, but Mossadeq ended his country's petroleum sales to Britain, following his forcible seizure of British oil firms in Iran. The only country that was in a position to benefit from Mossadeq's actions was the Soviet Union. Without oil sales to the west, it seemed inevitable that Iran and it's collapsing economy would have no alternative but to be absorbed into the Soviet sphere.
It was at this point that according to Moore the US "installed" the Shah as "dictator." For whatever his faults, the Shah had always been Iran's constitutional Head of State. Mossadeq had no right or public mandate to overthrow Iran's legal ruler, nor did he have any right or public mandate to even be Prime Minister, let alone implement his radical Soviet-style reforms. The Churchill and Eisenhower administrations assisted the Shah's return from exile, and return to the throne. They did not "install" him, they returned him to the position he had legally held since 1941.
The Iranian monarchy was an institution over 400 years old. By showing the Shah in an uncharacteristic outfit of a uniform, Moore is trying to portray him as some U.S.-made military dictator, as opposed to a king that had been ruling Iran for the last 12 years. This proves Moore's own ignorant and selective interpretation of history.
1963: US backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
Here the term "backs" would be more accurately described as "did not do enough to prevent." While the Kennedy Administration supported the coup that overthrew Diem's regime, there is little evidence to suggest they had any interest in seeing him killed.
Regardless, Diem was a dictator and a great enemy of the left during his reign. While in power he was a staunch anti-Communist, who opposed the expansionist actions of North Vietnam's Communist regime. Most leftists were thus happy to hear of Diem's assassination. Moore hopes no one remembers, and tries to feign outrage over an event that all his contemporaries view positively.
Diem's death was a tragedy, but the real reason is because it served as a buttress to the North's efforts to conquer South Vietnam.
September 11, 1973: US stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.
The Chilean revolution of 1973 has become the mantra of America-hating leftists. However, inspecting the facts closely reveals that the coup, despite its violent nature was neither totally unjustified nor unexpected.
Much like Arbenz, Moore's "democratically elected president" of Chile was hardly a grand defender of democracy. Receiving only a small plurality of the votes (31%) in the 1970 national election, the Socialist Party candidate for President, Salvador Allende was appointed to his position by the Chilean Congress. In the following years Congress would come to regret their decision, as Allende waged an unprecedented war on private property, the constitution, and democracy, as he tried to radically reform Chilean society, without any sort of public mandate to do so.
Allende tried to turn Chile into a Marxist dictatorship, along the lines of Castro's Cuba. Castro and Allende were close friends, and shortly after Allende became president he invited Castro for a month-long "working visit" to Chile. Allende's rule polarized Chile, with terrorist attacks and guerrilla warfare becoming a daily occurrence among various political factions. Congress tried to remove Allende and reverse his socialist policies, but the president refused, and instead tried to crack down on popular dissent
His numerous illegal activities were enough to anger the Chilean military to rise up against him, and on September 11th 1973 Allende was deposed. He later committed suicide in his office with a gun that had been given to him by Fidel Castro. There is no proof that he was assassinated, in fact, all evidence and testimony seems to prove just the opposite.
The coup was not happily embraced by Washington, despite what Moore may suggest. For years, America had been funding Chilean opposition parties (both right and left-wing) with the intent of preventing Allende's election, and the transformation of Chile into a Marxist state. The military coup and General Pinochet's subsequent dictatorship displeased Washington because it indicated that the millions they had spent financing Chile's democratic opposition parties had been a colossal waste of money. The coup was the direct result of Allende's own actions, and although the Nixon administration was pleased to see the Marxist threat in Chile disappear, there remains no solid evidence that the Pinochet regime was in any way "installed" by any agents of the United States.
I have no idea where Moore pulled this "5,000 Chileans murdered" statistic from. All evidence seems to suggest that only around 2,000 to 3,000 Chileans lost their lives in the revolution and subsequent dictatorship, and even then many of these deaths came as a result of violent clashes between Allende's Cuban-backed Marxist guerillas and the Chilean military during the course of the coup itself.
