Fox News gives 'Fahrenheit 9/11" a favorble review

[strandinthewind]

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovation

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

By Roger Friedman

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theatre premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged at all to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host and writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element.

But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.

Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and Bin Laden families.

First, I know you want to know who came to the Ziegfeld, so here is just a partial list.

Besides Franken and Robbins, Al Sharpton, Mike Myers, Tony Bennett, Glenn Close, Gretchen Mol (newly married over the weekend to director Todd Williams), Lori Singer, Tony Kushner, "Angela's Ashes" author Frank McCourt, Jill Krementz and Kurt Vonnegut, Lauren Bacall (chatting up a fully refurbished Lauren Hutton), Richard Gere, John McEnroe and Patti Smythe, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Carson Daly, NBC's Jeff Zucker, a very pregnant Rory Kennedy, playwright Israel Horovitz, Macaulay Culkin, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Kyra Sedgwick, Linda Evangelista, Ed Bradley, Tom and Meredith Brokaw, director Barry Levinson, NBC anchor Brian Williams, Vernon Jordan, Eva Mendes, Sandra Bernhard and the always humorous Joy Behar.

If that's not enough, how about Yoko Ono, accompanied by her son, Sean, who's let his hair grow out and is now sporting a bushy beard that makes him look like his late, beloved father John Lennon?

And then, just to show you how much people wanted to see this film, there was Martha Stewart, looking terrific. I mean, talk about eclectic groups!

Now, unless you've been living under a rock, you know that this movie has been the cause of a lot of trouble. Miramax and Disney have gone to war over it, and "The Passion of the Christ" seems like "Mary Poppins" in retrospect. Before anyone's even seen it, there have been partisan debates over which way Moore may have spun this or that to get a desired effect.

But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

The film does Bush no favors, that's for sure, but it also finds an unexpectedly poignant and universal groove in the story of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Mich., mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide — just like the commercials say — and lives to regret it.

Lipscombe's story is so powerful, and so completely Middle American, that I think it will take Moore's critics by surprise. She will certainly move to tears everyone who encounters her.

"F9/11" isn't perfect, and of course, there are leaps of logic sometimes. One set piece is about African-American congressmen and women voting against the war with Iraq and wondering why there are no senators to support them.

Indeed, those absent senators include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, among others, which Moore does not elaborate upon. At no point are liberals or Democrats taken to task for not speaking out against the war, and I would have liked to have seen that.

On the other hand, there are more than enough moments that seemed to resonate with the huge Ziegfeld audience.

The most indelible is President Bush's reaction to hearing on the morning of September 11, 2001, that the first plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.

Bush was reading to a grade-school class in Florida at that moment. Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes.

Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.

More than even "The Passion of the Christ," "F9/11" is going to be a "see it for yourself" movie when it hits theaters on June 25. It simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker.

And that's where Disney's Michael Eisner comes in. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career.

When Eisner came into Disney years ago, the studio was at a low point. He turned it around with a revived animation department and comedy hits such as "Pretty Woman" and "Down and Out in Beverly Hills."

But Eisner's short-sightedness on many recent matters has been his undoing. And this last misadventure is one that will follow him right out the doors of the Magic Kingdom.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html

[dissention]

There was a screening in new York and that bitch Scarborough snuck a few of his Republican producers and commentators into it, but got a real kick in the ass when they came back and said it was fantastic movie. ;) They said it really makes you think about who's in the WH and that it will probably have an influence on the election.

Meanwhile, he had a few of his cameramen out on the red carpet of the premiere and asked Tim Robbins for a comment. He said "No, I don't like Joe Scarborough," then laughed and walked off. :laugh: They caught up with Moore and he said he doesn't go on as a guest on a "murderers show" and that he doesn't like liars. :lol:

[dissention]

Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.

Charlton Heston is a "helpless target"? More like a cold bastard.

That writer is on crack. :shocked:

[darklinensuit]

Charlton Heston is a "helpless target"? More like a cold bastard.

Holy Moses! ;)

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Charlton Heston is a "helpless target"? More like a cold bastard.

That writer is on crack. :shocked:

Many took that position, including me. For me it was the way he did it, not that he interviewed CH, who has out himself out there, etc.

I am glad the press seems to be taking this new film seriously. MM's style IMO tends not to lend itself well to credibility. But, according to this article, this film is serious. So, maybe it will open a few eyes.

[dissention]

Many took that position, including me. For me it was the way he did it, not that he interviewed CH, who has out himself out there, etc.

I am glad the press seems to be taking this new film seriously. MM's style IMO tends not to lend itself well to credibility. But, according to this article, this film is serious. So, maybe it will open a few eyes.

