Conservative advocate turns to filmmaking to counter 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Uncle Leo

sourdough wrote:

No, not really. He is manipulative and dishonest. I'm not sure what lies he actually tells, but its more tricks of his videography that coerces the audience to imply something that didn't happen. I have watched his films and I do think he does make some valid claims, but I don't think he is always honest in his arguments. I used to really like him, but I am much more skeptical of my sources now.

That's pretty much what I think. There are a lot of examples of sensationalism in his movie. While they are not "lies" they are misleading and if he did not think he was going to get called out on it and that it would weaken his message, he was pretty naive.

Uncle Leo

monkey spanker wrote:

yeah, he said that while he was making millions off of it. when he was sitting beside jimmy carter at the convention...did you think, "yeah, thats going to help the party"?? heck no, everybody knew that made the dems look nutty
to the american public. moore knows this too, but he don't care because it gave him credibility amongst his target audience..the far left. he is a good film maker, and a smart businessman. he's just real bad at lying.

He WAS making a lot of money off it, but greed usually drives people to squeeze out every cent and he said he was ok with the piracy, perhaps because he wanted to get his message out and "I am making a shit load anyway." Most people simply want a bigger shit load.

And if anyone thinks that additional piracy would not cost him any money, just look at Metallica's behaivor in the digital music age.

As for him hurting the dems (thus providing evidence that he is about money only), he is not a democrat. Al Franken and James Carville are democrats, but he constantly criticizes the democrats for caving into the GOP and being (slightly less) conservative so perhaps he does not feel it is beneficial to help the party.

ItsEvolutionBaby74

monkey spanker wrote:

this had to be expected. if a left wing propagandist can become a millionaire off of making films full of lies, wouldn't you expect somebody that is equally extreme on the other side to try it?

All conservatives are extreme and it is NOT propaganda unless it is spread by a political figure or party.

farfromglorified

ItsEvolutionBaby74 wrote:

All conservatives are extreme

Care to even attempt to justify that one?

not4u

moore is closer to the common good.

farfromglorified

not4u wrote:

moore is closer to the common good.

And by "common" you mean what?

sourdough

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

please site the lies in F911

then prove it with major news sources

See it's not good enough to say Moore lied then not have proof to back it up.

I'm not saying that there's not distortion and "cherry picking" of facts in F911

but I guess moore figured that the president did it to get us into iraq...

I won't go so far and say he "lied" but he does decieve. Case in point, the scene where he tries to get members of congress to sign up their kids for military service. He talks to one congressman who looks at Moore like he's crazy, then the video switches, making teh congressman look bad, however, what Moore doesn't show is that after the camera is turned off, the congressman says "ok" and signs the sheet. that was strategically not shown. No lie, but tells only a part of a story and makes him look like a goon.

SuzannePjam

sourdough wrote:

I won't go so far and say he "lied" but he does decieve. Case in point, the scene where he tries to get members of congress to sign up their kids for military service. He talks to one congressman who looks at Moore like he's crazy, then the video switches, making teh congressman look bad, however, what Moore doesn't show is that after the camera is turned off, the congressman says "ok" and signs the sheet. that was strategically not shown. No lie, but tells only a part of a story and makes him look like a goon.

Where did you see that congressman signing up his child for military service and what was the congressman's name?

Also, if anything, there has been more evidence of misrepresentation in their case for war by the Bush Administration since Moore's F911 movie came out. Except for the case you site above, (which I would like to see), I haven't seen one major news story flat out refuting what was in Moore's film.

What about the paid "propaganda planting" in the Iraqi newspapers that were pro American by this administration? What about the complaints by BushCo that the media was only portraying the "bad" news of the Iraq war, when it was actually much worse than any media outlet portrayed? What about the White House allowing Jeff Gannon to be an "official White House Correspondent" who posed as an unbiased news reporter so he could write only positive news stories about this administration and try to defame Senator John Kerry? One of his articles was before the 2004 election was when he reported that a former Kerry intern had taped an interview with "one of the major television networks" to discuss her affair with the senator, an assertion that was completely false. The intern never appeared on television and never claimed to have had an affair with Kerry.