1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die.
The Contras were a band of peasant guerrilla fighters, dedicated to brining democratic rule to Nicaragua after Daniel Ortega's left-wing thugs took control of Nicaragua's interim government and proceeded to try and turn it into a Marxist state. Ortega had both the economic and military backing of Cuba and the Soviets, making it a clear threat to its neighbors, and the Nicaraguan people's hopes for democracy.
Thanks to America's backing, the Contras were able to undermine the rule of Ortega and his thugs, and force the dictator to hold elections. He lost badly, and Nicaragua has been a democracy ever since.
1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties
1- Noriega was a CIA paid informant, and used to be an intelligence provider for the United States. However, he was never a "CIA agent" and did not hold any sort of formal employment with the CIA, nor did he have any job in which he was given "orders" to obey or disobey.
2- Noriega was never in his entire career "President of Panama." He was the country's most powerful political figure, Army Chief, and held many other military titles, but was never president. This is not just a minor technicality, either. In 1984 Noriega helped rig a presidential election in which Nicolas Ardito Barletta became President of Panama. Less than a year later, Barletta resigned and VP Eric Arturo Delvalle became president. Delvalle actually tried to fire Noriega, but Noriega got the Congress to impeach him, and replaced him with [] Manuel Solís Palma. Then, in 1989 there was another presidential election, which the Noriega-backed Palma lost, and democratic opposition candidate Guillermo Endara won. Noriega got his "Dignity Battalion" thugs to beat up Endara, smashing him in the head with a pipe and beating many of his other supporters. Another hand-picked Noreiga crony was again installed as President. When Noriega was arrested, new elections were held, and Panama finally got a democratically elected President, instead of more Noriega puppets. Panama remains a democracy to this day thanks to US intervention.
Michael Moore uses a flippant technique of portraying murdering enemies of America as harmless (see his thoughts on Bin Laden, Hussein, and islamo-facist terrorists in general) and he makes no exception of Noriega first showing him walking with a kiddish smile and hand gesture and here tossing flowers to a crowd. The portrait makes America an unnecessary bully that stomped into Panama and created so much misery all because of this smiling flower thrower.
By the 1980's the CIA's relationship with Noriega had rapidly deteriorated to the point where it doesn't seem anyone regarded him as much of an asset. The reason America invaded Panama was due to Noreiga's imprisonment, harassment, and killing of American troops and civilians who were legally stationed in Panama, as well as his role in the drug trade, financing left-wing terrorist groups in neighboring countries, and his December 1989 declaration of war on the United States.
Moore's claims that Noreiga's downfall can be attributed to his simple disobedience of "orders from Washington." In reality, Noriega had been actively working against the United States for years. America initially responded to Noriega's actions by implementing harsh sanctions, supporting coup attempts, and repeatedly issuing warrants for his arrest on drug-related charges.
Eventually, the Bush Administration responded to Noriega's aggressive acts by forcibly invading Panama, arresting the general, and reinstating democratic rule. Noriega was arrested following the invasion, and in 1992 he was found guilty of numerous counts of drug charges, money laundering, and racketeering, and sentenced to 40 years in a US prison. Panamanian courts have found him guilty him in absentia on similar charges, as well as several murders.
Moore's claim of "3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties" is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. Though casualties were high, most realistic estimates pin the number of deaths at around 300-400.
The point is that the Panama political situation, in fact the entire US invasion of Panama, was an extremely complex situation, which Moore obviously is uninterested in researching. He tries to describe the situation using a few snappy phrases, but they're all incorrect. Noriega was not a CIA "agent," he was not "President of Panama," and his arrest did not come as a result of "disobeying" any "orders."
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from the U.S.