Please explain to me what was wrong with how he approached Heston and then explain to me how Heston is a helpless traget. I submit you cannot.

I find nothing wrong with Moore's style. I think it actually lends him more credibility than if he was approach it in a straightlaced manner. He finds the humor in politics and tragedy, that's a gift, IMO.

[gldstwmn]

Charlton Heston is a "helpless target"? More like a cold bastard.

That writer is on crack. :shocked:

He took the meeting, plain and simple. I'll never forget his insistence on appearing here at their convention immediately following the tragedy, despite official's effort to stop it.
On a side note, not long after that, one of the (injured) kid's mothers walked into a pawn shop on South Broadway asked to see a .38 and blew her head off.

[gldstwmn]

Many took that position, including me. For me it was the way he did it, not that he interviewed CH, who has out himself out there, etc.

I am glad the press seems to be taking this new film seriously. MM's style IMO tends not to lend itself well to credibility. But, according to this article, this film is serious. So, maybe it will open a few eyes.

Moore & Co. have already set up a fast repsonse camp to dispell any myths that may arise from those who say he is lying in this film.

[dissention]

He took the meeting, plain and simple. I'll never forget his insistence on appearing here at their convention immediately following the tragedy, despite official's effort to stop it.
On a side note, not long after that, one of the (injured) kid's mothers walked into a pawn shop on South Broadway asked to see a .38 and blew her head off.

:( That's a tragedy.

[strandinthewind]

I find nothing wrong with Moore's style. I think it actually lends him more credibility than if he was approach it in a straightlaced manner. He finds the humor in politics and tragedy, that's a gift, IMO.

MM tints his movies with sarcasim, which rubs people the wrong way. He is reporting on serious matters but is acting foolishly in them. IMO and the opinion of many, his sarcasm negates the credibility and makes him come off, if you will, elitist and smug. That is what I am talking about. People see that and are turned off or at least are less inclined to see the facts as they are, they look at how he presents them, which is not in a serious manner sometimes. In the end, I like MM enough and think his flims are thought provoking. I just wish he did not some off smug - that is all I am saying. In addition, his use of editing and quoting can be, at best, misleading. I say give the whole quote and let people think for themselves. But, MM and the media are loathe to do this. They want a five second sound byte to support their conclusion.

Apparently, he has chosen not to take this former approach in this new film. I think that is a good thing becuase people will be more inclined to believe what he says, which is a good thing. AND - in the new film, he has performed a ton of research which also provides support for him. These are good things.

[dissention]

MM tints his movies with sarcasim, which rubs people the worng way. He is reporting on serious matters but is acting foolishly in them. IMO and the opinion of many, his sarcasm negates the credibility and makes him come off, if you will, elitist and smug. That is what I am talking about. People see that and are turned off or at least are less inclined to see the facts as they are, they look at how he presents them, which is not in a serious manner sometimes. In the end, I like MM enough and think his flims are thought provoking. I just wish he did not some off smug - that is all I am saying.

He makes movies for us fancy pants elitists, though, and the schtick he employs in his movies has been the same schtick he's had for twenty years. His audience is not the right, unless they view his films out of curiosity. But, in the end, I don't see it your way, so more power to ya. :laugh:

[dissention]

In addition, his use of editing and quoting can be, at best, misleading. I say give the whole quote and let people think for themselves. But, MM and the media are loathe to do this. They want a five second sound byte to support their conclusion.

You're losing it, Jason. Losing it. The right-wing talking points rear their heads again. Go to Moore's website and go through it, he doesn't deal in sound bytes, that's the conservative media's game. It's unfair to lay that on just liberals.

And when you're making a documentary, there are such things as time constraints. You don't have the time to outline entire speeches and interviews.

[strandinthewind]

You're losing it, Jason. Losing it. The right-wing talking points rear their heads again. Go to Moore's website and go through it, he doesn't deal in sound bytes, that's the conservative media's game. It's unfair to lay that on just liberals.

And when you're making a documentary, there are such things as time constraints. You don't have the time to outline entire speeches and interviews.

I am not spouting anyone's views but my own. When I saw these, I thought MM was making fun of and/or patronizing the people in it - like he is better than them - I mean he smirks in some scenes. I thought that came across as smug and it took away from his important message. I also though his use of editing left alot to be desired and to me they portrayed the speaker in a disingenuous light - a method used by many in the media on all sides. I do not do that. As you all can tell, I am all about the facts and cite many things to support me and then I draw my conclusion. In the end, I think MM is selling a product and he knows he has to sensationalize it a little to sell it. Yet, I can admit that and the far left once again cannot - just as the far right can never admit W is anything but good. To them, MM is a quasi-deity and any truthful recrimmination against him no matter how slight is flatly denied even in the face of the truth. What else is new :laugh:

[DeeGeMe]

I am not spouting anyone's views but my own. When I saw these, I thought MM was making fun of and/or patronizing the people in it - like he is better than them - I mean he smirks in some scenes. I thought that came across as smug and it took away from his important message. :

WTF? Like the unelected President doesn't smirk? Hell, Smirk is the man's middle name!

