Printed from Urbana-Champaign IMC : http://127.0.0.1/
UCIMC Independent Media 
Center
Media Centers

[topics]
biotech

[regions]
united states

oceania

germany

[projects]
video
satellite tv
radio
print

[process]
volunteer
tech
process & imc docs
mailing lists
indymedia faq
fbi/legal updates
discussion

west asia
palestine
israel
beirut

united states
worcester
western mass
virginia beach
vermont
utah
urbana-champaign
tennessee
tampa bay
tallahassee-red hills
seattle
santa cruz, ca
santa barbara
san francisco bay area
san francisco
san diego
saint louis
rogue valley
rochester
richmond
portland
pittsburgh
philadelphia
omaha
oklahoma
nyc
north texas
north carolina
new orleans
new mexico
new jersey
new hampshire
minneapolis/st. paul
milwaukee
michigan
miami
maine
madison
la
kansas city
ithaca
idaho
hudson mohawk
houston
hawaii
hampton roads, va
dc
danbury, ct
columbus
colorado
cleveland
chicago
charlottesville
buffalo
boston
binghamton
big muddy
baltimore
austin
atlanta
arkansas
arizona

south asia
mumbai
india

oceania
sydney
perth
melbourne
manila
jakarta
darwin
brisbane
aotearoa
adelaide

latin america
valparaiso
uruguay
tijuana
santiago
rosario
qollasuyu
puerto rico
peru
mexico
ecuador
colombia
chile sur
chile
chiapas
brasil
bolivia
argentina

europe
west vlaanderen
valencia
united kingdom
ukraine
toulouse
thessaloniki
switzerland
sverige
scotland
russia
romania
portugal
poland
paris/le-de-france
oost-vlaanderen
norway
nice
netherlands
nantes
marseille
malta
madrid
lille
liege
la plana
italy
istanbul
ireland
hungary
grenoble
galiza
euskal herria
estrecho / madiaq
cyprus
croatia
bulgaria
bristol
belgrade
belgium
belarus
barcelona
austria
athens
armenia
antwerpen
andorra
alacant

east asia
qc
japan
burma

canada
winnipeg
windsor
victoria
vancouver
thunder bay
quebec
ottawa
ontario
montreal
maritimes
london, ontario
hamilton

africa
south africa
nigeria
canarias
ambazonia

www.indymedia.org

This site
made manifest by
dadaIMC software
&
the friendly folks of
AcornActiveMedia.com

Comment on this article | View comments | Email this Feature
News :: Arts
GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11 Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2004
For political reasons, the GKC theater chain (owner of Champaign's Beverly Cinema) has refused to show Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11--showing the film on just one of the chain's 268 screens.
The GKC (George Kerasotes Corporation) theater chain (owner of the Beverly Cinema in Champaign) has refused to show Michael Moore's documentary, due to objections to the film's political content, accoding to an article in Entertainment Weely's subscription-only on-line magazine. Excerpts from the article appeared today at the political blog, The Daily Kos (www.thedailykos.com). According to the article, GCK will allow the film to be show on just one of its 268 screens.

The article describes GKC as one of two midwest theater chains refusing to show Moore's film.

The article text is as follows:

*************
''Fahrenheit 9/11'' may be breaking documentary box office records all over America, but one Iowa-based theater chain refuses to book it because it allegedly provides aid and comfort to anti-American terrorists. According to the Associated Press, R.L. Fridley, who owns the Fridley chain of 34 theaters across Iowa and Nebraska, won't book ''Fahrenheit,'' citing a policy that his chain will not ''play political propaganda films from either the right or the left.'' So Fridley wrote in a companywide e-mail, AP reports, adding that he believes the Michael Moore film plays into the hands of the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks and those behind the recent beheadings of Americans in the Middle East. ''I believe this film emboldens them and divides our country even more,'' Fridley wrote.

Variety reports that another Midwest chain, GKC Theaters, has booked the film on just one of its 268 screens, in Traverse City, Mich., and will not expand the booking to its other screens, which are mostly in Michigan and Illinois. Execs at GKC, the country's 15th-largest chain, had political objections to the film similar to Fridley's, Variety reports, though there's been no official statement commenting on the booking decision. There was no indication, however, that either Fridley or GKC made their decisions in response to the e-mail campaign launched by Move America Forward, a conservative group whose supporters have called for a boycott of chains that book Moore's movie. On June 26, the day after the film opened to a packed house in Traverse City, GKC vice president Bryan Jeffries said most people who had contacted the chain wanted it to show ''Fahrenheit.'' ''I would say that the ratio has been 5-1 in favor of bringing the movie, but that doesn't surprise me,'' he told the Traverse City Record Eagle. "The people against it are probably ignoring it and wishing it would go away and I think that makes sense."
******************

The Daily Kos also provides contact information for the Springfield-based GKC theater chain:

GKC Theaters
George Kerasotes Corporation
755 Apple Orchard Street
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 528-4981
(217) 528-6490 fax
gkccomments (at) gkctheathers.com

President: Beth Kerasotes x. 105
VP Film & Marketing: Brian Jeffries x. 104
VP of Marketing: James Whitman x. 106

Contacting GKC seems an obvious first step to pressure this group of theaters to correct such an egregious insult to those C-U residents who agree with Moore's views, and to resist on principle such a paternalistic act of commercial censorship.
Related stories on this site:
"F9/11": Hardest Ticket to Get in DC

This work is in the public domain.
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
06 Jul 2004
Censorship is still an outrage, even if it involves leftist propaganda from a liar, and possibly even a traitor, depending on how one defines it. Perhaps the theater owners would have been better off giving away a leaflet with ever ticket purchased showing either the truth, or the fallacy, of each of the movies points, and letting people choose to believe the truth or the lie for themselves?
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2004
F911 flyer gif.gif
F912_flyer.doc
F911 flyer.doc (21 k)
F911 iron-on gif.gif
F912_iron-on.doc
F911 iron-on.doc (19 k)
Looks like the Art Theatre is showing "F 9/11" for another week (July 9-15). Anyone up for a campaign to get people to see the show? I have some ideas I think are fun, but as just one person, I can only do so much. If thirty or so townsfolk put up flyers and wear t-shirts around town, I think we can increase viewership quite a bit, even though the movie is moving into its third week.