Extreme spin - but a talking point often parroted by those who opposed Operation Iraqi freedom. First of all, the not so subtle implication, is that the United States wanted Iraq to invade Kuwait and thus financed the venture. Obviously insane, but the subliminal is clear. Furthermore however, the statement isn't even true in the sense that Iraqis military used in the attack on Kuwait was hardly one bulked up by the United States. It's true that the US once supplied aid to Iraq and later in history fought Iraq in the Gulf war - but remember that Moore is making the argument of US hypocrisy and policy mishandlings and mistakes. Moore conveys the impression that the tanks in the video the text is dubbed over are (or very well could be) American - thus - how foolish that we built up our enemy and now have to fight our own weaponry. The truth is that Saddam Hussein's weapons came largely from the Soviets (50%), not the United States by far. The tanks in the very short clip are all Russian tanks (all of them).
-----------------------------------
How The United States Armed Saddam Hussein
Weapons Imported by Iraq, 1973-2002
USSR* (57%)
France* (13%)
China* (12%)
Czechoslovakia (7%)
Poland (4%)
Brazil (2%)
Egypt (1%)
Romania (1%)
Denmark (1%)
Libya (1%)
USA^ (1%)
* Peaceful members of the UN Security Council, determined to avoid war at any cost
^ Bloodthirsty warmonger on UNSC, illegally formenting unilateral aggression against peaceful regimes.....
Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute....
-----------------------------
The aid provided by the US to Iraq prior to their illegal invasion of Kuwait is less than 1% as we were #16 on the list of weapons suppliers. (1)
1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.
Even Moore has a hard time spinning this one against America. The U.S. "entered" Iraq after that country's dictator had illegally invaded the peaceful nation of Kuwait.
America, and a vast UN collation of nations drove the Iraqi army from Kuwait, and allowed the nation's Emir to return to the throne. The Emir was Kuwait's legal ruler, and not a dictator. He currently presides over one of Middle East's freer nations (4) - certainly freer than Iraq was under Saddam (5) and appears to be gradually instituting several democratic reforms.
Regardless, America's mandate was to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, and restore its rightful ruler to power. The fact that the rightful ruler of Kuwait was an un-elected monarch is not the fault of the U.S.
1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis.
As stated above - the only other option is withholding law enforcement. The scene places the blame on America for bombing someone we once helped, instead of blaming the illegal actions taken by the Iraqi government. In context of the scene - it is just as dishonest as saying for instance: "America kidnaps Mexicans and puts them in metal cages every day", when the no-spin-reality is that police arrest illegal immigrants and put them in jail (although never for very long indeed) every day. So Moore paints a picture of the US plopping bombs on Iraq 'on a weekly basis' just cuz we feel like it - the reality is quite different. The point is about twisting the act of law enforcement into something that seems unjustified.
U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions
The first implication is that the United States bombs children. The truth is that when Iraq violated the provisions of the no fly zones they were legally bound to and shot at American and British airplanes nearly every day for a period of time, bombing of military stations was returned. The worse of the 2 distortions however is the 'Death from sanctions' part. 'Iraqi death from sanctions' is dishonest spin that requires a lot of excuse making for the former dictatorial regime and a lot of illogical finger pointing at America. In reality, sanctions placed upon Iraq didn't cause a single person to die -- the Iraqi government did. It wasn't a fairly difficult observation. Throughout the Hussein dictatorship, one needed only to look at the lavish palaces and expenditures the government squandered its money on to see that Iraqi starvation was not due to lack of finance, but lack of management. It doesn't take great leaps of logic to understand that a government with palaces containing golden toilet seats is not exactly one that is dry on wealth -- however now that the regime has been deposed, this point was made unequivocally clear and undeniable to those who ignorantly climed it.
After the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime during Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. forces uncovered 80 metal boxes each containing 40 million dollars in U.S. money. We then saw where the Oil for Food programs money was going and the physical proof of the real reason so many Iraqi's suffered from poor quality of life.
Moore had no excuse to blame the suffering of Iraqi's on America in the first place, but now this point in Bowling For Columbine is immortalized in film, as a stupid assessment to begin with, but now horribly, totally and embarrassingly wrong.
1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.