[strandinthewind]

WTF? Like the unelected President doesn't smirk? Hell, Smirk is the man's middle name!

Two wrongs do not make a right :shrug:

AND - I am talking about MM not W, who I readily admit also smirks and is a jerk for it. I am just saying MM comes across that way as well.

[dissention]

Two wrongs do not make a right :shrug:

Except when it comes to Clinton. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

In the end, I think MM is selling a product and he knows he has to sensationalize it a little to sell it.

I don't think so. He knows that there will always be an audienc eout there on the left who will eat up what he's selling. It just so happens that this current project is more controversial due to the fact that the original distributor didn't want to piss off a certain Bush.

[CarneVaca]

MM tints his movies with sarcasim, which rubs people the wrong way. He is reporting on serious matters but is acting foolishly in them. IMO and the opinion of many, his sarcasm negates the credibility and makes him come off, if you will, elitist and smug.

Nonsense, Jason. If he didn't make them entertaining, these flicks would go to those elite one-screen movie theaters where they would be preaching to the choir.

He is effective because does the very thing for which you fault him.

Charlton Heston is ****head. He was too kind to that bastid, if you ask me.

[strandinthewind]

Nonsense, Jason. If he didn't make them entertaining, these flicks would go to those elite one-screen movie theaters where they would be preaching to the choir.

He is effective because does the very thing for which you fault him.


I agree, but my point is once you take it to that extreme, it becomes entertainment and loses journalistic credibility in the process. But, he is very good at it. And, appartently, he treates this new one with a more serious tone. So, we shall see.

[dissention]

I agree, but my point is once you take it to that extreme, it becomes entertainment and loses journalistic credibility in the process. But, he is very good at it. And, appartently, he treates this new one with a more serious tone. So, we shall see.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how Heston was a helpless target. I'm not leaving The Cheesecake Factory until I get an answer.

[strandinthewind]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how Heston was a helpless target. I'm not leaving The Cheesecake Factory until I get an answer.

I never said he was. I said I did not like the way he was treated. P.S. do not eat too much CK as leather pants do not give :laugh:

But, since you asked, here are two versions:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko/heston.htm

Happy reading and do not choke in the cheesecake when reading the latter :laugh:

Actually, I think it only was the way the editing happened, which was MM's choice, that I take issue with. But, others may not :cool:

[gldstwmn]

MM tints his movies with sarcasim, which rubs people the wrong way. He is reporting on serious matters but is acting foolishly in them. IMO and the opinion of many, his sarcasm negates the credibility and makes him come off, if you will, elitist and smug. That is what I am talking about. People see that and are turned off or at least are less inclined to see the facts as they are, they look at how he presents them, which is not in a serious manner sometimes. In the end, I like MM enough and think his flims are thought provoking. I just wish he did not some off smug - that is all I am saying. In addition, his use of editing and quoting can be, at best, misleading. I say give the whole quote and let people think for themselves. But, MM and the media are loathe to do this. They want a five second sound byte to support their conclusion.

Apparently, he has chosen not to take this former approach in this new film. I think that is a good thing becuase people will be more inclined to believe what he says, which is a good thing. AND - in the new film, he has performed a ton of research which also provides support for him. These are good things.

Just so you know, Bowling For Columbine received a standing ovation here in the theater when I saw it. :)

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]I am not spouting anyone's views but my own. When I saw these, I thought MM was making fun of and/or patronizing the people in it - like he is better than them - I mean he smirks in some scenes. [QUOTE]

I happened to bump into James Nichols when they were here for the trial and what I saw on the screen is what I saw of him in person. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

:( That's a tragedy.
Truly. One of the survivors, a star athlete and student later hung himself.

[strandinthewind]

Just so you know, Bowling For Columbine received a standing ovation here in the theater when I saw it. :)

I am happy for it. I think you all are once again getting all upset about things I am not saying - you are reacting to me offering my somewhat negative opinion of the way MM portrays things in his films, which apparently is a sacreligious event for the far left. I think MM makes good movies. I think the subject matter is worth talking about. I just do not personally like the way he jokes about it and IMO this portrayal makes him come off smug in them. I think he patronizes the people in them, which is not what I like. I also think he edits in a way that promotes this humorous approach. I AM NOT SAYING :laugh: MM is a jerk or anything like that. I AM NOT SAYING :laugh: MM is a liar and everything in his films is bogus. ALL I AM SAYING :laugh: is I do not like the way he has presented the subject matter in his prior films. Appartently, this new one is not like that - so, I think that is a good thing.

