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

'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

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:

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

That writer is on crack. :shocked:

Holy Moses! ;)

- Jake

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.

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.

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.

:( That's a tragedy.

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.

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:

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:

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.

Except when it comes to Clinton. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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/bowli...cko/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:

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

[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:

Truly. One of the survivors, a star athlete and student later hung himself.

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:

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

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.

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?

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

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

Once again, you do not like it when they do it. Yet, when MM does it, it is okay :shrug:

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

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:

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:

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.