If Michael Moore made false statements then I would be angry that I paid the price of admission to a bogus movie. But my tax dollars went to the the PR agency who planted the false good news stories. They went to a White House who gave the nod to that sham "reporter" Jeff Gannon instead of a reputable reporter to get positive propaganda. They went to an administration who alters documents so scientests reports of global warming don't look that bad. They go to a White House that lied to us so we would agree to the Bush/Cheney oil war. And yet everyone is down Michael Moore's back for putting out a movie that no one can put their finger on an actual lie he told. Huh?

not4u

farfromglorified wrote:

And by "common" you mean what?

making the more moraly correct decisions. Away from justifying greed and death.

farfromglorified

not4u wrote:

making the more moraly correct decisions. Away from justifying greed and death.

So it's not greedy to demand that someone else provide for your "rights" at the expense of their own?

Sorry, Michael Moore's message is the message of death. He lives by the creed of sacrifice. And too many people are all too willing to help build his altar.

stupidcorporatewhore

sourdough wrote:

what Moore doesn't show is that after the camera is turned off, the congressman says "ok" and signs the sheet. that was strategically not shown. No lie, but tells only a part of a story and makes him look like a goon.

prove it

farfromglorified

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

prove it

I have no idea if what the other poster is saying is true, but the whole stunt is dishonest. You can't sign your child up for the military. Furthermore, it implies that no one in Congress or the administration has children fighting in the war effort. Some do (though only a few). It's just a cheap stunt intended for shock value.

stupidcorporatewhore

farfromglorified wrote:

I have no idea if what the other poster is saying is true, but the whole stunt is dishonest. You can't sign your child up for the military. Furthermore, it implies that no one in Congress or the administration has children fighting in the war effort. Some do (though only a few). It's just a cheap stunt intended for shock value.

wait one goldurned minute! There's something edited for effect in a MOVIE!? Someone created a narritive situation to make a point to enhance the thesis statement?

holy shit. call the cops!!

they do it all the time dude

for those who are fans of Metallica:some kind of monster, there's a scene after Newstead has left the band that Lars and Kirk go to see Jason and his new band. After the gig, they go backstage to say hello and Jason has left already. He has dissed his former band mates at their lowest point.

or did he? Turns out not so much. In the DVD commentary, Lars and Kirk have a good laugh when the scene comes up saying that just after they were told Jason had split they walked out back and he was out there smoking a cigarette. They ended up hanging out before proceeding to party in the mission.

We're not told the whole story because it doesn't serve the STORY of the film.

I like Michael Moore. I think he's funny.

There's enough damning truth in F911 to deal with the few moments that are "constrtucted" for dramatic/comic effect.

farfromglorified

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

wait one goldurned minute! There's something edited for effect in a MOVIE!? Someone created a narritive situation to make a point to enhance the thesis statement?

holy shit. call the cops!!

they do it all the time dude

Yes they do. And they wave goodbye to the title hosest "documentary" and wave hello to "propaganda" in the process.

for those who are fans of Metallica:some kind of monster, there's a scene after Newstead has left the band that Lars and Kirk go to see Jason and his new band. After the gig, they go backstage to say hello and Jason has left already. He has dissed his former band mates at their lowest point.

or did he? Turns out not so much. In the DVD commentary, Lars and Kirk have a good laugh when the scene comes up saying that just after they were told Jason had split they walked out back and he was out there smoking a cigarette. They ended up hanging out before proceeding to party in the mission.

We're not told the whole story because it doesn't serve the STORY of the film.

I like Michael Moore. I think he's funny.

I think he's funny too.

There's enough damning truth in F911 to deal with the few moments that are "constrtucted" for dramatic/comic effect.