So, I am happy you all get a kick out of MM - I think that is great. But, I am entitled to my opinion. SHEEBUS :cool:

[strandinthewind]

I happened to bump into James Nichols when they were here for the trial and what I saw on the screen is what I saw of him in person. :shrug:

I am sure this guy is a jerk, but how does that obviate my perception that MM comes off smug :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

In the end, I think MM is selling a product and he knows he has to sensationalize it a little to sell it.

As someone who lived here during the tragedy, visited the scene shortly after and knew many people involved in the school district and resuce efforts, let me tell you that no amount of sensationalism was necessary. Moore did his best to drive home his point which a lot of the folks at home wathcing the glass teat simply don't get. Do you know why they called it Bowling For Columbine? Because a few days after the tragedy, there was a fundraiser where people went and bowled to raise money for the survivors and their families. I sat at home while this was going on and watched people I KNEW going into the school. The initial aerial shots from the news helicopter showed a kid LAYING DEAD ON THE GROUND. It didn't need to be sensationalized. It was that dramatic.

[gldstwmn]

When I saw these, I thought MM was making fun of and/or patronizing the people in it - like he is better than them - I mean he smirks in some scenes.

You mean like Bush and Cheney do now on the rare occasion that any of the public or press gets to ask them a question?

[gldstwmn]

I agree, but my point is once you take it to that extreme, it becomes entertainment and loses journalistic credibility in the process. But, he is very good at it. And, appartently, he treates this new one with a more serious tone. So, we shall see.

Extreme? You're completely forgetting that the event on which BFC is predicated is extreme.

[gldstwmn]

I never said he was. I said I did not like the way he was treated. P.S. do not eat too much CK as leather pants do not give :laugh:

But, since you asked, here are two versions:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko/heston.htm

Happy reading and do not choke in the cheesecake when reading the latter :laugh:

Actually, I think it only was the way the editing happened, which was MM's choice, that I take issue with. But, others may not :cool:

Those site are put up by NRA supporters. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

You mean like Bush and Cheney do now on the rare occasion that any of the public or press gets to ask them a question?
Once again, you do not like it when they do it. Yet, when MM does it, it is okay :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

I am happy for it. I think you all are once again getting all upset about things I am not saying

Please note the emoticon at the end of my post. :)

[strandinthewind]

As someone who lived here during the tragedy, visited the scene shortly after and knew many people involved in the school district and resuce efforts, let me tell you that no amount of sensationalism was necessary. Moore did his best to drive home his point which a lot of the folks at home wathcing the glass teat simply don't get. Do you know why they called it Bowling For Columbine? Because a few days after the tragedy, there was a fundraiser where people went and bowled to raise money for the survivors and their families. I sat at home while this was going on and watched people I KNEW going into the school. The initial aerial shots from the news helicopter showed a kid LAYING DEAD ON THE GROUND. It didn't need to be sensationalized. It was that dramatic.

I AM NOT TAKING AWAY FROM THAT :laugh:

I AGREE WITH YOU :laugh:

ALL I AM SAYING :laugh: is I did not like the way MM chose to portray it. Bless youe peoples' hearts, I am unsure why you all seem to think I am taking away from the tragedy of this event or that I do not in theory agree with MM is saying.

Again, ALL I AM SAYING :laugh: is I did not like the way the film was produced, etc. I think a more literal approach would have been better SHEEBUS!!!! :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Please note the emoticon at the end of my post. :)

I know - I was using "upset" in a general sense, not in a literal sense. I do not think people are angry with me, etc. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

you are reacting to me offering my somewhat negative opinion of the way MM portrays things in his films, which apparently is a sacreligious event for the far left.

And I'm telling you my first hand experience with the Columbine incident. That said, I feel that the way Michael Moore portrayed things in BFC was accurate. Now you can counter it with websites etc., all you want. But I'm HERE. I experienced this tragedy on a much more personal level than you did.

[strandinthewind]

And I'm telling you my first hand experience with the Columbine incident. That said, I feel that the way Michael Moore portrayed things in BFC was accurate. Now you can counter it with wesites etc., all you want. But I'm HERE. I experienced this tragedy on a much more personal level than you did.

I know that. Again, I am not talking about the way he portrayed the dead people, etc., It was his sarcasm, etc., in other parts of the film. I mean and please correct me if I am wrong, but there was nothing humorous or sarcastic about this event. Yet, his film has that tone. That is all I am saying.

