Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been awesomer if only—

[MrHoatzin]

—if only I hadn't already known pretty much everything it said. I sat there waiting for some new information, but alas. Maybe if only I were ignoranter all would've been awesome, awe-inspiring and otherwise awing. As disgusted by these words as I am on many levels*: help us Michael Moore, you're our only hope.

I went to see it in one of the 8 greater Houston area cinemas brave enough to show it. There was actually a line in front of the amphitheatre; I don't remember ever being in line to see a movie in US ever before. The line gave me an opportunity to look at the kinds of people who came - no bellicose Bible-thumping Tories seemed to be there as the place was filled with Jews, Negro intellectuals, politically active aunts handing out voting registration brochures, old women dressed in glitter & rhinestone US flag attire, hipsters, humanities professors, punk kids, and assorted Eurotrash.

In all, all liberals in the greater Houston area were there... I liked Bowling for Columbine better.

*) Level first: Lucas reference;

Level second: it's Michael Moore; and

Level third: the only hope.

[OftenK]

I thought it was good, too. I particularly liked the bit with the Fresno Peace group. I didn't have to wait in line or anything (on the other hand, I live out in Bumblefuck, Wisconsin) but the theater was still packed. And as I left the theater some woman was handing out these slips of paper on how to...I don't know, "help the cause." Or "Turn up the heat" as the paper says. (This didn't make any sense to me; Moore said that Farenheit 9/11 was the temperature at which liberty burns, so these people--the League Of Pissed Off Voters--want to burn liberty faster?) I don't know. I didn't really bother reading the thing.

I can't decide which I like better; Farenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine. I'm leaning toward the latter, though, possibly because it had more new information in it.

[Jayel]

I know nothing about what the movie talks about, except that the whole 9 11 incident has been staged to start a war and make Bush and co very very rich.

I have a feeling i'm gonna enjoy this movie...

[vimes]

I was quite fond of Moore's works (especially his first film) but I got less enthusiastic when I discovered that he's pretending to build documentaries. This guy is making great satyrical, nearly propaganda movies but he's not showing reality, he only shows one side of the coin intentionally forgetting points that doesn't "help" his point of view.

Aniway,Moore's movies are great shocks which consists in one of the best way to begin to think about some hot topics ... but audience shouldn't close the debates just after they've finished watching the movies.

[Jake]

I think its a bit funny Michael Moore seems to be the only one left in his company who refers to his films as pure documentaries. His immediate underlings and overlings have been referring to them as op/ed (opinion/editorial), or essays in film form in most of the recent Farenheit 9/11 interviews that I read last week and the week before while bored at work...

But yes it's frustrating that as Moore drifts more and more in the propaganda direction he becomes less and less trustworthy as a filmmaker. If he just came out and said that this was his take on it, or the way he "read the signs" or whatever instead of saying "this is truth," I suspect he would become immediately more palatable to those who are wary of him.

[hermes]

In my opinion, all documentaries are propaganda to some extend. Of course a documentary about mollusc apes can hardly be said to be propagandic in nature - except maybe the casual *humans destroy nature* - stuff. But all documentaries that run an argument - or try to unveil how things really are etc, are quite propagandic in nature. It all comes down to what you show - and pictures give you a feel of reality. Naturally - you show all the stuff that supports the argument or cause, and not necessarily the things which would make the picture complete - the oppositions. This combines to leave the viewer with a feeling that things are the way the real life pictures show in the documentary - which is false, of course.

In the end it all comes down to the documentarist's integrity.

[Moosferatu]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but this article says pretty much what I currently think about the movie, though I don't even think his stunt with asking congressmen to enlist their children was to terribly witty.

[Jake]

I don't know if all documentaries are propaganda, but all documentaries of course have opinion in them. If a filmmaker is interested one way or the other in something so much that he/she decides to make a film about it, you bet they have an opinion on it. A lot of people seem to be confused about that, and equate "showing both sides" with "being objective" or "telling the truth." Though at this point what I'm saying has little to do with Moore... (erm I forget where I'm going with this).

All documentary films and, to a point, all news reports in print and on television (which in their own way are mini/micro documentaries) are biased, so in that regard it's no surprise that Moore's movies are that way (a ha, I've remembered!). It just seems that for a while he was walking a number of very fine lines, and now he's crossed a few of them. What those lines are, I am too lazy to attempt to forumlate into words and list, but it seems like most in this thread know what I mean.

[MrHoatzin]

I like Michael Moore because he is reclaiming the grassroots tactics used by leftist politicians from 50 years ago that are now used by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Namely the depiction of the polarization between the elites and the poor plebeians. Rush flip-turned this to where the Evil Elite are the liberal college boys, the liberal editors and journalists, the professors and the like; In his view of the world, the rich boss and the poor worker are supposed to sit together and look in disgust at the evil liberal kids drinking their lattes and talking about the common good at the other table. Michael Moore doesn't preach this anti-intellectualism, but at the same time makes himself into a non-intellectual and positions himself at a place that I see as strategically beneficial for the well-being of the future. Heh.

[ysbreker]

It's on the number one position on the imdb.com boxoffice charts with a whopping 21.8 million dollars cash-in this weekend...

Still want to see the movie here in the NL, eventho I know all about his Bin Laden <> Bush conspiracy.

[hermes]

All documentary films and, to a point, all news reports in print and on television (which in their own way are mini/micro documentaries) are biased, so in that regard it's no surprise that Moore's movies are that way (a ha, I've remembered!). It just seems that for a while he was walking a number of very fine lines, and now he's crossed a few of them. What those lines are, I am too lazy to attempt to forumlate into words and list, but it seems like most in this thread know what I mean.

I agree ... everything is biased..... it is cool that michael moore makes into mass media with a cause that stands in opposition to very much of the mass media today.... makes a more complete picture when you take it all together...

[Jayel]

I like Michael Moore because he is fat and jolly like Santa Claus.

[spaceship789]

I like Michael Moore because he is fat and jolly like Santa Claus.

You're right. There is something about fat men. Tim Schafer, Ron Gilbert included. Maybe it *is* because they are jolly, like Santa Claus. Makes me want to pack on the pounds myself.

[OftenK]

Tim's not fat! He's....pleasantly plump.