If you're interested in helping me, email me or post to this message board.

If independent sedition is more your line, I've attached suggestions for flyers and t-shirt iron-ons.

T-shirt tip: Hobby Lobby has transfer paper for laser printers; most other places seem to only have it for inkjet printers. All you need is a laser printer (Kinkos has one, if you don't), trasfer paper, an iron, and an old t-shirt. (I've worn my shirt around, and people certainly notice the front of it and maybe the back when I'm standing in line.) It would also help to just put on the shirt and wear it for two weeks at your regular stops (e.g., grocery store) and at well-peopled places (e.g., a mall).
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
07 Jul 2004
I decided to see that matinee showing of the movie yesterday. The ticket sales indicated the show was almost sold out although the actual attendance at the theatre was the opposite; only 20 people were in the audience. I would like to offer some first impressions without going too deeply into content. The movie was identical to his other films in tempo--the same leisurely tempo--I was led by certain negative reviewers to expect an intense experience that prevented a viewer from analyzying the material offered.
The movie opened with the discussion of the 2000 election--an event that was thoroughly discussed & resolved years ago. Like an umpire who calls a close play at the plate, the Supreme Court mercifully ended the counting & recounting & further recounting of ballots in Florida. The ballot counting undoubtedly would have continued past September 2001 without resolution had the Supreme Court not intervened. From my perspective, it was the Democratic party that attempted to steal the election but failed. Bin Laden will never be captured at this point unless St Peter wants to detain him at the Pearly Gate. I believe he has been dead since December of 2001. I have no problem with this movie dissecting George Bush & his father's actions & it should be offered for analysis by the public. Whether they would ultimately agree with Michael Moore's conclusion on the president's complicity in the events of 9-11, I'm not so sure. Personally, I gave the movie a fair viewing & while there were a few troubling parts, I don't feel motivated to vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. There are alot of complex relationships & agendas in this world & I have to personally decide which should prevail after November 2nd. In my mind, Bush is still the better choice.--ED
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2004
The only people that can employ censorship is the government. GKC made an economic decision. One does not see conservative activism often, but the public spends a ton of money at their movie houses. They simply decided that the price for showing an anti-American Movie in a time of war would cost them more than they would gain.

Personally, I could give a rats ass if they show it or not. The left holds our that lame hope that this may persuade people how to vote. You'll notice that they don't dispute the "liar" accusation do they?

Jack
Disney Goofy to Pass on Fahrenheit 911: Shareholders Expect Moore
Current rating: 0
08 Jul 2004
Most companies scoff at the notion of a social contract. Doing the “right thing”, they claim, will cost them money. But The Walt Disney Co’s decision to block its Miramax Films unit from distributing the Michael Moore political documentary Farhenheit 911 set a different precedent. This time, the company did the wrong thing, and it cost them money. Now Wall Street can join progressive groups in trying to figure out why.

When the news first broke that Disney was blocking Miramax from distributing the film, sensational theories abounded: it was to protect tax incentives in Florida or because of the influence of Saudi investors. But it was Disney that offered perhaps the least plausible of all: it was too partisan a project to release during a Presidential election cycle.

True, Disney is best known for family entertainment. But the company has demonstrated no other philosophical opposition to generating revenues from partisan political content or advertising during this election cycle. In fact, the approximately $1.2 billion in revenues Wall Street estimates Disney will earn from its broadcasting operations in 2004 are being bolstered by election year political advertising. Disney also produces extremely partisan content on its ABC Radio Network. ABC Radio’s website, in fact, touts conservative Sean Hannity as a “gutsy” talk show host who always “lands on the right side of the issue.” And like many major corporations, Disney is giving money directly to political action committees – the definition of a partisan project.

So it is unlikely that sanitizing Disney of partisan politics drove this decision.

It is also unlikely that the decision was based on a lack of commercial viability for the film. Michael Moore’s films have excellent track records. In fact, the previous record for cumulative gross receipts for a documentary was Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine. Its nine-month run in 2001 grossed nearly $22 million. In addition, the content and timing of Fahrenheit’s release certainly guaranteed marketing costs for this film would be much less than normal – making it even more attractive.

Case in point, the $21.9 million in gross receipts earned by Fahrenheit 911 during its first weekend eclipsed the opening weekend gross receipts for every other release by Disney this year. By the second week, the film had grossed $60 million. Before its run ends, Fahrenheit’s total gross (estimated at $100 million) will likely eclipse most of Disney’s 2003 or 2004 releases.

In the perplexing background of Fahrenheit’s stunning success, is the tepid execution of Disney’s studio operation. Far from growing the business, Wall Street analysts estimate Disney’s studio operation will be down 1% compared to last year. With Pixar Animation Studios (Finding Nemo, Toy Story) threatening to end its distribution relationship with Disney, Wall Street is looking for good news right now. Disney has not delivered.

To the contrary, while Fahrenheit was winning the “Palme d'Ore” at the Cannes Film Festival and becoming the most talked about release in the world, Disney was informing Wall Street that it was writing off three major releases, Home on the Range, The Alamo and Lady Killers and all but given up on a third, Around the World in 80 Days (which cost $120 million to make and has a total gross of $21 million).

So why punt this valuable asset? At the time, The New York Times wrote that Disney “loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.” True, some conservatives might have stayed away from Disney World had the company released Fahrenheit. But it is a stretch to think releasing the film would have hurt Disney’s business. Yet Disney, which always been about making a buck, passed on tens of millions of them in this case.

Something is not right with this picture.

Maybe Michael Moore will make a documentary exploring Disney’s decision (Mickey and Me?). Based on the success of Fahrenheit, it should be a moneymaker. I am sure smart companies will line up for the chance to distribute it.