[gldstwmn]

I AM NOT TAKING AWAY FROM THAT :laugh:

I AGREE WITH YOU :laugh:

ALL I AM SAYING :laugh: is I did not like the way MM chose to portray it. Bless youe peoples' hearts, I am unsure why you all seem to think I am taking away from the tragedy of this event or that I do not in theory agree with MM is saying.

Again, ALL I AM SAYING :laugh: is I did not like the way the film was produced, etc. I think a more literal approach would have been better SHEEBUS!!!! :cool:

And what I'm saying to you in all sincerity is literally, that's what happened. BTW, how specifically did you want him to portray it?

[gldstwmn]

I know that. Again, I am not talking about the way he portrayed the dead people, etc., It was his sarcasm, etc., in other parts of the film. I mean and please correct me if I am wrong, but there was nothing humorous or sarcastic about this event. Yet, his film has that tone. That is all I am saying.

He never played the event as humorous or sarcastic. Give it up already.

[dissention]

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko/heston.htm

I won't choke because I'm not reading anything from bowlingfortruth.com, pal. ;)

That site was debunked last year as being an NRA site and if anything is a terrorist organization, it's the NRA.

[dissention]

I know that. Again, I am not talking about the way he portrayed the dead people, etc., It was his sarcasm, etc., in other parts of the film. I mean and please correct me if I am wrong, but there was nothing humorous or sarcastic about this event. Yet, his film has that tone. That is all I am saying.

Which is why he didn't portray the event or anything to do with it in a sarcastic or humorous light. I don't see why you don't understand that. Surely you don't believe that the film was soley about Columbine. It was about this country's obssession with guns and violence. Now, if you can't see the humor in banks giving away a gun with a new account, you don't have a pulse. But he did not have that tone when dealing with the Columbine incident in the documentary. Surely his passion and emotions about what happened there came through in the documentary. They did to me.

[gldstwmn]

Thursday, June 18th, 2004
Some People Still Don't Want You To See My Movie... From Michael Moore

Friends,

We're a week away from the nationwide opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and not a day goes by where we don't have some new battle to fight thanks to those who are still working overtime to keep people from seeing this film. What's their problem? Are they worried about something?

A Republican PR firm has formed a fake grassroots front group called "Move America Forward" to harass and intimidate theater owners into not showing "Fahrenheit 9/11." These are the same people who successfully badgered CBS into canceling the Reagan mini-series a few months ago. And they are spending a ton of money this week to threaten movie theaters who even think about showing our movie.

As of this morning, a little over 500 theaters have agreed to show the movie beginning next Friday, June 25. There are three national/regional theater chains who, as of today, have not booked the movie in their theaters. One theater owner in Illinois has reported receiving death threats.

The right wing usually wins these battles. Their basic belief system is built on censorship, repression, and keeping people ignorant. They want to limit or snuff out any debate or dissension. They also don't like pets and are mean to small children. Too many of them are named "Fred."

This new nut group is the Right's last hope in limiting how many people can see this movie. All of their other efforts have failed. Let's recap:

1. Roger Friedman at FOX News reported that the head of the company which first agreed to fund our film “got calls from Republican friends” pressuring them to back out. And they did. But... Miramax immediately picked up the film! Except...

2. Michael Eisner, the chairman of Disney, then blocked Miramax (a company owned by Disney) from releasing the film once it was finished. But... public attention and embarrassment forced Disney to let the Weinstein brothers of Miramax find another distributor! But...

3. Instead of a new distributor stepping right in -- as all the media predicted would happen -- it took another month to find distributors who would take on this movie. A number of other distributors, thanks to various pressures, were afraid to get involved. It looked for a while that we would be distributing this ourselves. But then Lions Gate and IFC Films rode in to the rescue!

So, we have beaten back all attempts to kill this movie, and the only thing in the way of you now seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" is this Republican big-money front group trying to force theaters not to show the movie.

Please, contact your local theaters and let them know you want to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." Tell them that some people don't know that this is America and that we believe in freedom of speech and the importance of ALL voices being heard. (The members of MoveOn.org—an ACTUAL grassroots organization—have done a very cool thing. They are pledging to send a message to theater owners and are planning to attend a showing of the film on its opening weekend.)

I appreciate their efforts, but you don’t have to be a member of MoveOn to help stop this effort to keep “Fahrenheit 9/11” from making it to screens across the country. If a theater in your area is planning to show the film, just give them a call and thank them for standing up for the freedom of speech. If your local theater isn't showing the film, call them and let them know that you would like to see it and you'd like them to show it.

The White House and their minions in our media have presented one distorted version of the truth after another for the past four years. All we are asking for is the right to show what they HAVEN'T shown us, the real truth. The truth that ain't pretty (and is, sadly, damningly hilarious).

