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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What facts? Emotional reactions aren't facts. And no, I am not saying that documentaries should be devoid of emotions. I AM saying that I don't care for Moore's attempts to manipulate mine. If he stuck to the facts, I wouldn't bitch. That's all. Like I said, I agree with a lot of his basic messages. I don't like his tactics.
Wrong. He's arguably a symptom of the problem, although I personally wouldn't even try to argue that. He's a kooky old man who will probably never actually kill anyone. The real problems here have to do with poverty, inequality, a media and entertainment industry that glorifies violence in the streets, a music industry that glorifies slapping hos and bustin' caps ... Heston is small potatoes, and Moore found him an easy target. Why didn't he go into the ghettos for a look at some people who really do glorify violence? Even better yet, why not track down some of the politicians who refuse to implement decent social services, leaving young men with no option but to turn to crime to make a living?
What facts? Emotional reactions aren't facts. And no, I am not saying that documentaries should be devoid of emotions. I AM saying that I don't care for Moore's attempts to manipulate mine. If he stuck to the facts, I wouldn't bitch. That's all. Like I said, I agree with a lot of his basic messages. I don't like his tactics.
well, what tactics would you use? people have been beating this drum for years, and no one paid attention. bowling for columbine at least got people talking. he's a filmmaker, not a teacher.
and you can't tell me that his movies are devoid of facts? just because emotion is in there as well, doesn't mean that facts are not. if you are an adult, then you should be able to resist his manipulative attempts, no?
Wrong. He's arguably a symptom of the problem, although I personally wouldn't even try to argue that. He's a kooky old man who will probably never actually kill anyone. The real problems here have to do with poverty, inequality, a media and entertainment industry that glorifies violence in the streets, a music industry that glorifies slapping hos and bustin' caps ... Heston is small potatoes, and Moore found him an easy target. Why didn't he go into the ghettos for a look at some people who really do glorify violence? Even better yet, why not track down some of the politicians who refuse to implement decent social services, leaving young men with no option but to turn to crime to make a living?
i think the reason he goes after Heston is that heston runs a group that consistently rallies against any effort to control the guns that end up on the street.
if you are an adult, then you should be able to resist his manipulative attempts, no?
Obviously, or I wouldn't be complaining now, would I?
And no, his movies are not completely devoid of facts. The facts are mixed in with stunts like the kids and the ammo at the store and the signing up your kid for the military.
i think the reason he goes after Heston is that heston runs a group that consistently rallies against any effort to control the guns that end up on the street.
But focusing on guns winding up on the street is pointless, because it doesn't get at the real root causes of violent crime. And the NRA itself has nothing to do with the illegal arms trade. I suppose he's targeting them because they are vocal and make themselves an easy target with some extremist views about firearms ... But he's still going after the wrong target.
To be fair, Bowling DOES get at some of the root causes of violence ... Namely, aspects of American culture. But the message gets diluted by his attempts to focus on tools (i.e., guns) and people like Heston. Its like the nuggets of gold are buried in a huge pile of dross.
Obviously, or I wouldn't be complaining now, would I?
And no, his movies are not completely devoid of facts. The facts are mixed in with stunts like the kids and the ammo at the store and the signing up your kid for the military.
but again, he's a filmmaker. if he made a dull ass movie, nobody would watch it. there has to be different elements in there....comedy, emotions, facts, etc.
I don;t think he was expecting to sign up people's kids. it was more for the shock value, and to create a dialogue. i say it to people on the right all the time. How come you don't sign up? they never have an answer.
But focusing on guns winding up on the street is pointless, because it doesn't get at the real root causes of violent crime. And the NRA itself has nothing to do with the illegal arms trade. I suppose he's targeting them because they are vocal and make themselves an easy target with some extremist views about firearms ... But he's still going after the wrong target.
well, he's going after A target. and If Heston wants to run the show, he should be able to take some questions from the other side. He agreed to the interview. Was he the only guy on the right who didn't know who Moore was?
And I agree, the problem of guns has many facets. the movie would have had to have been 2 days long to get to all of it
but again, he's a filmmaker. if he made a dull ass movie, nobody would watch it. there has to be different elements in there....comedy, emotions, facts, etc.