Bombing the medicine factory in the Sudan was not the disaster Moore makes out to be. The Clinton Administration had been given intelligence indicating that the factory was being used to manufacture chemical weapons for Saddam Hussein's regime. The factory was thus demolished.
President Clinton and his advisors had gone to extreme lengths to avoid civilian deaths, attacking at night, when all employees had left. To this day, the only confirmed casualty of the bombing was the factory's night watchman. Whether or not the factory was being used to manufacture chemical weapons remains disputed, but most Defense Department officials maintain it was a legitimate target.
The way Moore portrays this incident makes it sound as if Clinton had knowingly attacked a civilian target. Note his use of quotations.
2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."
The sequence concludes with the statement that the U.S. gave $245 million in 'aid' to the Taliban in 2000-01. As I'll explain, the way he words it keeps the scene from being a case of libel, while, at the same time, allowing his "message" to be kept intact.
The video shows a truck full of middle eastern gun toters - presumably terrorists - making it clear what is meant by the word 'aid'. In reality, there's no reason for the word 'aid' to be in quotations. Different stance for some reason. There is viable argument in the wisdom of giving money to brutally run countries - even when under supposed good intentions. Logic says that the ruling regional warlords will seize control of it and use it to their own advantage. In fact this very argument has been used by hawks in opposition to sending humanitarian aid to Iraq Saddam Hussein, where as Moore, in the panel at the top of the page, chides the sanctions on the US had on Iraq. Looks like Moore could be the star of a similar segment just on himself - but that aside - isn't it a dumb thing to do to give the Taliban money in 'aid'.
In fact, that money was not given to the Taliban government, but rather to U.S. and international agencies (2) that distributed humanitarian aid (3) to the people of Afghanistan. But Moore chides this contribution and ties it to 9/11 in the very next shot of the montage. -So in other words, the fact that the United States gave money to Food For Peace and for girls' schools for Afghan refugees is supposed to prove that America deserved (since it brought it on) to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.
It's impossible that Moore could not know the difference between financial aid to a dictatorship and humanitarian aid to refugees, which makes this leaping twist of reality an underhanded lie. The next shot is of the plane hitting the World Trade Center in flames.
Again, in Moore's persuasive eye, it's Americas fault for getting attacked on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden actually used no 'expert CIA training' to murder anyone on September 11th. Moore is simply reminding you that the CIA had some kind of dealing with him earlier so he can make, what looks like a very solid point.
The sequence is one the scenes in the movie that Moore doesn't present as an argument, but as actual historical fact. The Bowling For Columbine website even instructs teachers on how to use the film to teach these skewed versions of history to our children.
What is sad about the Wonderful World montage in Bowling For Columbine is not what it aims to be, which is a stinging assessment of American military blunders and the death and misery they've caused, but that it is NOT, yet sticks deep inside the viewers mind as a brilliant artistic portrayal of the truth that the public simply shuns. It is artistic, and surely brilliant, but pure propaganda and it is terribly unfortunate that so many are easily seduced by the power such propaganda wields. It's because it is so good that even when confronted with the facts on this page - facts that are easily verified in hundreds of texts and media outlets available to the public, there will always be a decent sized group that rejects the facts for the fiction.
What is worse is that, these people can not necessarily be logically written off as anti-American ideologues as this is just an example of good propaganda, and good propaganda doesn't just preach to the choir, but actually persuades the sober minded public. |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by Charles Joseph Smith
charlessmith702210 (nospam) sbcglobal.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Jun 2004
|
|
Well, even though I am not Roger Ebert, I give
"Fahrenheit 9/11" 4 stars!!1 The part of the movie I liked was when Michael Moore was
trying to read one part of the Patriot Act--that
infamous bill that stripped freedoms of
American anarchists, pacifists and anti-globalizationalists--in which Michael Moore
said that Congress members never even
read one word of the Act when it was swiftly
passed!....... |
|
Summary and Reactions to Fahrenheit 9-11 |
by Charles Joseph Smith
charlessmith702210 (nospam) sbcglobal.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Jun 2004
Modified: 02:26:11 PM |
I never watched "Bowling for Columbine",
but this "Fahrenheit 9/11" was perhaps the
best contemporary documentary of all. I had
now come to respect Michael Moore's filmmaking highly.