On top of all this, the MPAA gave the film an "R" rating. I want all teenagers to see this film. There is nothing in the film in terms of violence that we didn't see on TV every night at the dinner hour during the Vietnam War. Of course, that's the point, isn't it? The media have given the real footage from Iraq a "cleansing" -- made it look nice, easy to digest. Mario Cuomo has offered to be our lawyer in appealing this ruling by the MPAA. Frankly, I would like to think the MPAA is saying that the actions by the Bush administration are so abhorrent and revolting, we need to protect our children from seeing what they have done. In that case, the film should be rated NC-17!

However it turns out, I trust all of you teenagers out there will find your way into a theater to see this movie. If the government believes it is OK to send slightly older teenagers to their deaths in Iraq, I think at the very least you should be allowed to see what they are going to draft you for in a couple of years.

Finally, some very sophisticated individuals have been hacking into and shutting down our website. It is an hourly fight to keep it up. We are going to find out who is doing this and we are going to pursue a criminal prosecution. I'm preparing lots of cool stuff for the site so watch for new items on it next week (www.fahrenheit911.com and www.michaelmoore.com).

Thanks again for your support and I hope to see you at the movies on opening night, June 25.

Yours,

Michael Moore

PS. I am sponsoring a number of benefits around the country next week for local and national peace and justice groups, including Military Families Speak Out and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Please check your local papers and my website next week for further details.

PPS. Also, I am going to be on the “Late Show with David Letterman” on Friday night. It's on CBS at 11:35 PM Eastern and Pacific. And on Monday morning (June 21) I will be on “The Today Show” on NBC. Next week, Jon Stewart and Conan. I'd go on O'Reilly but, like a coward, he walked out on a screening we invited him to (with Al Franken just a few rows away!). I personally caught him sneaking out. Embarrassed, he tried to change the subject. He said, "When are you coming on my show?" and I said, "Turn around and watch the rest of the movie and I will come on your show." He walked out. Fair and balanced.

[gldstwmn]

June 18th, 2004 2:00 pm
The New York Times: Fact-Checking Fahrenheit 9/11


By Philip Shenon / The New York Times



Michael Moore is not coy about his hopes for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack on President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president.

"And it's not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Bush.

"We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up." The movie's indictment of Bush is nothing if not sprawling. Moore suggests that Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Osama bin Laden's family to flee the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Moore and his distributors are predicting, Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he - or any other documentary filmmaker - has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

So how will Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact? Moore and his distributors refused to circulate copies of the film and its script before the film's release on Friday; his production team said recently there was no final script because the film was still undergoing minor editing - for clarity, they said, not accuracy.

After a year spent covering the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record.

Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama.

Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James Bath, a financial adviser to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970s. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has been well documented.

Moore charges that Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, CIA briefing that warned of terrorism within the United States. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post. The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie - like assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of America is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers, and that it will be posted on his site, www.michaelmoore.com, after the release of the documentary. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly," Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace," and that the FBI had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends, in this case the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged. "I don't want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree," Moore said. "The main point I want people to go away with is that these people got special treatment because they were bin Ladens or Saudi royals, and you and I would never have been given that treatment."

Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation. "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," Moore said. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month, said, "We have gone through every single word of this film - literally every word - and verified its accuracy." That said, Moore's fact-checkers said they did not view the film as straight reporting. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker, adding, "The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers.

Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

[strandinthewind]

I won't choke because I'm not reading anything from bowlingfortruth.com, pal. ;)

That site was debunked last year as being an NRA site and if anything is a terrorist organization, it's the NRA.

and that means everything on it is a lie - I don't think so :laugh: I mean you cite to far left sites/sources and accept them as true no matter how venomous they may be :shrug: AND - you know MM ised editing to make the people he did not like look the worst they could and many more sites and pundits have said that. So, do not hand me that :laugh:

Again, ALL I am saying was I did not like the tone of the movie. That is all. I am not saying I do not like MM or that the movie is not in general factually accurate or even good. I think it was. I am just saying I did not like the what I saw as a condescending and smug tone, which I thought parts of were funny, just not all parts. Yet, all you all can see is I am, however slightly, attacking a far left god named MM and demeaning the horrible events of Columbine and for that I should be punished, humiliated, castrated, and my tongue cut out :laugh: :rolleyes: (BTW - if you like MM's sarcasm, you ought to have loved that last sentence :wavey: :laugh: )

Shhesh - you far left liberals sure can dish it, but when it comes to taking it :shrug: :cool:

AND mind you - I was praising MM in the initial topic of this post. I complimented him on his apparently accurate portrayal of the 9/11 events and his doing so without smugness.

