First screening of Fahrenheit 9/11

[timmynausea]

The new Michael Moore movie film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival on Monday. It got a 20 minute standing ovation.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/times...nt/8703889.htm

[Cuckoo]

I'd urinate on it for 20 minutes... if I could pee that long... which I couldn't... so I'll just stay away from it.

[WSUCougar]

Estimated time until this becomes a locked thread?

Guesses?

Anyone?

Bueller?

[timmynausea]

Here's another article. This one says 15 minute ovation.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...120113206.html

[Cuckoo]

You're such a cynic WSUCougar.

[Chubby]

9 mins before the first bashing by a repub? I'm so disappointed...

[Cuckoo]

and 9 mins before a Chubby retort bashing someone as repub... I'm so not surprised...



HURRY, LOCK THE THREAD. Hurry, it's all falling apart...

[primelord]

Just don't delete it! PEOPLE WILL LOSE POSTS!!!!!!

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

and 9 mins before a Chubby retort bashing someone as repub... I'm so not surprised...



HURRY, LOCK THE THREAD. Hurry, it's all falling apart...

Ya know cuckoo, if you can't even bother to spell out Republican..........

[Hammer755]

The creator of an anti-Bush movie getting a standing ovation in France.

Shocking.

[panerd]

EDIT: Yes, my 500th post is a roll-eyes political post!

[Arles]

"This is not a film about Bush," Moore said. "This is about the larger issues. ... This film pulls back the layers, like Toto pulling back the curtain. The Americans who see this movie are going to be in shock and in awe and will respond accordingly."

Rrrigghttt...

"His scorn was not reserved for Bush; the movie also takes swipes at ineffectual Democrats and the media."

Yeah, for not being harder on Bush.

Why can't the media just admit this guy is no different than Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity and treat him with the same level of skepticism his counterparts on the right get?

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Ya know cuckoo, if you can't even bother to spell out Republican..........

Just trying to mimic the esteemed Mr. Chubbs.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Arles

"This is not a film about Bush," Moore said. "This is about the larger issues. ... This film pulls back the layers, like Toto pulling back the curtain. The Americans who see this movie are going to be in shock and in awe and will respond accordingly."

Rrrigghttt...

"His scorn was not reserved for Bush; the movie also takes swipes at ineffectual Democrats and the media."

Yeah, for not being harder on Bush.

Why can't the media just admit this guy is no different than Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity and treat him with the same level of skepticism his counterparts on the right get?

I's personally put him on the level of Savage.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

The creator of an anti-Bush movie getting a standing ovation in France.

From Hollywood types, to boot.

[Sharpieman]

I would agree with putting him at the level of Savage, and I'm as liberal as they get. But damn, man at the same level of Ann Coulter? Thats just way to harsh. She's Satan's daughter.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

"This is not a film about Bush," Moore said. "This is about the larger issues. ... This film pulls back the layers, like Toto pulling back the curtain. The Americans who see this movie are going to be in shock and in awe and will respond accordingly."

Rrrigghttt...

"His scorn was not reserved for Bush; the movie also takes swipes at ineffectual Democrats and the media."

Yeah, for not being harder on Bush.

Why can't the media just admit this guy is no different than Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity and treat him with the same level of skepticism his counterparts on the right get?

I'm not a Michael Moore fan because I believe he makes himself the center of too many stories and his false modesty is painful. With that being said, I find him very different than Coulter and Hannity. I think Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly are built entirely on soundbites and clever turns of a phrase. They operate in a world of delusional "clarity" that frightens me. Their liberal counterpart seems more like Al Franken to me.

Moore on the other hand has a different syndrome. He tends to be a bit scattered and contradictory (ie when he attacks and defends economics as the source of violence in American culture). His movies and work aren't as much about flash and soundbites even where they are problematic.

As a result, I find more to Moore because he engages in analytic thought and explores ideas in depth. For Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly, I've almost never found any substance to disagree with - it is all form. Moore, at least, has something to latch onto (whether you agree or disagree with him).

