Farenheit 9/11 Opens Frieday | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Farenheit 9/11 Opens Frieday

euterpe

Medalist
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
The problem for Republicans is this is an election year and this film is presenting fiction as truth, specifically about President Bush.

The intention of the film is to smear the President by presenting him in an unflattering light. Those who see the film do not know what is actually happening in the film clips in their actual context, or in the actual order in which they happened, or even WHY they happened.

Imagine if someone made a film of you in school peeking at someone else's paper, then showing you getting your exam back with an "A" on it. Someone seeing the film might conclude you got the "A" by cheating, because they couldn't tell that when you were looking at the other person's paper, you weren't taking an exam.

Moore has used this technique in all of his films to get viewers to draw conclusions from what they are seeing. But what they are seeing is in many cases, not what really happened. Too many people go to see propaganda movies like this and accept what they are seeing as fact without ever questioning it, or doing further investigation or reality check.

People who lionize Moore are the same people who ran out to buy Clinton's book, and accept every word he says as gospel, and who complained about the Reagan funeral ceremonies. If the liberal media says something is true, they accept it without doing any critical thinking.
 

Ravyn Rant

Totally 80s Dance Party!
Medalist
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Mathman said:
There was a little news snippet in the paper yesterday that Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451 was thinking of suing Moore for stealing his title.

MM

I didn't think you could copyright a book title, but I'll be happy if Mr. Bradbury's complaint, and the attendant publicity involved, introduces new readers to "Fahrenheit 451".
I'm seeing this movie more than once, it's turning out to be quite the liberal social event around here. My first viewing is with a non-voter, and I'm bringing a blank voter registration card, just in case. :)
Rave
 

Yazmeen

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
For those complaining that the movie is "unfair," its no less fair than some of the swipes that the Bush campaign team has taken at Kerry in their political ads. Its a political year, folks, and both sides are going to use facts and "not-so-facts" to their advantage.

One thing should be pointed out: Moore has been very open in saying this film reflects his opinion and that its not any specific "gospel." There is both a book and a documentary coming out that take shots at Michael Moore, and I have a feeling that those of you who consider Moore's film unfair to the President will think that the books/film critical of Moore are just fine. That's the beauty of living in this country, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

And the fact that this film is making the Bush team and the Republican party squirm is just part of the democratic process. Long live freedom of speech and a pox on those who try to squash it because they don't like what's being said!!!!
 

euterpe

Medalist
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
There's a big difference between Moore making a movie maligning Bush during an election year (with a political motive, which he freely admits is the case), and some other filmmaker or writer maligning Moore.

Number one, Moore is not a politician, and he is not up for re-election. Furthermore, a book and/or film about him can only HELP him, because it keeps him in the public eye and will boost sales of DVDs of his previous movies. Moore will be laughing all the way to the bank.

It's NORMAL for one candidate to attack another--that's quite fair, and the way politics works, whether we like it or not. Any candidate always has the option to answer an attack, or attack back, directly addressing the ad or insinuation made in the original attack. Kerry has certainly done his share of attacking Bush, too--and he has had a huge head start during the primaries and caucases. But there IS no way for the Bush campaign to respond to Moore's film without drawing more attention to it.

It's just as much a right of free speech for those who disagree with Moore's 'message' to speak out about the fallacies presented as truth in the movie.
 
Last edited:

dfj

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
euterpe said:
There's a big difference between Moore making a movie maligning Bush during an election year (with a political motive, which he freely admits is the case), and some other filmmaker or writer maligning Moore.

Number one, Moore is not a politician, and he is not up for re-election. Furthermore, a book and/or film about him can only HELP him, because it keeps him in the public eye and will boost sales of DVDs of his previous movies. Moore will be laughing all the way to the bank.

And good for him...free enterprise in action. It's the American way!

There is no doubt that Michael Moore dislikes (at the very least) George Bush. According to a recent interview with Moore, he admitted that he made this movie as a slam to the Bush family. If there is anything libelous in the movie, the Bush family always has recourse to the courts.
 

Yazmeen

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Which, the last time I checked, Euterpe, is the capitalistic way of life that the Republican party so cherishes. Cha-ching!!!!!!

I've been sick to death of the frame of mind in this country since 9/11 that you don't DARE criticize the President/Administration, that you are not a "patriot" and that you are supporting terrorism if you do criticize. Maybe its a reflection of my age (mid-forties) but somewhere around elementary school level, I was taught that freedom of speech and expression was one of the principles that this great country was founded on.