Of course, everyone knows that Disney
was that big "roadblock". Disney would not
produce the film at all. (It was Disney who
made the anti-globalization people very angry
by pulling for that Sonny Bono act, making
the people who have works copyrighted
very happy--at the expense of researchers who wanted fair use of copyrighted works.) But another film company did
take the film. Lucky for Moore and lucky for
all of the Michael Moore lovers--including
me!
Let me tell you some of the parts of the movie
that I really adore.
The opening was exciting--where during the
November 2000 elections, most of the
broadcast radio stations had Al Gore with
enough electoral votes to win the presidency
but Fox News reported that Bush got enough
electoral votes to be President. All of the other broadcast stations besides Fox had to apologize for claiming that Gore--and not Bush--won the
votes. That's too bad. Moore didn't
get into the hanging chads scandal in Florida (that is, the attempt in recounting the votes)in detail
but puts us in the House where African
American congressman were protesting
the botched votes that put Bush in office.
The congress said that "not one single
Senator" signed the objection.
Unfortunately, those people were silenced
since no Senator signed on their behalf, as
Al Gore (who already conceded to Bush) banged on the gavel that signaled
"Shut up and sit back in your chairs!"
And for the first time, I saw the presidential
motorcade being pummeled with eggs
during Bush's inauguration, and I know why
this happened. Americans were fed up with
the major mistakes in the vote counts that
led to Bush becoming president; they badly
wanted Gore to be president. It was the
anarchists who threw the eggs and I laughed
at it wildly.
The movie starts out after the opening
credits with the two blasts by suicide planes
hitting the WTC towers. But Moore decided
that the screen should be black for this and
it was black. Pitch black!!! The cliche of seeing the buildings hit by suicide planes
was taken away--Moore takes the 9-11
attacks to a new light.
And you do not see the WTC towers hit
directly. But Moore focuses on the emotions
of New Yorkers minutes after those major
terrorist attacks against America in the new
millennium.
You do see the smoke when the Pentagon was hit.
And I liked the part when Moore said that
Bush was not even leaving the elementary
school and just reading a book to students--
even after 20 minutes after the WTC towers
were destroyed. Wow! How lazy can a
President of the United States get?
Then, remembering all of the news about
Halliburton, Moore teaches me about Bush's
ties to Saudi Arabia, and how at least 20
major Saudis had permission to leave the
US while the FAA grounded all other domestic flights after 9/11 for a few days,
stranding even famous people like the very
lovely Latin singer already married to
J-Lo--Ricky Martin!!!! (Michael Moore said,
"Even Ricky Martin [cannot] fly.")
Another scene I liked was when Moore
told me about that flaw in Homeland
Security with that famous 5-color system.
Moore tells us that if the threat-level color is raised to,
say orange, without any specific threats or
targets, it sends the Americans into deep
fear and makes us realize that America is
not as safe with this Homeland Security
system as you think it is--even with Tom
Ridge at the helm.
Here is another scene I liked in the movie...
On the heels of this year's 4th of July
holiday, you might be thinking of those illicit
M-series explosives. [Stay away from them at all costs!!!!!] There was a scene
where several coalition soliders were trying
to remove an improvised explosive device
(or, call it simply, and IED)
in Iraq after major combat operations were
declared over by president Bush.
Without warning, the device explodes with
a boom equivalent to a M-1000 firecracker,
killing the soldiers as they took the brunt
of the blast. Very shocking indeed. No
wonder the movie had an "R" rating. (The
"R" rating was for graphic violence, profanity
and strong adult content.)
And I said to myself when I saw and heard
the IED blast: "Welcome to the world of
insurgents in Iraq." And in another scene
during combat operations in Iraq, you
hear and see the "mother of all bombs"
(MOABs) in action (those 5,000-pound bunker-busters), as you see a montage
of the Second Gulf War and Rumsfeld
talking about "targeting." The MOABs are
similar to those gasoline-laden "napalm"
bombs used in north Vietnam during the
Vietnam War.