I don;t think he was expecting to sign up people's kids. it was more for the shock value, and to create a dialogue. i say it to people on the right all the time. How come you don't sign up? they never have an answer.
Is that truly a fair question, though? Really ... Someone cannot support a war without be willing to sign up?
As for your first point, I agree. Still don't like the approach, but you're right. People have to make these films interesting, if anyone is going to watch.
And I agree, the problem of guns has many facets. the movie would have had to have been 2 days long to get to all of it
Totally, my friend ... I agree that its a complex problem. My feeling is that he should have focused on more core causes, though. Again, it probably gets at what you said earlier. Going after Heston makes for good entertainment.
Totally, my friend ... I agree that its a complex problem. My feeling is that he should have focused on more core causes, though. Again, it probably gets at what you said earlier. Going after Heston makes for good entertainment.
right, because people recognize heston. He's the poster boy for the Left, so Moore is going right for the top.
people get so caught up in the importance of the message that they forget its a movie, designed to make money whiel spreading awareness and creating dialogue. look at us, here we are gabbing about it. look at all the discourse he has created with his films. i'd say that is a success!
I just saw Bowling. I thought it was quite interesting. I thought him pulling out the picture of the girl was a bit much, but it was alright.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.
Fahrenheit Fact.
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading."
Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—
Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.
Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq." But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.
Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.
During the segment, Moore is accompanied by Corporal Abdul Henderson, a Marine Corps Reservist. Corporal Henderson wears several ribbons and medals on his uniform; interestingly, a Good Conduct ribbon or medal, which is awarded "for the successful completion of a prescribed period of time of service without incident," is not among them.
(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)
[Moore response: Cites a May 11, 2003 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that only Brooks Johnson had a son who had fought in Iraq. The article was accurate at the time, since Duncan Hunter's son, who had already enlisted, had not yet been sent to Iraq. But Fahrenheit premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2004--two months after it had been reported that Duncan Hunter's son had been sent to Iraq. At the least, Moore could apologize that his claim about "only one" child is inaccurate, and blame the error on his having not noticed the news about Hunter while the movie was in its final production stages. But instead, Moore continues to repeat the "only one" claim, which is indisputably false. Moore offers no defense for the other falsehoods in this section.
This is only one of many such deceptions. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with him on many issues, but I think he makes liberals lose credibility by pulling cheap tricks.
The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.
Fahrenheit Fact.
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading."
Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—
Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.
Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq." But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.
Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.
During the segment, Moore is accompanied by Corporal Abdul Henderson, a Marine Corps Reservist. Corporal Henderson wears several ribbons and medals on his uniform; interestingly, a Good Conduct ribbon or medal, which is awarded "for the successful completion of a prescribed period of time of service without incident," is not among them.
(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)
[Moore response: Cites a May 11, 2003 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that only Brooks Johnson had a son who had fought in Iraq. The article was accurate at the time, since Duncan Hunter's son, who had already enlisted, had not yet been sent to Iraq. But Fahrenheit premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2004--two months after it had been reported that Duncan Hunter's son had been sent to Iraq. At the least, Moore could apologize that his claim about "only one" child is inaccurate, and blame the error on his having not noticed the news about Hunter while the movie was in its final production stages. But instead, Moore continues to repeat the "only one" claim, which is indisputably false. Moore offers no defense for the other falsehoods in this section.
This is only one of many such deceptions. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with him on many issues, but I think he makes liberals lose credibility by pulling cheap tricks.
nice work sourdough.
I think it's too bad that this is the only scene (what amounts to about three minutes of screen time) of the whole movie that people are focusing on.
first off, it's essentially a bit, a PT Barnum style stunt. The same way Morgan Spurlock did with "super size me". Of course McDonalds makes you fat, but eating it day after day is a sensationalistic way of calling attention to school lunch programs, which is what the movie is really about.
It's the "yeah Mike, take it to em" moment that makes a good movie moment. Yeah, it's cheap and dishonest, but I like it.....next!!
I love it for no other reason than it provided maybe the funniest moments on Arrested Development after Lucille volunteers Buster for service after being stopped on the street by Michael Moore.
"It wasn't actually Michael Moore, It was a Michael Moore impersonator working for the Jay Leno show."
Comments
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.
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.