Just as Mel Gibson had the right to interpret the story of Jesus according to his own views, Moore has the right to present his opinion on the Bush presidency. For all the conservative uproar, its going to be a similar situation to Mel's film. Those who believe its a worthwile film will see it, and those who are opposed to it won't. In the long run, Moore's film is unlikely to convert many people to suddenly hating Bush just like Mel's was unlikely to bring a religious epiphany to many non-religious persons. I didn't see Mel's film because I was not comfortable with his interpretation of the story--at the same time I didn't go raging around claiming it shouldn't be on movie screens and should be banned. I plan to see Moore's film because I agree with his opinions about Bush. Apparently, some people fell I shouldn't have the right to express my freedom to see this film. That's not the way of America, that's what we're fighting against the last time I checked.
 

euterpe

Medalist
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Who said you had no right to see this movie if you want to? I saw no posts to that effect on this board. Go right ahead! If you hate Bush, this movie isn't going to make you hate him any more than you already do.

BTW, Bush CAN'T sue, because he is a public figure, and nothing is said about him directly. It's the order and content of the film clips--all completely out of context--that are designed for a viewer to draw a certain conclusion.

Mel Gibson didn't 'interpret' anything. The entire screenplay comes directly from the New Testament. And please don't compare Gibson to Moore. Gibson had no ulterior or political motive in making "The Passion of the Christ", and the movie was not attacking a current political figure. Moore made the film--by his own admission--to hurt the Bush family. And to make loads of money.
 

dfj

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
euterpe said:
Moore made the film--by his own admission--to hurt the Bush family. And to make loads of money.

And I repeat - good for him. Cha-ching! as Yazmeen would say.
 

Yazmeen

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Euterpe: When Mel's movie was in its early days of release, there was quite a BIT of controversy as to "interpretation" as many felt he was not presenting the bible just as written but was putting his own spin on it. There was also controversy that he was making the movie more to spotlight (and possibly convert people to) his preferred version of Catholicism, namely the far more conservative faith that existed pre-Vatican II. In the end, each man had his own motives for why he made his film, and those motives are being interpreted differently by different people, which is everyone's right to expression.
 

StillBlueLake

Rinkside
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Yazmeen said:
Which, the last time I checked, Euterpe, is the capitalistic way of life that the Republican party so cherishes. Cha-ching!!!!!!

I've been sick to death of the frame of mind in this country since 9/11 that you don't DARE criticize the President/Administration, that you are not a "patriot" and that you are supporting terrorism if you do criticize. Maybe its a reflection of my age (mid-forties) but somewhere around elementary school level, I was taught that freedom of speech and expression was one of the principles that this great country was founded on.

Just as Mel Gibson had the right to interpret the story of Jesus according to his own views, Moore has the right to present his opinion on the Bush presidency. For all the conservative uproar, its going to be a similar situation to Mel's film. Those who believe its a worthwile film will see it, and those who are opposed to it won't. In the long run, Moore's film is unlikely to convert many people to suddenly hating Bush just like Mel's was unlikely to bring a religious epiphany to many non-religious persons. I didn't see Mel's film because I was not comfortable with his interpretation of the story--at the same time I didn't go raging around claiming it shouldn't be on movie screens and should be banned. I plan to see Moore's film because I agree with his opinions about Bush. Apparently, some people fell I shouldn't have the right to express my freedom to see this film. That's not the way of America, that's what we're fighting against the last time I checked.


Damn Straight!!!! :D

Furthermore, as for candidates attacking each other.

75% of Bush's ads have been negative.
25% of Kerry's ads have been negative.

In the trailer, there's Bush quoted as saying two things, you see him on video.

"Some call you the elite, I call you my base."
"Welcome to the haves and the have mores."

I don't think you need the context to understand those statements. I really don't. Please give me a reason why I need the whole thing. Those were HIS jokes.
 
Last edited:

bronxgirl

Medalist
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
euterpe said:
Mel Gibson didn't 'interpret' anything. The entire screenplay comes directly from the New Testament. And please don't compare Gibson to Moore. Gibson had no ulterior or political motive in making "The Passion of the Christ", and the movie was not attacking a current political figure. Moore made the film--by his own admission--to hurt the Bush family. And to make loads of money.

Since Mel wasn't around at the crucifixion, he can't know exactly what was done (in terms of the amount of blood, gore, etc). It was definitely his interpretation, and his ulterior motive was to promote his version of his religion.

Nothing wrong with making money. I'm sure the President would agree with that point.
 

Longhornliz

Final Flight
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Some people need to simmer down and remember its just a movie. I am always up for stimulating debate, but I dont consider arguing back and forth over the merits or intentions of a film maker is an actual political debate.

Just because the movie openly has an agenda and perspective, does not make it fiction. Things taken out of context are still true events even if they are presented in a scewed fashion, and to assume that the viewers will not be able to discern this means that you dont think very highly about those watching it. Primary Colors is a better example of fiction, and it was just as controversial at the time.
 