I also like the scene before that--where Bush
congratulates soldiers in navy air combat
garb, on an aircraft carrier with a banner
saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". Little
does he realized that the insurgents who
would terrorize Iraq will do just that just a
few days after major combat operations.
Then Moore focuses only on one type of
airport security. He doesn't focuses on the
"no knives or box cutters" rule by the TSA (everyone knows about that new rule, but the
good news is that tweezers are allowed in
the cabin; at one time, they banned it), but
BREAST MILK? TSA members had been
told themselves to watch for people carrying
breast milk , because they feared that it might be
anthrax or ricin or poison, or they might hide
something flammable, like gasoline. Breast
milk is a big target these days. Some airports
also banned matches on airplane cabins
because of the Richard Reid incident.
Then, the final part of the movie takes us
to Flint, Michigan--Michael Moore's hometown, as Moore tells us that this was
like the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam
War, Blacks were unfairly drafted during the
national emergency, selected because they
are simply minorities. (Listen to Marvin Gaye's "Inner City Blues" and you will understand what I mean.) That was why boxer
Muhummad Ali did not want to accept
induction to the armed forces. The new war
in Iraq had similar results; blacks in Flint
and other poor areas of the U.S. decided that
the only good jobs left were the military jobs,
and decided to sign up--however, of course,
knowing that they may be called up for combat simply to die. No national emergency
by Bush, but still equally costly for Blacks.
This is simply why I do not want to have another four years of Bush in office.
So, if you want a new president to take over
the White house, this movie is definitely just
for you! |
See also:
http://charlessmithpiano.tripod.com
|
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Jun 2004
|
=============
And I liked the part when Moore said that
Bush was not even leaving the elementary
school and just reading a book to students--
even after 20 minutes after the WTC towers
were destroyed. Wow! How lazy can a
President of the United States get?
=============
What do you want him to do? Go running out of the room in a panic? THERE WAS NOTHING BUSH COULD HAVE DONE ANYWAYS… its not like he flips a switch and takes command.
NOBODY knew what was going on in those first few minutes… the original report bush received was sketchy, and it was not clear whether it was a wayward Cessna or an airliner. Bush had no way of knowing the gravity of the situation at the time he was told… he did not have access to TV, and the details he got were sketchy. Even the principal of the Elementary School he was at (a democrat) came out today blasting Michael Moore’s spin on the situation.
=============
Then, remembering all of the news about
Halliburton, Moore teaches me about Bush's
ties to Saudi Arabia, and how at least 20
major Saudis had permission to leave the
US while the FAA grounded all other domestic flights after 9/11 for a few days,
=============
That permission was granted by Moore’s hero and supposed whistleblower, Richard Clark (don’t believe me? Ask Richard, he admits to letting them leave the country, including members of the bin Laden family)
And where does Halliburton even come in?
=============
Another scene I liked was when Moore
told me about that flaw in Homeland
Security with that famous 5-color system.
Moore tells us that if the threat-level color is raised to,
say orange, without any specific threats or
targets, it sends the Americans into deep
fear and makes us realize that America is
not as safe with this Homeland Security
system as you think it is--even with Tom
Ridge at the helm…
=============
ok, I don’t like the system either, but do you honestly except the government to give out specific details on threats? If they said “it is rumored that the terrorists will blow up the sears tower tomorrow” then that will raise a hell of a lot more fear than raising the alert status.
============
Here is another scene I liked in the movie...
On the heels of this year's 4th of July
holiday, you might be thinking of those illicit
M-series explosives. [Stay away from them at all costs!!!!!] There was a scene
where several coalition soliders were trying
to remove an improvised explosive device
(or, call it simply, and IED)
in Iraq after major combat operations were
declared over by president Bush.