As a result, I'm looking forward to seeing his new movie and exploring the ideas he presents. I strongly disagreed with his themes in Roger & Me but found Bowling for Columbine to be pretty good overall. Either way, I enjoyed both movies and expect this one will be worth the money as well (even though I still find Moore to be annoying).

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by primelord

Just don't delete it! PEOPLE WILL LOSE POSTS!!!!!!

I'm proud the way you stepped in an made sure people realized what is truly important. Good job!

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Arles

"This is not a film about Bush," Moore said. "This is about the larger issues. ... This film pulls back the layers, like Toto pulling back the curtain. The Americans who see this movie are going to be in shock and in awe and will respond accordingly."

Rrrigghttt...

"His scorn was not reserved for Bush; the movie also takes swipes at ineffectual Democrats and the media."

Yeah, for not being harder on Bush.

Why can't the media just admit this guy is no different than Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity and treat him with the same level of skepticism his counterparts on the right get?

On one level you are correct, he tends to take swipes at the George Bush more often than not. But on another level, he does take a unique view on things. For example, many people thought that "Bowling for Columbine" was about gun control. It wasn't. In fact, he had stated that there were a number of guns in Canada and they don't have the amount of gun deaths as we do in America. And the fact that he is still a member of the NRA should tell he is not against gun ownership.

The only issue he was exploring throughout the entire movie is why America seems to have many more gun deaths than anywhere else. He explored this with the influence of the media (which is amazing since people on one end of the political spectrum always thinks the media is biased towards the liberals), children growing up in single parent homes, and the children growing up in suburban America and their particular issues.

I like to watch his movies because he gives a different angle on an issue that I never considered before. While I may disagree with how he approaches an issue or person, I respect the fact that at least he has tried to explore it and not regurgitate what other Republicans' or Democrats' "gripe of the day".

[Arles]

Read this and tell me he isn't on the same level as Hannity, Coulter, and Al Franken:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/in...ate=2004-02-11

or even this:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/in...ate=2004-04-14

Some highlights:

"But your "desertion" didn't go away -- and here's the reason why. You have sent countless numbers of our sons and daughters in the National Guard to their deaths in the last 11 months. You did this while misleading their parents and the nation with bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction and scary phony Saddam ties to al Qaeda. You sent them off to a never-ending war so that your benefactors at Halliburton and the oil companies could line their pockets. And then you had the audacity to prance around in a soldier's uniform on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" -- while the cameras from your re-election campaign ad agency rolled."

---

"There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Arles

Read this and tell me he isn't on the same level as Hannity, Coulter, and Al Franken:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/in...ate=2004-02-11

or even this:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/in...ate=2004-04-14

Some highlights:

"But your "desertion" didn't go away -- and here's the reason why. You have sent countless numbers of our sons and daughters in the National Guard to their deaths in the last 11 months. You did this while misleading their parents and the nation with bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction and scary phony Saddam ties to al Qaeda. You sent them off to a never-ending war so that your benefactors at Halliburton and the oil companies could line their pockets. And then you had the audacity to prance around in a soldier's uniform on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" -- while the cameras from your re-election campaign ad agency rolled."

---

"There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."

Arles, I agreed that he bashes Bush more often than not. That is a given. However I still contend that he explores an issue with a much more unique vantage point than the others you speak about. That is what makes his movies interesting. I usally ignore the Bush bashing, but I do find most of the other things interesting and informative. This is what seperates him from the others.

[Suicane75]

While I find him over the top and do believe he takes shortcuts in trying to prove his points the thing that stands out in my mind is the old TV show he had where he shamed someone into approving an operation to get a dyeing man a new pancreas. Whatever the reasons for him doing that were I can't hate a guy who would do something like that.

[Arles]

Before his comments on Bush (ie the days of Roger and Me and even the start of Bowling), I would agree with you guys. But, in the last 2-3 years, he has become one of the more partisan people in the media.

