Thoughts on Fahrenheit 9/11 *spoilers* - Page 7

dissention · #91 06-30-2004, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Now Now, there is no competition to reach the level of your's

(for the faint hearted - that is me respnding in kind with complete and total sarcasm)

Hey, the bug crawled up as far as it could and died; it's dead carcass is lodged up there indefinitely.

strandinthewind · #92 06-30-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

And you don't think that's just a tad intrusive, especially if they had met for the first time on the street? I'm all for Moore asking the tough questions, but I think questions pertaining to a mans personal family relationships are just a bit off limits, especially in the context in which Moore was asking questions in the film.

Again, he was asking for members of Congress to try to get their kids to enlist. He wasn't asking for second cousins or nieces and nephews or sons of a brother-in-law. The man we're discussing did not have a child in Iraq or anything like that, he said his nephew was in iraq. Big difference.

Are you suggesting MM not be instrusive - the man walks up to and ambushes people on the street in an atempt to make them look like idiots

PPUUUHHHHLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZEEEEEE I mean people actually ran away from him

I think the Senator opened the door by responding. I think once he said that he had a nephew there, then MM would have been justified by walking through it and asking the follow up question. Most journalists would have asked the follow up question IMO and called this Senator on his effort to evade the point.

Again, I think I have made a valid point about the editing choice here, but I know you all will never concede it. To do so would be to take away from MM and that cannot happen. I just cannot believe you all think that not promoting more discussion in the film was a good thing. I cannot believe you all think that a discussion about why the Senator's nephew does not matter as much as his own child would not have been thought provoking from all angles. But, so be it.

dissention · #93 06-30-2004, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Are you suggesting MM not be instrusive - the man walks up to and ambushes people on the street in an atempt to make them look like idiots

PPUUUHHHHLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZEEEEEE I mean people actually ran away from him

There'a difference between ambushing someone like he did and asking those people questions about the personal relationships they have. Moore has never gone that far and he knows not to. Although some would argue that he did when discussiing Bandar Bush...

I would've had no problem with him asking whether or not he had any input on whether or not his nephew would serve, but I would have a problem wiht him asking "So, have you seen your sister or nephew in 15 years? Do you get along? Why? How come?" C'mon, Jason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, I think I have made a valid point about the editing choice here, but I know you all will never concede it. To do so would be to take away from MM and that cannot happen. I just cannot believe you all think that not promoting more discussion in the film was a good thing. I cannot believe you all think that a discussion about why the Senator's nephew does not matter as much as his own child would not have been thought provoking from all angles. But, so be it.

When don't you think you've made a valid point? I don't see it this time and it doesn't look like anyone else does. He asked about members of Congress recruiting their children to fight in Iraq. None of them wanted to do so, with the exception of that one with a son over there. He didn't ask about nephews or nieces, he asked about offspring. You have no point.

strandinthewind · #94 06-30-2004, 01:32 PM

What was that about swords and cutting both ways

I am not a big ole dummy. I get that MM was asking about recruiting their kids for the war, etc. I am not dipsuting that.

I am just saying it would have been interesting for MM to go further than that when that Senator responded like he did. I think the Senator brought up an interesting point. I was questioning why MM chose not to show that. What is so invalid about that? Why would it not have been interesting? Why am I am wrong in saying MM could have chosen to take it out because it fails to support his broader point that the members of Congress have no personal attachment to the war and the decisions made therein. That certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility and it is related to MM's general point. What is invalid about these points?

strandinthewind · #95 06-30-2004, 01:55 PM

Here is an interesting opt-ed from the NYTimes. IT says sort of what I was saying earlier about vehemence on both sides.

____________________________________________________________

June 30, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Calling Bush a Liar
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

o is President Bush a liar?

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Fahrenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Fahrenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.

CarneVaca · #96 06-30-2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Seriously, I was initially hesitant to comment on this film because many people cannot take anything but praise for MM and this and his other films. This is a discussion thread not a post here only if you like the film lovefest for MM thread

... I think I had a valid point about MM's choice to edit out that member of Congress' response. I provided reasons why I thought it lessened the film and then discussed why I thought MM did it.

Jason, you should feel free to lambast Michael Moore as much as you want. That is not the issue. The issue is that you've taken a very insignificant point about one of the corporate-bought slimeballs in Washington whining about the movie. This idiot thinks he's got a complaint? I bet there's a few thousand people in Iraq who have a complaint about his actions. I bet there is a goodly number of grieving Americans with a complaint or two as well.
%#&^ him and the horse he rode in on. He is in no position to complain after getting us into an illegal, unprovoked war. %#&^ him! %#&^ him! %#&^ him!

strandinthewind · #97 06-30-2004, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Jason, you should feel free to lambast Michael Moore as much as you want. That is not the issue. The issue is that you've taken a very insignificant point about one of the corporate-bought slimeballs in Washington whining about the movie. This idiot thinks he's got a complaint? I bet there's a few thousand people in Iraq who have a complaint about his actions. I bet there is a goodly number of grieving Americans with a complaint or two as well.
%#&^ him and the horse he rode in on. He is in no position to complain after getting us into an illegal, unprovoked war. %#&^ him! %#&^ him! %#&^ him!