Whatever. But let's stop pretending its some kind of honest documentary.

stupidcorporatewhore

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes they do. And they wave goodbye to the title honest "documentary" and wave hello to "propaganda" in the process.
Whatever. But let's stop pretending its some kind of honest documentary.

I've never thought of MM's films as docs but as comical socioploitical essays. Please site an example of an "honest" docummentary that is not influenced by the agenda of the filmmaker.

Moore should take a page from the Jon Stewart playbook and just show footage of Bush.

It's really all you need to do to prove he sucks.

farfromglorified

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

I've never thought of MM's films as docs but as comical socioploitical essays.

That's at least fair.

Please site an example of an "honest" docummentary that is not influenced by the agenda of the filmmaker.

I'm a huge fan of IMAX documentaries and it's pretty rare where one pushes an outright agenda.

Moore should take a page from the Jon Stewart playbook and just show footage of Bush.

It's really all you need to do to prove he sucks.

That's not really good enough when you don't want to just prove that he sucks but also prove that he's somehow responsible for 9/11.

stupidcorporatewhore

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm a huge fan of IMAX documentaries and it's pretty rare where one pushes an outright agenda.

agreed. however, I challenge you on the word agenda. I believe the more appropriate word is "opinion". If MM has an agenda it's one of anti war, pro union, and corporate responsibility.

It's an agenda (or opinion) I happen to agree with.

farfromglorified wrote:

That's not really good enough when you don't want to just prove that he sucks but also prove that he's somehow responsible for 9/11.

Do you think that F911 entertains these conpiracy theories that have become so popular lately? If so you are dead wrong. The film does imply that Bushco was asleep at the wheel which allowed the attackers to get through. which is probably true.

The film also says that the military industrial complex made millions because of 9/11. which is also true.

even Michael Moore isn't crazy enough to (publicly) accuse Bushco of being the archetect of 9/11. Am I correct in the assumption that is what you believe F911 is about?

Of course this would be an easier conversation had you actually seen the film.

bryanfury

people try to discredit the entire movie because of a few editied scenes. its a freakin joke.

notice no one on the Right can point to anything in the movie that is false. same thing with Columbine. Poor Charlton Heston. that's all people can say.

"he ambushed that poor old man"

and 911 DOES say that a few members of Congress have kids serving. that's the point! a FEW!!!! if you firmly believe that this war is right, sign up. If you really believe that this struggle is the defining struggle of the 21st century, sign the fuck up.

rebornFixer

bryanfury wrote:

people try to discredit the entire movie because of a few editied scenes. its a freakin joke.

notice no one on the Right can point to anything in the movie that is false. same thing with Columbine. Poor Charlton Heston. that's all people can say.

"he ambushed that poor old man"

and 911 DOES say that a few members of Congress have kids serving. that's the point! a FEW!!!! if you firmly believe that this war is right, sign up. If you really believe that this struggle is the defining struggle of the 21st century, sign the fuck up.

No way ... Bowling for Columbine in particular is loaded with attempts to evoke an emotional reaction. The scene with the kids pulling ammo off store shelves, come on. Give me a break. I agree with the film's basic message about a subculture of violence in the U.S., but he goes about making the point the wrong way. Charlton Heston is not the problem.

bryanfury

reborncareerist wrote:

No way ... Bowling for Columbine in particular is loaded with attempts to evoke an emotional reaction. The scene with the kids pulling ammo off store shelves, come on. Give me a break. I agree with the film's basic message about a subculture of violence in the U.S., but he goes about making the point the wrong way. Charlton Heston is not the problem.

so now you can't make a documentary that has emotion? that was the exact point of pulling the ammo off shelves. its not a PBS ddocumentary. its a documentary with a very specific intent. i don;t think anyone going to watch it was expecting to see a balanced report on guns.

same with 911. if you were expecting an historical outlook on 911, then you stumbled into the wrong theatre.

facts are facts. some people just don't like to hear them.