[Ragone]

So he got a 15 minute ovation from a bunch of america haters...

Thats like saying a screening of Roots got a 30 minute ovation at the naacp meeting..

Or a screening of Debbie Does Trout at a Fofc Convention got a 3 hour ovation..

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Arles

Before his comments on Bush (ie the days of Roger and Me and even the start of Bowling), I would agree with you guys. But, in the last 2-3 years, he has become one of the more partisan people in the media.

Is he really a part of the media though? To me he's just a filmaker.

[chinaski]

yea hes such a nut, he flew to germany to denounce Reagan laying wreaths at a nazi cemetery, what a left wing freak!

He made a inflamatory movie about a poor little companies fight to make a buck and help the struggling economy of mexico.

He dare questioned why we americans like to shoot each other more than any other country, what a jerk.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Read this and tell me he isn't on the same level as Hannity, Coulter, and Al Franken:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/in...ate=2004-02-11

or even this:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/in...ate=2004-04-14

Some highlights:

"But your "desertion" didn't go away -- and here's the reason why. You have sent countless numbers of our sons and daughters in the National Guard to their deaths in the last 11 months. You did this while misleading their parents and the nation with bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction and scary phony Saddam ties to al Qaeda. You sent them off to a never-ending war so that your benefactors at Halliburton and the oil companies could line their pockets. And then you had the audacity to prance around in a soldier's uniform on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" -- while the cameras from your re-election campaign ad agency rolled."

---

"There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."

From my standpoint, I'm talking about his movies which I think dwarf the entire careers of Hannity and Coulter in terms of substance.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I wonder why Mel Gibson backed out of the funding?

Just think his first two movies from his company would have been "The Passion" and this one. Talk about controversial.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

I wonder why Mel Gibson backed out of the funding?

Just think his first two movies from his company would have been "The Passion" and this one. Talk about controversial.

lol, is that true, Gibson was really in line to fund this movie?

[HornedFrog Purple]

yeah... off that link

Moore lambasted American journalists this week for "boring him," and he used a Kermit the Frog voice to ridicule Mel Gibson's production company for backing out of its initial deal to fund "Fahrenheit 9/11."

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

From my standpoint, I'm talking about his movies which I think dwarf the entire careers of Hannity and Coulter in terms of substance.

I would agree that he doesn't have the daily exposure of someone like Hannity. But, I would compare him very similar to Coulter (having maybe been the only American alive to read a book by both of them).

Like Coulter, he has his moments where he does come up with intriguing thoughts and ideas. But, given his (and Coulter's) rancorous dimeanor, it's hard to consistently separate the "wheat from the chaff". That said, they are both entertaining reads.

[Arles]

Another thing is that I am primarily talking about his book. I saw Roger & Me and thought it was an entertaining film (although the premise was a little faulty). I haven't seen Bowling yet, but would like to and think I will probably find it entertaining as well.

My comments are based on his book and public statements. His work as a filmmaker (atleast in Roger & Me and from what I've read on Bowling) might fall into a different category. My point is that I fear this new 9-11 film may have blurred this line making him just as partisan in his films as he is in print and public.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Arles

I would agree that he doesn't have the daily exposure of someone like Hannity. But, I would compare him very similar to Coulter (having maybe been the only American alive to read a book by both of them).

Like Coulter, he has his moments where he does come up with intriguing thoughts and ideas. But, given his (and Coulter's) rancorous dimeanor, it's hard to consistently separate the "wheat from the chaff". That said, they are both entertaining reads.

I will have to say the difference between Michael Moore and the others that you have mentioned is that at least he sticks with what he believes in and doesn't let a political party or belief influence what his opinion should be.

I think people forget that he creates documentaries. If he didn't take a stand on a subject and personalize the documentary, we wouldn't be talking about his successes. There have been a number of anti-war documentaries for decades and no one speaks about how partisan they are.