Blaine Townsend is a vice president and portfolio at Trillium Asset Management Corp., the nation’s oldest and largest independent investment advisor concentrating solely on socially responsible investing.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2004
Jack,
My guess as to why your post was hidden is that it contains overtly homophobic remarks. The IMC is designated as a gay friendly, discrimination-free zone, in both the real and virtual arenas. Political discourse is one thing, hate speech is unacceptable.
Just accept that everyone has both homosexual and heterosexual feelings (to various degrees and at various times) and you'll feel much better.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
10 Jul 2004

Finally got around to seeing this Thursday at the Art - I was wondering why it wasn't at the Beverly, but now I suppose I know.

A few comments - from reading various "this movie lies!!!" websites, I'd been led to believe that the thing would spend all sorts of time on conspiracy theories and the idea that Papa Bush was somehow pulling all the strings via the Carlyle Group. However - it doesn't. The ties of the Bush family to both defense contractors and Saudi investors are documented, in a sort of "hey, these people share some interests mainly tied together by the good ol' greenback," which is well warranted (if anything, it serves to point out that the Bushes are part of the "moneyed elite" and "people who have ties with ruling foreigners" W so often tries to portray himself as down-homey and distant from - the scene later on with the "haves and the have mores" does this wonderfully also) but it mostly stays there.

Not being a huge fan of Michael Moore's usual "forced confrontational interview" schtick, I was happy to see that there was not much of it in there.

While I realize that this film has a major objective to speak about Bush and his failings in this election year, I think the movie would have been even stronger if it spent some more time pointing out that it's not just Bush (or even his cabinet, although they are arguably worse) that is the problem - the close ties between the US and Saudi Arabia, the obsession with the Middle East and having a hand in the region's politics stemming from concerns over control of its natural resources, have been an integral part of US foreign policy since after WW2, through administrations led by both parties. In a similar vein, President Clinton wasn't all that shy about economically strangling Iraqis and bombing them under cover of "no fly zone enforcement" either - it's all of one nasty piece. In decades to come, the "Gulf War" and the sanctions era and the "Iraq War" might well be considered a single drawn out conflict.

I'm glad I saw the film, and I liked it quite a bit, despite those problems. While it certainly makes its case that the Bush administration is not quite what they make themselves out to be, I hope that viewers do not come away with the reassuring idea that to vote Democratic in the next election is all that we need for a solution - while I'm certainly not planning to vote for Bush, voting him out is only the tiniest baby step toward what we need to do, as informed citizens.

Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2004
Editor,

Clearly I understood your message about the time of the next meeting. However, you reference the possibility of an earlier meeting. Having checked my schedule, I will be unable to attend. How about July 15th? I can add some much needed leadership to the discourse.

As for you Jack Ryan, I have had an opportunity to read some of your posts on the search engine.

You say that "I am not your enemy" but indeed you are. As far as I can tell, you do seem to have some fear of the homosexual community and have virtually nothing to add to the debate. Nor, may I add, do your alteregos. However, you are just the type of person I intend to defeat on this and everyother site that I encounter on my travels.

So state your case, bigot man and you will be defeated much like I have done everywhere else. These people may not know how deal with you, the gun freak, and the faux professor bfd, but I do. I will do it with facts, research and point out all the flaws for all to see. You will leave on your own, not because you have been deleted, but rather because you have been beaten.

One or the other, you pick Jackie boy. We will win, we always do. If the weakness of the editorial staff will permit, we will not have you or your kind submitting anymore posts untill you have been either trained or have gone off to tackle a more friendly venue. Until then, I urge the editors not to embolden these idiots by deletion but rather confrontation and enlightenment. Do not be afraid, we have the truth on our side. You have proven the ability to learn by your creation of this site. Now let the teacher, teach.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
12 Jul 2004
To get back to the post, I read recently in a local newspaper (I think it was the DI) that Boardman's has the exclusive right to show F 9/11 in CU. Which means that at this point even if GKC wanted to show it, they can't, unless the terms of Boardman's contract or agreement with the distributor are changed. I'm not saying this is why GKC isn't showing it, I just wanted to add this point of information.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
12 Jul 2004
Refusal to show a film is NOT censorship. Movie theaters are privately owned, and make decisions based on what their ownership feels is right. This is their right.

They must, however, accept that exercising that right may bring some consequences. If I still lived in Champaign (which, after reading a few items here and there, I am eversograteful that I now reside in Virginia), GKC Theaters would no longer be seeing my movie-going dollars, and the would be getting a letter explaining why. As would advertisers buying pre-showing ad time on their screens.

It's simple - make their decision hurt them. Cost them some money. Cost them a *lot* of money.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
12 Jul 2004
Joe Futrelle points out that Boardman's Art theate has an exclusive contract to show F9/11 in Champaign.

This is true; however GCK theaters operated 268 screens, only a few of which are in Champaign. So the big problem isn't that they aren't showing the film in Champaign, but that they aren't showing it in many other communities, most of which have no Art Theater that can be counted on to show political films like F911.

DC also makes an interesting comment, noting that " Refusal to show a film is NOT censorship," since theaters are privately owned.

This point raises key questions about what is and isn't censorship, and why governments can censor, while businesses cannot.

The distinction between governments and businesses seems to apply only when there is a seperation between government and business--to the extent that the functions of business and government become mixed, business censorship of this kind becomes as dangerous as the kind of Government censorship we are more accustomed to decrying.

It seems reasonable to assume that Fahrenheit 9/11 made it to theates, and not to TV, in part because of television's Corporate ownership.

It's been hard to follow on the manistream news, but we've seen in the last couple years a big fight as Michael Powell at the FCC proposes deregulation at the FCC, to allow further consolidation of corporate ownership of television stations, into even fewer hands.

Traditionally, there have been laws preventing one company from owning all the major media in us markets. As these are weakened or abolished, it seems we need to ask at what point giving over near-total us media ownership a few monopolistic media companies might become a form of censorship.

Right now, the heterogenious mix of us movie chains made possible the success of F911, despite the hostility of the corporate media to the project..