PrincessLeppard

~ Evgeni's Sex Bomb ~
Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
First of all, even though I'm a liberal and agree with Moore on many things, this doesn't mean I take everything he says as gospel. If there's something that strikes me as "off" I will do the research myself. Liberals CAN think for themselves, you know. And I'm even willing to criticize other liberals....:eek:

Not to get to in the Passion thing, but Mel's version wasn't taken directly out of the New Testament. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but his version of the Passion was taken from an 18th century "vision."

Oh, and whoever went off on Kara, that wasn't too cool. You could've made your point without a lot of name calling and insults.

Laura :)
 

sk8er1964

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Longhornliz said:
Some people need to simmer down. I am always arguing back and forth over political debate.

The movie (isn't) true even if they assume that the viewers will not be able to discern it. (It) is a better example of fiction.

Ooops - didn't mean to take your comments out of context ;) .

What I did to your post, according to what I have heard, (haven't had the opportunity to see the film - and to be honest probably won't mainly because I very rarely go to theaters), is exactly what Moore did. One scene, apparently, shows Moore confronting a Republican Congressman about whether or not he would send his kids into Iraq. It then showed the Congressman turning away from the camera. What it didn't show was the man's actual response, which was to say that he didn't have kids that age, but if he did he would be proud if they decided to serve (I'm paraphrasing what I heard).

Anyone can turn truth into fiction, and fiction into truth, if they so desire. Unfortunately, there are folks out there who can't tell the difference. (This statement is not aimed at you, Longhornliz - it is a generalization.)
 
Last edited:

Longhornliz

Final Flight
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
I would still disagree that it is fiction to take things out of context as such. I watch reality shows way too much and they do the exact thing you did to my post and what is described to have happened in F911... but it is still generating a perspective, not creating a story line about fictional characters or events.
 

Aloft04

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
"Anyone can turn truth into fiction, and fiction into truth.."

Aint' it the truth!!!! That's exactly what got us in the middle of this big fat Iraq mess in the first place. Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice doing exactly that. Playing fast and loose with the truth.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
There seems to be a few questions arising from these posts:

l. Did Moore lie on many if not most of the scenes as are shown in the movie, and did he have an ulterior motive for mking the film other than his admitting it was to discredit the need to go to war?

2 Did the President lie about the WMD as the reason to go to war, and was he concerned about other things in Iraq?

3. Did Mel Gibson distort the story of the Crucifixion, and was he trying to put another message forward?

My answers are as follows

1. I haven't seen the movie but I will so I have no opinion right now.
2. As a peacenik, I have strong anti views on war.
3. I have not seen the movie and probably will not, so no opinion.

Joesitz
 

Kara Bear

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
chuckm said:
I guess it's because this is a free country, and people are permitted to have different ideas and concepts.

To me, a 'right winger' is a John Bircher or a Ku Klux Klansman or a Timothy McVeigh. A conservative is a person who is about as far from a right winger as a liberal is from Leon Trotsky. I am somewhere to the right of a liberal and somewhere to the left of a conservative.

To you, Kara Bear, a 'right winger' is someone who doesn't think exactly the way you do.

I am a well-educated, highly intelligent individual who has been out in the workforce for a goodly number of years, and do have a grasp on what it means to earn a living and how the different political policies affect me and my family from day to day. I vote every year, and read widely, including liberal, middle-ground and conservative books, newspapers and magazines. My opinions are carefully considered, and not arrived at piecemeal or what looks to be the most popular view among my friends.

I do not need a 22-year-old who has never held down a permanent job to tell me what my opinion should or should not be, thank you very much.

Inasmuch as you are not a US citizen and can't vote, what you think about the subject of the film is entirely immaterial anyway.


First of all, I find your response to my tongue in cheek post quite offensive and a personal attack.

I find it offensive that because I am young and currently unemployed you assume that I am some stupid twit who follows her friends.

And the comment that because I am not American I do not matter, is a narrow self-centered view.

I am also a highly educated intelligent person who can think for herself. I arrived at my political views through my upbringing with two conservative parents and my university education. I have a BA with First Class Honours in Canadian history. The First Class means I had straight A's for my university career, in case you didn't know. I also had a minor in political science and media studies. I was ranked second in my history graduating class. I have been accepted into graduate school starting this fall.

You can think whatever way you wish. The problem I have is understanding why people have the narrow views they do.

I am very insulted that you, a person I don't recall speaking to here before, has attacked my intelligence at such a level.

I do not need some old out of touch tight *** telling me my opinion is not only uneducated but also wrong.

Have a nice day.
 

Yazmeen

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Good response, Kara bear!!!!

Chuckm: About the only thing you left out in your "I'm older and therfore wiser" response was the standard experience of walking five miles a day to school, in snow without shoes, uphill both ways...
(And before you decide to to dismiss me for MY lack of experience, I'm a physician in my mid-forties, so I've had one or two "life experiences" along my merry little way.)

Age is not of relevance here, nor quite frankly, is country of origin. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is what allows us to BE FREE here in both countries. I think it would be wise for people to remember that.
 
Top