Without warning, the device explodes with
a boom equivalent to a M-1000 firecracker,
killing the soldiers as they took the brunt
of the blast. Very shocking indeed. No
wonder the movie had an "R" rating. (The
"R" rating was for graphic violence, profanity
and strong adult content.)
============
First off, if you are going to put “Here is a scene I liked” and “the device explodes… killing the soldiers” then you are taking just a little too much glee in the iraq war not going perfectly…
===========
And in another scene during combat operations in Iraq, you
hear and see the "mother of all bombs" (MOABs) in action
===========
That’s funny, ‘cause according to globalsecurity.org….
“It was developed in only nine weeks to be available for the Iraq campaign, but it was not used.”
Maybe Moore used his famous “selective editing” on that one…
My point in all of this is simple…
Michael Moore lie’s constantly. Just about every scene in BFC, and in Fahrenheit 9-11 is either a fabrication, a half-truth, or a flat out lie.
I plan on seeing F-911 tonight (actually, I plan on buying a ticket for Dodgeball, and going into the F-911 theatre, I figure encouraging Ben Stiller to make more movies is the lesser of two evils.) Based on BFC, I expect nothing but rampant lies and half truths…
My question is… Given the fact that he made up half of Bowling for Columbine, how do we know that he is telling anything that resembles the truth in Fahrenheit 9-11? |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by Dr. Lawrence E. Gowin
lemg44 (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jun 2004
|
|
An extremely necessary film; hopefully we have millions of thinking Americans. The rigjt-wing opposition to this film reminds one of Nazi Germany! |
|
Re: Encourage theaters to show "Fahrenheit 9/11" |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Jul 2004
|
ijustkrushalot said:
"My point in all of this is simple…
Michael Moore lie’s constantly. Just about every scene in BFC, and in Fahrenheit 9-11 is either a fabrication, a half-truth, or a flat out lie.
I plan on seeing F-911 tonight (actually, I plan on buying a ticket for Dodgeball, and going into the F-911 theatre, I figure encouraging Ben Stiller to make more movies is the lesser of two evils.) Based on BFC, I expect nothing but rampant lies and half truths…"
First off, it's interesting that you state F9/11 is full of lies even though you haven't seen it yet.
Second, it will be quite difficult for you to purchase a ticket for "Dodgeball" and then sneak into F9/1 since right now F9/11 is *only* at the Art Theater---and it has only one screen.
In addition, many multiplex theaters across the country have police officers checking tickets at the door to ensure everyone who enters has a ticket since most showings are sold out. I guess you'll either have to pay to see the film or wait until September to rent the video. |
|
Re: Police at theaters---no sneaking in for you, krush... |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Jul 2004
|
Mike Papantonio was on "Unfiltered", a show on Air America Radio on Wednesday, 6/30. This was a last minute segment. Here are some of the highlights from it:
There have been many bizarre reports from movie theaters across the country.
Columbus, Ohio - Armed police at the theater playing 9/11
Indianapolis - Police in theaters "Just in case anybody started yelling at the screen."
Pinellas County - Anecdotal story of off-duty police chasing off kids handing out "get out to vote" and voter registration information
Atlanta Georgia - Armed policemen were taking movie ticket stubs - they said that they do this for every sold out movie.
So, Mike investigated the most disturbing account he has heard:
Chester, Pennsylvania - Lonnie Frank, a 49 year old woman, mother of three was arrested for handing out Voter Registration forms.
Per the interview with the woman, as people were leaving the movie inside the theatre, she asked if they were registered, and if not, she had a voter registration forms available for them. The manager, apparently thinking she was handing out campaign literature (she was not), told her she was not allowed to do what she was doing.
She and the rest of the movie-goers stepped outside the theater to see "a number of State Police" who told her she needed to leave the parking lot, or that she would be taken into the police station. She asked if it was public property (they said it was) and why she could not hand out government forms (available in the library or post office) on public property. She was taken to the police station and arrested.
--------------------
If you want to listen to the Unfiltered show, you can download this episode at the Air America Place archive. You have to register, but it's free after that. This segment is about 30 minutes from the end of the show. |
|