But don't take-for-granted the possiblity of such a feat in the future. A few weeks after F/911's opening, George Bush's Carlyle Group (which featured prominantly in Moore's film) offered its response to the movie's success. With the help of a couple corporate sponsors, the Carlyle group purchased Lowes Cineplex--the third largest movie chain in the global motion picture exhibition
industry. [http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=5476108]

Look for more such corporate buy-outs of the theate industry in the near-term, as business interests work to remake the film industry on the model of Clearchannel's success in radio.

It would seem that market-based solutions to corporate censorship ("I'll take my business elsewhere!") may be unlikely to succede in preserving diverse viewpoints, if monopolisitc corporate ownership of major media outlets contines to consolidate its power.
Veterans' Workers Thank Michael Moore for Highlighting Funding Shortage
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2004
WASHINGTON, July 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National VA Council applauds Michael Moore, for focusing attention on the failure of the Bush Administration to provide adequate funding for veterans' care, in his popular documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. The film depicts disabled veterans who served in Iraq receiving physical therapy for their injuries and discusses the need for more funding for veterans' programs.

"It's a disgrace, that during a time of war, our president has failed to adequately fund programs for veterans," said Alma Lee, president of AFGE's National VA Council, which represents health care professionals in the Department of Veterans Affairs. "Those who care for veterans every day are heartened by the attention Michael Moore brings to the need to allocate more federal money to veterans' programs."

"Plans for veterans requiring long-term care remain a mystery," said AFGE national president John Gage. "While the VA touts a projected decline in the veteran population, it fails to account for the fact that vets, like the rest of us, are living longer, and will require more intensive services and nursing home beds as they move into old age. Current projections also fail to take into account the needs of the future veterans now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

According to the VA, more than 18,000 veterans a month are refused access to VA health care because of an inadequate budget. This situation can only be expected to worsen as soldiers return from Afghanistan and Iraq. Already, around 20,000 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have requested either services or benefits from the VA.

------

The American Federation of Government Employees is the largest federal employee union, representing 600,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.

www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=73
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2004
what i find interesting is that even after nearly a month of F9/11... the poll numbers remain virtually the same and bush's approval rating on iraq has even made a marginal jump....

so i guess my fear that swing voters would actually take that garbage as truth was wrong..
Citations for Your Assertions?
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2004
1. The release date of "Farenheit 9/11" was June 25. Thus, it has only been out about two-and-a -half weeks, not a "month".

2. You did not cite any polling data in your rather bald-faced assertion of facts. Relevant polling data would be from a poll that was taken by the same organization before and after the opening of "F 9/11". Maybe such data exists, but let's see it.

3. Given that "F 9/11" has been a sellout in many venues, there are vast numbers of Americans who want to see it, but haven't had a chance (I know a few personally). Given the on-going right-wing campaign against the movie and boycotts of it by many corporate interests (for instance,the subject of the very article you are commenting on), many who would have already seen the movie if it was showing in more venues are also waiting to see it.

4. I would give you that the odds of "F 9/11" being released on DVD/videotape about a month before the November election are close to 100% (although I have no inside info on this).

5. Your comments seem driven by what you read about the movie from sources very biased against it. Thus, like many of the statements I've read so far made about the movie, they are highly inaccurate. To reduce your ignorance, I suggest yiou actually view the movie before you condemn it.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
13 Jul 2004
Dear "Stick to the facts",

You obviously disagree with a prior poster and demand he Stick to the Facts. You then dribble out nothing more than heresay with the line: Given that "F 9/11" has been a sellout in many venues, there are vast numbers of Americans who want to see it, but haven't had a chance " May I be so bold as to how you might know this?

The movie itself has been proven to play very loose with the facts and therefore your demand was unfounded.

Jack
Check Your Webster's
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2004
Umm, Jack, what you're talking about is "hearsay". But you also don't know the definition, in addition to how it's spelled. My assertion was based on the fact that I have first-person knowledge of several people who want to see the movie. If you repeat what I said, then that would be hearsay.

In fact, what I asserted is _anecdotal_ evidence, not hearsay. I'm sure my extrapolation from this evidence is not scientific, but it is not unfounded, like ijustkrushalot's is (and remains, since neither he nor you has presented any evidence that what he said is correct.)

Your assertion that the movie plays "very loose with the facts" is similarly unsupported by evidence. It is also basically irrelevant to the discussion of whether there are many people still anxious to see the movie. But the facts get in the way of your making a stupid comment, so they are once again omitted by you. For someone who seems to have to put a lot of effort into being a pompous ass, you have very little to actually work with.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2004
I find it silly to ask GKC to show the movie, when Boardman's is showing it to packed houses. We have an outlet here in which we can view the movie, to what purpose is it we try and pressure another business to do the same?
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2004
Ted,
Your point is well taken that we already have the Art and should support it. It's an independent venue (not part of a chain), the films there are generally far more unique and interesting than elsewhere (IMHO), and it's also much easier to get to than the edge-of-town multiplexes that encourage sprawl and gas consumption.
But I do think that people who believe in an open marketplace of ideas have an obligation to boycott any theatre which refuses to show a movie on principle alone. I take that as an insult to the collective intelligence of the population and its ability to think critically and make informed decisions.
In the end, I'm glad it's the Art who gets to profit handsomely from F9-11, and the GKC's decision to not show the movie adds one more reason why not to patronize the Beverly.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2004
well stick to the facts... lets do just that...


================
1. The release date of "Farenheit 9/11" was June 25. Thus, it has only been out about two-and-a -half weeks, not a "month".
================
you are right about that, my apologies, i guess i was thrown off by the month of hype that preceeded it.....

===================
2. You did not cite any polling data in your rather bald-faced assertion of facts. Relevant polling data would be from a poll that was taken by the same organization before and after the opening of "F 9/11". Maybe such data exists, but let's see it.
===================
ask and you shall recieve...

here are a couple excerpts from Washington Post polls...
(linky: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46366-2004Jul13.html)

"The survey found that 55 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, up five points in the past three weeks. "

key words, past 3 weeks.....