Only because he has been successful in his efforts has people seen him as a threat. I don't agree with a third of what he says, but at least he is taking a real stand on an issues. I can't stand it when someone is willing to overlook anything their party (regardless of affiliation) does wrong.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

I think people forget that he creates documentaries.

I think he forgets he makes documentaries.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

I think he forgets he makes documentaries.

Well I would have to argue. Show me a successful documentary that doesn't have a stance, opinion or message.

[MJ4H]

My statement was not meant to imply that documentaries cannot have a stance, opinion, or message.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by John Galt

false modesty

I try real hard to avoid topics of a political nature, but I just wanted to ask, is it too early to consider nominations for understatement of the year? If not, I'll nominate John, for this characterization of Moore.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

I think he forgets he makes documentaries.

DOLA.

Far be it from me to stick up for Moore, but he actually claims he doesn't make documentaries, he makes movies.

[Flasch186]

i just find it humorous that its been judged by people who HAVE NEVER seen it. It could be a load of crap but I wouldnt know, I HAVNT SEEN IT......open the mind.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

My statement was not meant to imply that documentaries cannot have a stance, opinion, or message.

My apologies then. Is it safe to assume you are just commenting that Michael Moore sees himself more than just a filmmaker? If that is the case, I agree with you, but then again I see that in radio personalities, actors, directors, and novelists all the time.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Samdari

DOLA.

Far be it from me to stick up for Moore, but he actually claims he doesn't make documentaries, he makes movies.

Good to know. He should make that MUCH more clear to the general public, in my opinion. Some people might think he believes all of his facts are accurate.

[Maple Leafs]

Topical and witty!
http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4020

[rexallllsc]

Although I tend to have left leanings these days, this guy strikes me as a total joke. I used to like TV Nation, but his deceptive crap in BfC left me with a bad taste in my mouth. It's sad that a liar (yes, he's a liar) is who young people on the left seem to be looking up to.

And with all the "American reporters bore me" and the like...it's a wonder why he even lives here.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Good to know. He should make that MUCH more clear to the general public, in my opinion. Some people might think he believes all of his facts are accurate.

In addition, he should probably return that Oscar for Best Documentary so as not to be confused with a Documentarian.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i just find it humorous that its been judged by people who HAVE NEVER seen it. It could be a load of crap but I wouldnt know, I HAVNT SEEN IT......open the mind.

Are you being serious? Come on Flasch, of all the times to preach about judging a book by its cover, are you really going to hang your hat on this one? The film is by Michael Moore, and its content is well-documented. Without ever seeing the movie, I think I have a pretty fair idea of its merits, and I don't have a single reservation about that assessment.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Topical and witty!
http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4020

DOLA

This is the one I liked:

"Why doesn't Michael Moore ever make documentaries about nice things, like where cotton candy comes from?"

[Flasch186]

Im just saying, its a movie and you should watch the movie first before praising it or critiquing it or else your statements are based in ignorance, both ways.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im just saying, its a movie and you should watch the movie first before praising it or critiquing it or else your statements are based in ignorance, both ways.

Reading secondhand accounts of things is also a good way to pick up information, but you go ahead and keep calling those who learn things by reading ignorant. It's cute.

Have you ever attended a history class? I hear they can be quite interesting.

People also like that Bible thing, and that was clearly written by those who had not witnessed the events described therein.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Reading secondhand accounts of things is also a good way to pick up information, but you go ahead and keep calling those who learn things by reading ignorant. It's cute.

Have you ever attended a history class? I hear they can be quite interesting.

People also like that Bible thing, and that was clearly written by those who had not witnessed the events described therein.

how in the world can you respond like this? Its not even remotely in the realm of addressing what he was saying. He said watch the movie before you judge it. period. He also said nothing closely resembling "if you read to learn things, you are ignorant."

I assume you have a certain film reviewer that you solely count on to find out whether or not you will like a movie?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I assume you have a certain film reviewer that you solely count on to find out whether or not you will like a movie?

I do.

So, how was Mean Girls ?