RSSFahrenheit 9/11
Jun 27
I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 when it opened last night. Due to some of the reaction in the media, beforehand, I had put myself in the mindset of “just enjoy it for what it is.” I was expecting something super-sensationalist.
Apparently, but not suprisingly, those people in the media who were saying those things haven’t seen the movie. This film was in the very same style as Bowling for Columbine. However, there was even less “opinion” parts of it than the earlier movie. The film, for the most part, was conveying facts. Facts about Bush’s business dealings with the Saudis, facts about Iraqi and American deaths in the war, facts about events surrounding 9/11, etc. No one can dispute the fact that many thousands of Iraqi civilians have been murdered. The part that’s disputable, for those in favour of the war, is whether those people are worth less than us.
Whether you agree with the contents of the movie or not, this is what I believe to be the merit of the movie: to get several important facts, which have been overlooked by the major media, into the public arena. To this goal the movie has done very well even before it’s official release date. Everyone is talking about this movie, even the “right,” which just gives it more momentum. As soon as the opponents of the movie begin trying to disprove his facts/theories they will have made it to those same media outlets. At this point the public gets their first real glimpse of them and a few of them will make a judgement for themselves.
This is a documentary for an issue. That’s exactly what BfC was, as well. And it’s of course not suprising that the “opponents” of the issue are the ones up in arms about it. <rant>The only people this right-wing battle against this movie may convince are the drones who watch Fox News. I don’t think anyone’s trying to convince them, anyways – they’re too far gone. Were I a Christian, like many of those people claim to be, I’d say we should forgive them for their sins – but I’m not.</rant>
Anyways, this is always true, but especially in this case I have absolutely ZERO respect for anyone who says ANYTHING about this movie without having seen it. I’ve heard people at work say Moore is an “asshole” for making this movie. Well, they’re the asshole for being ignorant enough to comment on a movie they haven’t seen.
Jun 28, 2004 @ 19:13:04
Neil, to be fair, on May 8 you made some negative comments about Rush Limbaugh based on a few quotes from him, and in the same column, you admitted that you don’t listen to his show.
I’m not saying that it’s wrong to do that, but there are people like me who will opine on Mr. Moore and his works based on hearsay, some quotes, and what other people have said about him and his movies, and I don’t really feel I have to give him any of my money to make these comments. I don’t really think that I’m an asshole for doing so, and I don’t think that you’re an asshole for doing the same about Rush.
Jun 28, 2004 @ 23:03:45
Steve, I actually have listened to his show and to clips of his show. Reading my post on that date, I see the confusion – my point was more along the lines of “since I don’t listen to his show regularly I don’t hear him making an idiot of himself regularly.”
There’s a big difference between commenting on specific quotes/events and going from that to generalizations about something as a whole. If you heard that the movie contained scenes of Iraqi civilians it’s acceptable to say “I think he’s an asshole for showing civilian deaths on film.” But it’s not acceptable to say “He’s an asshole for making a sensationalist movie beating on Bush.” That’s a degree of knowledge that can only be obtained by watching the movie. You’re making hearsay based on hearsay based on hearsay… probably starting from someone who didn’t even see the movie. That’s what’s inappropriate. And the comments I heard around work were not with respect to any particular scene, or anything direct.
So I see your point, but by comparison I think I’m justified in saying that Rush is a crazy freak. And I’ve in essence paid him by listening to commercials on his show. Will you watch the movie if I pay for it? Or when I buy the DVD?
Jun 29, 2004 @ 06:39:09
If you were going to buy the DVD anyways (and hence Moore isn’t getting any more money), then maybe I’d watch it. Surely I can find something suitably right-wing to make you sit through
Jul 05, 2004 @ 14:34:59
In my opinion Moore brought out the truth i think bush is the one who deserve to die not all those inicent people in iraq What Wrong With People theses days Because there different then us we half to hate them there not the ones who hit on 9/11 anyways what good is my word going to do Bless Iraq and FUCK BUSH!!! people judge to much try to realize and see what kind of world we live in
Jul 22, 2004 @ 21:06:43
The only problem I had with this movie (after having seen it hehe) was the way in which it was portrayed. True its factually based but facts can be presented in such a way to give false impressions, much like what the Bush administration does on a daily basis. If anything this movie is a taste of there own medicine.
For example, when listing the countries of the coalation of the willing, Moore only listed the small insignificant ones, ignoring the bigger players, which I think gives people a false impression of the reality of the situation. By only giving part facts we are not able to formulate accurate pictures of the real deal. I suppose in a sense it is a counter weight to the opposite perspective but if Moore truly wanted to educate and step above that which he seems to despise, then he should have presented a more impartial view IMHO. Still an interesting movie but I had hoped for more from Moore
Jul 23, 2004 @ 15:36:29
I agree that his movie has a point of view, no one ever said it didn’t, and all media does. I doubt he’s trying to be an “impartial outlet” and “above everyone else.” He’s trying to get a point across and get some as yet uncovered topics into the media as talking points.