"Slightly more than half -- 51 percent -- also said they trust Bush more than Kerry to deal with terrorism, while 42 percent prefer the Democrat. Three weeks ago, the two were tied on this crucial voting issue. "

wow.. once again, bush making gains in a three week period...

to be fair...

"At the same time, the proportion of the public who say the war with Iraq was not worth fighting has grown to 53 percent, a record high. A slight majority -- 53 percent -- say the conflict with Iraq has contributed to the long-term U.S. security.

Bush's overall job approval rating stood at 48 percent, unchanged from last month. Half disapproved of the job he was doing. "


==================
3. Given that "F 9/11" has been a sellout in many venues, there are vast numbers of Americans who want to see it, but haven't had a chance (I know a few personally). Given the on-going right-wing campaign against the movie and boycotts of it by many corporate interests (for instance,the subject of the very article you are commenting on), many who would have already seen the movie if it was showing in more venues are also waiting to see it.
==================
oh, so you haven't seen it? but you know people that have!... great to hear

i have seen it.... michael moore is a good entertainer... but he likes to show 1/2 the truth... the half that fits his arguement

the movie was near-sell out the first week it ran in bloomington, but crowds are down to a trickle... i think you should have NO problem seeing the movie now...

=====================
4. I would give you that the odds of "F 9/11" being released on DVD/videotape about a month before the November election are close to 100% (although I have no inside info on this).
=====================
i would agree... im sure thats the time that moore stands to make hte most money, and gain the most power... makes sense. but as hyped as this movie was, what difference is it going to make if the polls haven't changed yet?

=================
5. Your comments seem driven by what you read about the movie from sources very biased against it. Thus, like many of the statements I've read so far made about the movie, they are highly inaccurate. To reduce your ignorance, I suggest yiou actually view the movie before you condemn it.
=================
once again, i have seen the movie...

to reduce your ignorance, i suggest yiou actually view the movie before you commend it. (not that it will matter...)

not only is michael moore's propaganda piece a pile of trash and filled with sour grapes and half-truths, but the the targeted swing-voters have not responded to it at all... conservatives who see the movie (including myself, and two of the friends i was with) saw it as garbage and were outraged by the constant smearing and MM's own brand of "Bald-Faces accusations", while libs enjoy it because it makes fun of a president they don't like, and gives (albeit false) validity to their arguements.

i suggest you go buy a ticket (it was only $5 at Normal Theater, dirt cheap really) and watch it... then we can argue about the facts of the movie (should be a fun time)
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2004
For whatever it's worth, the movie contains no factual inaccuracies. Anticipating criticism from the right, Moore went to great pains to assemble a team of "fact checkers", some of whom had worked in that capacity of the New Yorker Magazine, NY times and other publications. What Moore does with he facts and figures is use them to build a case or paint a picture, if you will, which naturally involves a certain subjectivity and creativity. But I have yet to hear anyone successfully refute any of the information presented in the movie, and really am curious as to what the above poster and other conservatives who HAVE seen the movie (which I admire them doing, actually) consider "half-truths" and "bald-faced accusations".
I consider myself a reasonably well-informed progressive, and as such I learned very little in terms of facts presented in the movie (ie political and financial connections, etc.). What I did appreciate was how Moore presented the information: in a cohesive, easy-to-follow, well-paced, funny, and emotionally compelling way, accessible to a general audience who may not be very well informed, either by choice or as a consequence of getting their info solely from the corporate media.
God Said It
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2004
Well, I could compose a lengthy, detailed reply, but God has already spoken. And I can't disagree with what s/he said.

I have seen the movie, which is why I'm still puzzled about all the supposed problems with the movie that have been vaguely re-cited again by right-wing commenters. What I saw was Moore raising a lot of questions that deserve answers. For the most part, he left viewers to draw their own conclusions. Apparently, these conclusions disturb the right so much they want to kill the messenger.

For my part, and most likely for millions of other Americans -- many of whom will not even see the film, the answer the right offers that we should just trust Bush simply doesn't cut it. Anyone who starts a war on false pretenses just cannot be trusted. Perhaps this is the awful truth that is so disturbing to the right -- but it would still exist whether or not Moore made his movie.

For myself, like for God, I went into the movie knowing most of the facts that Moore presented. I was pleasantly surprised that Moore did a much better and more restrained job of presenting them than in "Bowling for Columbine". Oddly, most of the critiques the right makes of "F 9/11" seem to stem from the same critiques they made of "BFC" -- but these are clearly two different movies, something which the right seems to not get.

But back to the facts. A single poll done soon after the release of "F 9/11" is hardly likely to indicate the movie's impact. My own personal feeling is that the movie will move only a small part of an increasingly divided and partisan public. Unlike the right, I won't try to persuade you that my side is the REAL majority. America is almost evenly split and, unlike the Bush Adminstration's pretense that it somehow had a mandate to impose conservative ideology on the planet, I recognize that the reality is that they at best represent a little less than half the voting public. That is why the balance is so fine. If the vagaries of the archaic Electoral College and the endemic corruption of our voting system that makes the popular will subservient to what five judges on the Supreme Court think the outcome should be, the result of this election will be different this time and Bush will be sent back to the ranch. But it will be mostly because of Bush's own hubris and incompetence, not because of Michael Moore.
Preaching to The Already Decided?
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2004
If ijustkrustalot thinks that the movie will make no difference, with those on both sides simply seeing it as reinforcing their previously established views, does he really think his ongoing campaign of whining about it here will make any difference? His plaintive missives display none of the art or craft that Moore has. And he certainly won't get paid by anyone, including on the right, for such lame writing. You might as well drop your complaints in a bottle into Lake Michigan for all the difference it makes if what you assert about Farenheit 9/11 is true.

If it's useless for Moore, it certainly is useless for ijustkrustalot.

Or maybe it isn't, but he would hate to have to admit that.