[strandinthewind]

He never played the event as humorous or sarcastic. Give it up already.


It is called bowling for COLUMBINE - Hello!!!!!!!!! Yes, the movie is about more than Columbine, but clearly he used the horrific events of Columbine to sell a movie which I and many found to be smug and condescending :shrug: I mean if he had called it America's Fascination with Guns and Why That is Wrong - and not included anything about Columbine in it - do you think half of the number of people would have seen it? The answer is no.

[gldstwmn]

See post # 27 for my response.

This is my favorite part of Moore's letter:

PPS. Also, I am going to be on the “Late Show with David Letterman” on Friday night. It's on CBS at 11:35 PM Eastern and Pacific. And on Monday morning (June 21) I will be on “The Today Show” on NBC. Next week, Jon Stewart and Conan. I'd go on O'Reilly but, like a coward, he walked out on a screening we invited him to (with Al Franken just a few rows away!). I personally caught him sneaking out. Embarrassed, he tried to change the subject. He said, "When are you coming on my show?" and I said, "Turn around and watch the rest of the movie and I will come on your show." He walked out. Fair and balanced.

[strandinthewind]

See post # 27 for my response.

I know and that proves my point :cool:

BTW - MM gave a very good interview on Letterman last night IMO.

[gldstwmn]

CHUM interview with Michael Moore:

http://www.pulse24.com/In_The_Raw/Raw_Video/20040618-001/Video-5-2.asx

[gldstwmn]

It is called bowling for COLUMBINE - Hello!!!!!!!!! Yes, the movie is about more than Columbine, but clearly he used the horrific events of Columbine to sell a movie which I and many found to be smug and condescending :shrug: I mean if he had called it America's Fascination with Guns and Why That is Wrong - and not included anything about Columbine in it - do you think half of the number of people would have seen it? The answer is no.

See post #37.

[estranged4life]

wait til it comes on HBO in the distant future to see what all the fuss is about, Because I just don't care to go to a theatre to see this film (Rather see Harry Potter & The Prisoner Of Azkaban again for the 3rd time instead)...Nothin' against anyone else that wants too though (And nuthin' against my friends the liberals on here who do).

Honestly I feel that if Al "I created boredom, Monopoly, Pampers, Japan, the planets...etc." Gore would've been in office (When I think of a possible President Gore I am reminded of a comment that was made on TV that made me spit up my tea as I drank it at the time this imaginary statement was made: "If Gore was President he would have appeared on TV later in the day on 9-11 and said this tragedy would never have happened...If the WTC buildings would have not got in the way of those 2 planes") then the proverbial shoe would be on the other foot and some right wingers would have done a movie about his time during 9/11.

I guess the older I get, The more I hate the whole of politics...Maybe it's the Cherokee in me (Like the ol' saying goes) that makes me not trusting of all those that are in the political arena.

[strandinthewind]

Here is the NYTimes review (www.nytimes.com)

_________________________________________________________

June 20, 2004
Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up
By PHILIP SHENON

OLLYWOOD, Calif.

MICHAEL MOORE is not coy about his hopes for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack on President Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president.

"And it's not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Mr. Bush. "We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up."

The movie's indictment of the president is nothing if not sprawling. Mr. Moore suggests that Mr. Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Mr. bin Laden's family to flee the United States after Sept. 11 and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels in order to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Mr. Moore and his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he — or any other documentary filmmaker — has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

"Outrageously false," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, last month when told about the film's assertion of a sinister connection between Mr. Bush and the family of Osama bin Laden. The former president George H. W. Bush was quoted in The New York Daily News calling Mr. Moore a "slime ball" and describing the documentary as "a vicious personal attack on our son."

So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?

Mr. Moore and his distributors have refused to circulate copies of the film and its script before the film's release this Friday; his production team said that as of last Wednesday, there was no final script because the film was still undergoing minor editing — for clarity, they said, not accuracy.

After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).

Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970's. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.

Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.

The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Mr. Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie — such as assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of the United States is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. But Mr. Moore doesn't explain how he arrived at them, or what these vague interests comprise. Mr. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers and that it will be posted on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) after the film's release.

Mr. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly," Mr. Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace" and that the F.B.I. had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

In conversation, Mr. Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends — in this case, the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged.

"I don't want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree," Mr. Moore said. "The main point I want people to go away with is that these people got special treatment because they were bin Ladens or Saudi royals, and you and I would never have been given that treatment."