I am unsure why you think I want to lambast MM. I do not and I have repeatedly said I do not. But, I guess I can say it 1,000 times and, as I have done, repeatedly praise this movie, but no one will believe me because I think MM made a poor editing choice in this one scene.

I guess you all doubt my sincerity. There is nothing more I can do about that than i have already done.

CarneVaca · #98 06-30-2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am unsure why you think I want to lambast MM. I do not and I have repeatedly said I do not. But, I guess I can say it 1,000 times and, as I have done, repeatedly praise this movie, but no one will believe me because I think MM made a poor editing choice in this one scene.

I guess you all doubt my sincerity. There is nothing more I can do about that than i have already done.

Jason, come on, take a deep breath. I said you should feel free to lambast him. I did not say you had. I am not doubting your sincerety, nor do I think Michael Moore is the deity.

I merely think it is silly to take the side of some corporate-bought Washington robot who had a hand in sending about 1,000 Americans to an early death and god knows how many Iraqis. This guy has no right to whine about anything after what he did.

Secondly, Michael Moore can do what he wants with his own film. You can criticize his decisions in making the film as much as you want. I could pick on certain things about the film that I wasn't crazy about, but I'd rather take into consideration its overall value than nitpick those things.

Finally, I think those of us who disagree with you see a huuuuuge different between one's own child and a nephew or niece.

CarneVaca · #99 06-30-2004, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I am not doubting your sincerety, nor do I think Michael Moore is the deity.

Dang, them therez pretty good rhymin'!!

dissention · #**100** 06-30-2004, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am unsure why you think I want to lambast MM. I do not and I have repeatedly said I do not. But, I guess I can say it 1,000 times and, as I have done, repeatedly praise this movie, but no one will believe me because I think MM made a poor editing choice in this one scene.

I guess you all doubt my sincerity. There is nothing more I can do about that than i have already done.

I think the big beef is that instead of really discussing the good points of the film, you're focusing on what you feel is the negative aspects of it more than anything.

I think you liked the movie a lot, just as I think everyone who saw it liked hearing the truth, but all the harping on that one piece of justified editing is tiring.

strandinthewind · #**101** 06-30-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I think the big beef is that instead of really discussing the good points of the film, you're focusing on what you feel is the negative aspects of it more than anything.

I think you liked the movie a lot, just as I think everyone who saw it liked hearing the truth, but all the harping on that one piece of justified editing is tiring.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water . . .

Please note the bolded part.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...8838660.htm?1c

Posted on Fri, Jun. 04, 2004

Rep. Kennedy no fan of Michael Moore film ad

Associated Press

Rep. Mark Kennedy, a Republican, is a little annoyed at leftist film maker Michael Moore after an edited version of an interview between the two appeared in the trailer for Moore's upcoming U.S. release of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"I was walking back to my office after casting a vote, and all of a sudden some oversized guy puts a mike in my face and a camera in my face," Kennedy said. "He starts asking if I can help him recruit more people from families of members of Congress to participate in the war on terror."

Kennedy said he told Moore that he has two nephews in the military, one who has just been deployed in the Army National Guard. But to Kennedy's annoyance, his response to Moore was cut from the trailer, which was released Thursday. His response was also cut from the film, according to a spokeswoman for the movie.

"The interesting thing is that they used my image, but not my words," Kennedy said. "It's representative of the fact that Michael Moore doesn't always give the whole story, and he's a master of the misleading."

A spokeswoman for the fiercely anti-Bush film, which has found a U.S. distributor after the Walt Disney Co. refused to release it, said she had no comment.

A transcript released by the film's producers shows Moore telling Kennedy that "there is only one member (of Congress) who has a kid over there in Iraq." He asks Kennedy to help him pass out literature encouraging others "to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."

Kennedy replies, "I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. (As Kennedy did.) I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."

To which Moore replies: "I appreciate it."

Anne Mason, Kennedy's spokeswoman, said Friday that Kennedy now has one nephew in the military and another one who got out of the Navy since the Moore interview. In addition, Kennedy's cousin's son recently completed his military service.

______________________________________________________

I cannot believe MM edited this. But, hey if no one wants to harp on this anymore - so be it.

dissention · #**102** 06-30-2004, 02:32 PM

I see the asshole wasn't above making a crack about Moore's weight.

strandinthewind · #**103** 06-30-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I see the asshole wasn't above making a crack about Moore's weight.

Well, he is large

I cannot believe MM did not put the Senator's response in the movie and then show MM sending him letters asking if he passed out those fliers yet. That would have been great

OR - he could have during the intermission of the PA reading broadcast that this Sen. had these fliers and was anxious to pass them out. Now THAT would have been funny