And what is up with the fake uiuc.edu email address he always uses? If he's seeing his movies in Normal, it seems that this is just one more piece of his fakery to artificially pump up his legitimacy to comment on events in C-U (I remember when he showed up during the Chief sit-in, making a big deal about how the Chief is his and those other white folks to use as they please). Or do you really commute every day? Your life must be boring having to stare through the windshield at I-74 all the time. No wonder you spend your spare time trolling here, since you seem to not have a life.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2004
I wouldn't expect the film to cause a sudden dip in Bush's approval ratings or his slightly-second-to-Kerry poll standing. But as one more corrosive layer eating away at Bush's fading ratings -- and adding to the general sense among the majority of Americans that the war in Iraq was a mistake -- the longer term affects may be more significant. Not that it will determine the election all by itself, but that it will help congeal the public sense that Bush pulled a bait-and-switch and hurt the US badly because of it.

@%<
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
16 Jul 2004
Ok, here it is time once again for a lecture on the first amendment and censorship. A private company, GKC, can do whatever, show whatever, or not show whatever they darn well choose on their own screens. They are under no obligation whatsoever to carry every piece of trash that comes down the pike. It isn't censorship, it was a business decision. I simply cannot understand what is so hard about this concept. Why do all you lefties INSIST that every media outlet carry your trash and anyone that refuses is censoring you?

Blah
BZZZZT - Wrong Answer
Current rating: 0
17 Jul 2004
Dear AC,
Actually, the issue is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think. To show or not show a movie might not technically be censorship (in that GKC is not actively campaigning against the movie being shown elsewhere), but neither can it be called simply a "business decision". In this case it the decision was obviously driven my ideology, and was made at the corporate level (local franchise owners cannot show the movie). From a business standpoint, the decision was certainly a poor one, as GKC missed out on making a LOT of money, and may actually stand to lose revenue in the event of a widespread boycott.
Military families applaud Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
21 Jul 2004
I recently saw Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, which even reviewers for conservative media outlets like Fox News have praised. I knew I would like the documentary, based on reviews I read. But still, I can't remember seeing a movie that has affected me as much. I can't remember ever seeing a movie where the audience gave it a standing ovation when it ended, which occurred in many more theatres across the country than just the Maryland one I attended.

Natalie Sorton, a 25-year-old moderate Republican and wife of an infantryman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, told the Fayetteville Observer in North Carolina, where Fort Bragg is, that the movie changed her opinion of the war in Iraq. “All this movie did was open my eyes a little more to what's really going on”, she said. “I think this is definitely going to have an impact on the election. I'm glad I'm a voter.”

Moore portrayed soldiers accurately as doing what they were told, Sorton said.

Greg Rohwer-Selken, 33, of Ames, Iowa, whose wife, Karol, is serving in the National Guard in Iraq, was moved to tears and told Time magazine: “It really made me question why she has to be over there.”

In conservative Indiana County, Pennsylvania, Eric Blank told the Indiana Gazette: “I have not felt this angry toward an administration ever. I wanted Clinton yanked from office, but I think Bush should go to jail.”

Outside a Missouri theatre, Leslie Hanser told the Los Angeles Times she had supported Bush “fiercely” before but finally understood why many Americans opposed his policies. “I feel like we haven't seen the whole truth before”, she said.

At one point in Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore said he was amazed that the people who received so little from this country, like the poor, were usually the ones who gave so much by dying and getting injured in war. Of course, not just the poor are in the military. A good part is middle class, but very few wealthy families put their kids in harm's way.

Only one out of 535 members of Congress, which largely supported the Iraqi invasion, had a child there, and few Congress members would talk with Moore when he tried to confront them about that fact outside the Capitol building.

Moore said on his internet site that he was heartened by military families' support for his film. “Our troops know the truth”, he wrote. “They have seen it first-hand. And many of them could not believe that here was a movie that was truly on their side — the side of bringing them home alive and never sending them into harm's way again unless it's the absolute last resort.”

Of course, there is Lila Lipscomb, the Michigan mother of a soldier who died in Iraq who played a prominent role in Moore's film. Once a conservative Democrat who loathed anti-war protesters, the movie portrayed her transformation. “I've since come to realise that the protesters of today are protesting against the act of war”, she said. “I accept that. We have a right to protest that.”

Moore went to great pains to get his facts right. He hired the former chief of fact checking at New Yorker magazine to comb the film for inaccuracies. “There's lots of disagreement with my analysis of these facts or my opinion based on the facts”, he told Time. “There is not a single factual error in the movie.”

The New York Times, which is not near as liberal as many people think, largely agreed with Moore, writing, “Central assertions of fact in Fahrenheit 9/11 are supported by the public record”. For instance, Moore's contention that Bush spent 42% of his first eight months as president on vacation came from the Washington Post, which is also not as liberal as many think.

Television host David Letterman gave some insight into what Bush and other White House officials were really thinking with a Top Ten List on “Bush Complaints About Fahrenheit 9/11”. Among them were that “The actor who played the president was totally unconvincing”, “It oversimplified the way I stole the election”, and “Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth”.

Moore, himself, is not as partisan as those Republican groups that lie about being “non-partisan”. He does not spare Democrats in his film. Moore points out how most Democratic senators, including John Kerry, not only voted for the Iraq war but didn't criticise Bush's decision to invade until recently.

In one scene, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle urged his colleagues to vote for Bush's Iraq war. Daschle attended the Washington, DC, premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11 and told Moore after seeing the film that he “felt bad and that we were all going to fight from now on”.

One scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 showed better than others who is closest to Bush. Dressed in a tuxedo, Bush tells a banquet room full of wealthy campaign contributors, “Here I am, with the `have's' and the `have-more's'. People call you the `elite'. I call you 'my base'.”

Moore's movie also touched on some dangerous precedents set in the USAPATRIOT Act, but didn't cover how Bush's decision to invade Iraq violated the United Nations charter, how the US violated the Geneva Convention in its treatment of detainees, how a US Justice Department memo proclaimed that torture of prisoners was legal — in violation of the International Convention Against Torture.

Seeing that Iraq was not really an “imminent” threat against the US before the war, that there were really no weapons of mass destruction there, that Saddam Hussein did not have anything to do with 9/11, what is this Iraqi war really about? Two words: Empire and oil.