Mr. Moore may also have to defend his portrayal of Mr. Bush's presidency as sinking prior to Sept. 11, citing an inability to win support for his legislation. But he fails to mention that in May, Congress agreed to Mr. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut, the centerpiece of his legislative agenda. Mr. Moore said that his review of news coverage before Sept. 11 shows that, with or without the tax cut, the Bush presidency was floundering before the terrorist attacks. Mr. Moore said, "I've read what other people wrote and said at the time, and he was definitely on the ropes."

MR. MOORE usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with "Fahrenheit" he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.

Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

As proof of its scrupulousness, the Moore team cites adjustments it made to the film's portrayal of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The film is brutal to Mr. Ashcroft, depicting him as a glassy-eyed architect of efforts to shred the Constitution, who became Attorney General only after he proved himself so unpopular in his home state of Missouri that he lost a Senate race to a former Democratic governor who died in a plane crash a month before election day. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Mr. Moore deadpans in the film, a line that drew belly laughs at recent preview screenings. (In reality, voters knew they were in effect casting ballots for the governor's widow).

An earlier version of the film, however, included a reference to a widely circulated charge, broadcast by CBS News in July 2001, that Mr. Ashcroft had received warning of threats and stopped flying on commercial airlines. Tia Lessin, supervising producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the reference to the CBS report was cut after Mr. Moore's fact-checking team found evidence that Mr. Ashcroft had flown commercially at least twice that summer.

"We have gone through every single word of this film — literally every word — and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film's lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations.

That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers does not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. Mr. Moore makes extensive use of obscure footage from White House and network-news video archives, including long scenes that capture President Bush at his least articulate. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

[strandinthewind]

From the NYTImes article above:

An earlier version of the film, however, included a reference to a widely circulated charge, broadcast by CBS News in July 2001, that Mr. Ashcroft had received warning of threats and stopped flying on commercial airlines. Tia Lessin, supervising producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the reference to the CBS report was cut after Mr. Moore's fact-checking team found evidence that Mr. Ashcroft had flown commercially at least twice that summer.

_______________________________________________

Comments Dissention - after all - you have been using this to support yourself for a long time now :shrug: I mean if MM cut it, it must not be true :shrug: BTW - Touche' :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/21/bradbury.fahrenheit.ap/index.html

Bradbury: Change 'Fahrenheit' title
Author wants apology from Moore, movie renamed



LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.

"He didn't ask my permission," Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. "That's not his novel, that's not his title, so he shouldn't have done it."

The 1953 novel, widely considered Bradbury's masterpiece, portrays an ugly futuristic society in which firemen burn homes and libraries in order to destroy the books inside and keep people from thinking independently.

"Fahrenheit 451" takes its title from the temperature at which books burn. Moore has called "Fahrenheit 9/11" the "temperature at which freedom burns."

His film, which won top honors in May at the Cannes Film Festival, charges that the Bush administration acted ineptly before the September 11 terrorist attacks, then played on the public's fear of future terrorism to gain support for the war against Iraq. It opens nationwide Friday.

Bradbury, who hadn't seen the movie, said he called Moore's company six months ago to protest and was promised Moore would call back.

He finally got that call last Saturday, Bradbury said, adding Moore told him he was "embarrassed."

"He suddenly realized he's let too much time go by," the author said by phone from his home in Los Angeles' Cheviot Hills section.

Joanne Doroshow, a spokeswoman for "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the film's makers have "the utmost respect for Ray Bradbury."

"Mr. Bradbury's work has been an inspiration to all of us involved in this film, but when you watch this film you will see the fact that the title reflects the facts that the movie explores, the very real life events before, around and after 9-11," she said.

Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

Moore's film needed new distributors after Disney refused to let its Miramax subsidiary release it, claiming it was too politically charged. The documentary was later bought by Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who lined up Lions Gate and IFC Films to help distribute it.

The movie's distributors are appealing to lower its R rating to PG-13 and a screening has been set for Tuesday by the Motion Picture Association of America's appeals board.

Bradbury's book was made into a 1966 movie directed by Francois Truffaut. A new edition of the book is scheduled for release in eight weeks, Bradbury said, and plans are in the works for a new film version, to be directed by Frank Darabont.

[estranged4life]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/21/bradbury.fahrenheit.ap/index.html

Bradbury: Change 'Fahrenheit' title
Author wants apology from Moore, movie renamed


and just had to laugh...

[strandinthewind]

and just had to laugh...

I know - although it is just my feeling, etc., this sounds to me like Mr. Bradbury wants to get a cash settlement and drum up some sales for his 40 years old book!!!!!! :cool:

[estranged4life]

I know - although it is just my feeling, etc., this sounds to me like Mr. Bradbury wants to get a cash settlement and drum up some sales for his 40 years old book!!!!!! :cool:

Mr.Bradbury's out for the those ever elusive $$$$$$'s