In September 2000, two months before the stolen election, a neo-conservative think tank called Project for the New American Century released a report that advocated that the US assert its military dominance over the world to shape “the international security order in line with American principles and interests”. It called for “regime change” in Iraq and China, among other countries, and to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, were prominent members of the Washington-based organisation. Some of them had lobbied the Clinton administration several years before to invade Iraq, which by no coincidence, contains the second largest oil reserves on the planet.

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security”, the publication said. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

The report added the US military needed to be transformed to control not just the Middle East and other regions, but space and cyberspace, even to the points of establishing “US Space Forces” and developing biological and chemical weapons. This transformation would likely take a long-time “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”, the authors wrote.

A year later, the group had its “new Pearl Harbor”.

Even as fires from Flight 77 burned on one side of the Pentagon on 9/11, Rumsfeld wrote down his thoughts on the other side: “Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

As the credits to Fahrenheit 9/11 rolled, I listened to Neil Young's “Rockin' in the Free World”, reading the names of those who produced such a powerful flick. When I finally left the theatre after Moore's final message “Do something” — I turned only to see an empty room, except for two elderly women who remained to discuss what they just saw. A theatre employee handed me a pack of aspirin, saying it was for “in case of a headache”.

“Thanks”, I said. “But I think the people in the White House need this more than me.”


[Abridged from http://www.opednews.com. Kevin Shay, a Washington, DC, writer, won a 2002 International Peacewriting Award for Walking Through the Wall, an electronic book about a transcontinental march for peace and justice he joined. The latest book to which he contributed, Big Bush Lies, was recently released by RiverWood Books.]

From Green Left Weekly, July 21, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page:
http://www.greenleft.org.au
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
21 Jul 2004
first off... like most students, i live out of chambana 3 months out of the year....

secondly... here is a few factual errors in the movie...

1.) Michael Moore isn't even from Flint, he is from Davison Michigan.... to say he grew up in flint would be like a person from Oak Park saying they grew up in Chicago...

2.) Fox not only was not the first station to call flordia for bush, Fox called florida for gore within 5 minutes of the other major stations...

at 7:49 (ET) NBC (followed quickly by CBS) called florida for Gore.... FOX called florida for gore at 7:52, while only ABC (8:02) actually waited for the polls to close.

In the last hour the polls were open in the panhandle (they had already closed on the peninsula), the major networks repeatedly stated that the polls in florida were closed, and called both the Presidential and Senetorial races in favor of the democrat... there is evidence to suggest that many people in the heavily conservative panhandle did not vote because they believed it was too late.

at 10:00 PM, CBS and CNN (who had a joint team) reversed its decision and called the florida election in favor of Bush... FOXNews did not follow suit until FOUR HOURS LATER!!!! at 2:16, the remaining networks had followed suit by 2:20...

Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false. But notice how he says, “Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy…” The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change (“All of a sudden the other networks said, ‘Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.’”)

This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.

3.) Not only did Moore LIE about FOXNews... he lied about the results of the election.

The ONLY scenario under which gore would have won the election is that if EVERY double punched ballot in the disputed counties were given to gore. This is clearly illegal and would not stand in ANY court. Even if undervotes (hanging chads, etc...) were counted, GORE WOULD HAVE LOST.

The numbers given to state election board, and certified by that board, were counted and presented to them by the individual counties. The three counties in question are all democrat controlled, and the ballots and votes were certified by DEMOCRATIC election boards...

The plain fact is that the Florida election was a toss-up... it showed people of all political affiliations the importance of voting. There will always be errors in voting... people make mistakes... the closeness of the election, both in florida and across america proves just how split we are as a people, and that continues to be shown with the events of the past four years.

Regardless, September 11th would still have happened, the seeds that created 9/11 were sown over the last 20+ years, across both Democrat and Republican administrations. Whether we would be in Iraq now, or if the Iraqi people would still be dying at the hands of a tyrannical dictator is anyones guess. The US policy of regime change in Iraq has been in place long before Dubya took office.

anyways... back to more lies (YAY!!!)

4.) The movie lauds an anti-Bush riot that took place in Washington, D.C., on the day of Bush’s inauguration. He claims that protestors "pelted Bush's limo with eggs." Actually, it was just one egg, according to the BBC. According to Moore, "No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day. " According to CNN, Richard Nixon faced comparable protests in 1969 and 1973.

5.) the quote from bush... “I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” came from a charity dinner, which was attended by AL GORE.... during the same dinner, Gore promised that he would put "Medicare in a walk-in closet," put NASA funding in a "hermetically sealed Ziploc bag" and would "always keep lettuce in the crisper." ... the dinner raised $1.6M for charity....

6.)Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11.

If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.

The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, “Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.”

But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”

Some Saudis left the U.S. by charter flight on September 14, a day when commercial flights had resumed, but when ordinary charter planes were still grounded. When did the bin Ladens actually leave? Not until the next week.

Finally, Moore's line, "But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens,” happens to be a personal lie. Stranded in California on September 11, Michael Moore ended up driving home to New York City. On September 14, he wrote to his fans "Our daughter is fine, mostly frightened by my desire to fly home to her rather than drive." Moore acceded to the wishes of his wife and daughter, and drove back to New York. It is pretty hypocritical for Moore to slam the Saudis (who had very legitimate fears of being attacked by angry people) just because they wanted to fly home, at the same time when Moore himself wanted to fly home.

..and that is just the first 30 minutes or so of the movie...
Re: debunking cr@p from michaelmoorelies.com
Current rating: 0
21 Jul 2004
Umm, yah. Mr. Moore hits about every single one of your points here:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
A Revealing Double Standard
Current rating: 0
22 Jul 2004
In the whole complaint (at least for the first 30 minutes of the movie), the biggest and most substantive beef seems to be that "Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another..."

There is a rather curious double standard at work here. After all, Moore only made a movie with that (assuming there really is anything to it, which there seems to be in the minds of some conservatives).

On the other hand, Bush certainly started a war on the basis of "a classic game of saying one thing and implying another" and he has no apologies about it. If conservatives held the pResident to the same strict standards as they assert that Moore should be held to, I could take such criticism seriously, instead of marking it down to one more case of partisan double standards for what they want versus what the rest of us want.

And, BTW, ijustkrustalot, did you write all that yourself or did you just forget to cite the source? That seems to be a rather common issue among many college students these days.
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Making GOP Nervous
Current rating: 0
22 Jul 2004
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Republicans initially dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a cinematic screed that would play mostly to inveterate Bush bashers. Four weeks and $94 million later, the film is still pulling in moviegoers at 2,000 theaters around the country, making Republicans nervous as it settles into the American mainstream.

"I'm not sure if it moves voters," GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success."

Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base. Independents and GOP-leaning voters are likely to be found sitting beside those set to revel in its depiction of a clueless president with questionable ties to the oil industry.

"If you are a naive, uncommitted voter and wander into a theater, you aren't going to come away with a good impression of the president," Republican operative Joe Gaylord said. "It's a problem only if a lot of people see it."

Based on a record-breaking gross of $94 million through last weekend, theaters already have sold an estimated 12 million tickets to "Fahrenheit 9/11." A Gallup survey conducted July 8-11 said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video.

More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in June mainly in locally owned arts theaters that specialize in obscure films and tiny audiences. Drawn in part by the buzz surrounding the film, people packed the theaters and formed long lines for tickets. Within a week, it was appearing in chain-owned theaters along with "Spider-Man 2," "The Notebook" and other big summer attractions.

When he sat down to watch the film at the Varsity Theater in Des Moines last weekend, Rob Sheesley didn't harbor anti-Bush feelings. Two hours later, he left with conflicted emotions.

"You want to respect the president," Sheesley said. "It raised a lot of questions."

Bush's leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had impressed retired teacher Lavone Mann, another Des Moines moviegoer. After watching the film, Mann wanted to know more about its claims.

"I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate and not just get carried away with one film," she said. "I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect."

Retired college professor Dennis O'Brien, a Bush voter in 2000 and a movie buff who has seen other Moore films, said "Fahrenheit 9/11" hasn't changed his view of Bush but may well serve a larger purpose by sparking debate.

"Moore forces you to think about the role of oil in the politics of American life," O'Brien said. "This goes back a long way."

In GOP-strong Columbia, S.C., watching the movie last week at the Columbiana Grande tipped 26-year-old David Wood's support more to the left.

"I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I just vote for whoever is right for the job," the University of South Carolina student said. "I think most people don't bother to really research, and all they need is something popular to sway them."

Others at the screening in Columbia were put off by what they saw as the film's biased approach to examining Bush and the reasons he took the country to war. For Scott Campbell, 19, the movie reinforced his apathy toward politics.

"We didn't even stay to see the whole thing," Campbell said. "It was one-sided."

Former Iowa Republican Chairman Michael Mahaffey said the movie's impact could be dulled over time. "It's July," he said. "Conventional wisdom will change completely every four or five weeks."

Still, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is likely to gain an even wider audience when it's released on home video in the weeks before Election Day. The Gallup survey found that nearly half of the Republicans and independents who expect to see the film said they were likely to view it on video.

"In all honesty, in a very close election, who knows what will sway the public?" Mahaffey said.

Associated Press writer Jennifer Holland in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report

On the Net:
Gallup survey: http://www.gallup.com
Michael Moore official Web site: http://www.michaelmoore.com


© Copyright 2004 The Associated Press
http://www.ap.org
For The Truth . . .
Current rating: 0
11 Aug 2004
Modified: 03:14:28 PM
cartoon_tradetowers_small.jpg
http://liesofbush.com/
Good God! You people must love to type.
Who are those that use the technique of censorship? Isn’t it time we removed them from office?
Please save me the effort of having to type the proof of the truth in Moore's assertions and visit my site. You will see that Moore only scratched the surface.
Forget the chads, overcounts, and undercounts in Florida. Millions of votes (mostly African-American) were excluded in way or another all over the country.
Many, many, more voters were turned away because they were illegally placed on felon lists. Let us learn from the 2000 election and be ready to stop the theft of yet one more election.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2005
All this is is an attempt for people to show their support for their political party, I don't care what people think of Moore's film, they banned it because it told the truth about our corrupt puppet of a President. Screw anyone whos behind that ass anyhow
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
23 Jul 2005
While I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone who owns a theatre to choose which movies to show, I think it's poor form to actually do this type of censorship. Their reaons are slim at best; there's no way they can prove this movie actually supports so-called anti-American terrorists. I, for one, saw the movie and am not an anti-American terrorist. I think every movie could potentially alienate an audience, but I would not like a theatre to tell me what I should or should not see.

They even made assumptions about the 5 to 1 ratio of viewers supporting Moore's movie to be shown without finding truth behind this before making a decision. If we do this for all political issues - regardless of the side taken - we are in for a lot of trouble as a country. It clearly shows our immaturity and lack of ability to have a democracy to suit all people.

I, for one, do not like the art in current Disney movies compared to older movies. I would not expect a theatre to take the same stance as me and refuse to show Disney movies in favor of Japanese anime just because I think it's better.
Re: GKC Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11
Current rating: 0
23 Jul 2005
While I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone who owns a theatre to choose which movies to show, I think it's poor form to actually do this type of censorship. Their reaons are slim at best; there's no way they can prove this movie actually supports so-called anti-American terrorists. I, for one, saw the movie and am not an anti-American terrorist. I think every movie could potentially alienate an audience, but I would not like a theatre to tell me what I should or should not see.

They even made assumptions about the 5 to 1 ratio of viewers supporting Moore's movie to be shown without finding truth behind this before making a decision. If we do this for all political issues - regardless of the side taken - we are in for a lot of trouble as a country. It clearly shows our immaturity and lack of ability to have a democracy to suit all people.

I, for one, do not like the art in current Disney movies compared to older movies. I would not expect a theatre to take the same stance as me and refuse to show Disney movies in favor of Japanese anime just because I think it's better.