Yes they do. And they wave goodbye to the title hosest "documentary" and wave hello to "propaganda" in the process.
I think he's funny too.
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.
That's at least fair.
I'm a huge fan of IMAX documentaries and it's pretty rare where one pushes an outright agenda.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What facts? Emotional reactions aren't facts. And no, I am not saying that documentaries should be devoid of emotions. I AM saying that I don't care for Moore's attempts to manipulate mine. If he stuck to the facts, I wouldn't bitch. That's all. Like I said, I agree with a lot of his basic messages. I don't like his tactics.
nope, he's merely the spokesman for the problem.
payback's a bitch, ain't it chucky?
Wrong. He's arguably a symptom of the problem, although I personally wouldn't even try to argue that. He's a kooky old man who will probably never actually kill anyone. The real problems here have to do with poverty, inequality, a media and entertainment industry that glorifies violence in the streets, a music industry that glorifies slapping hos and bustin' caps ... Heston is small potatoes, and Moore found him an easy target. Why didn't he go into the ghettos for a look at some people who really do glorify violence? Even better yet, why not track down some of the politicians who refuse to implement decent social services, leaving young men with no option but to turn to crime to make a living?
well, what tactics would you use? people have been beating this drum for years, and no one paid attention. bowling for columbine at least got people talking. he's a filmmaker, not a teacher.
and you can't tell me that his movies are devoid of facts? just because emotion is in there as well, doesn't mean that facts are not. if you are an adult, then you should be able to resist his manipulative attempts, no?
i think the reason he goes after Heston is that heston runs a group that consistently rallies against any effort to control the guns that end up on the street.
Obviously, or I wouldn't be complaining now, would I?
And no, his movies are not completely devoid of facts. The facts are mixed in with stunts like the kids and the ammo at the store and the signing up your kid for the military.
But focusing on guns winding up on the street is pointless, because it doesn't get at the real root causes of violent crime. And the NRA itself has nothing to do with the illegal arms trade. I suppose he's targeting them because they are vocal and make themselves an easy target with some extremist views about firearms ... But he's still going after the wrong target.
but again, he's a filmmaker. if he made a dull ass movie, nobody would watch it. there has to be different elements in there....comedy, emotions, facts, etc.
I don;t think he was expecting to sign up people's kids. it was more for the shock value, and to create a dialogue. i say it to people on the right all the time. How come you don't sign up? they never have an answer.
well, he's going after A target. and If Heston wants to run the show, he should be able to take some questions from the other side. He agreed to the interview. Was he the only guy on the right who didn't know who Moore was?
And I agree, the problem of guns has many facets. the movie would have had to have been 2 days long to get to all of it
Is that truly a fair question, though? Really ... Someone cannot support a war without be willing to sign up?
As for your first point, I agree. Still don't like the approach, but you're right. People have to make these films interesting, if anyone is going to watch.
Totally, my friend ... I agree that its a complex problem. My feeling is that he should have focused on more core causes, though. Again, it probably gets at what you said earlier. Going after Heston makes for good entertainment.
right, because people recognize heston. He's the poster boy for the Left, so Moore is going right for the top.
people get so caught up in the importance of the message that they forget its a movie, designed to make money whiel spreading awareness and creating dialogue. look at us, here we are gabbing about it. look at all the discourse he has created with his films. i'd say that is a success!
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.
Fahrenheit Fact.
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading."
Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—
Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.
Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq." But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.
Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.
During the segment, Moore is accompanied by Corporal Abdul Henderson, a Marine Corps Reservist. Corporal Henderson wears several ribbons and medals on his uniform; interestingly, a Good Conduct ribbon or medal, which is awarded "for the successful completion of a prescribed period of time of service without incident," is not among them.
(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)
[Moore response: Cites a May 11, 2003 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that only Brooks Johnson had a son who had fought in Iraq. The article was accurate at the time, since Duncan Hunter's son, who had already enlisted, had not yet been sent to Iraq. But Fahrenheit premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2004--two months after it had been reported that Duncan Hunter's son had been sent to Iraq. At the least, Moore could apologize that his claim about "only one" child is inaccurate, and blame the error on his having not noticed the news about Hunter while the movie was in its final production stages. But instead, Moore continues to repeat the "only one" claim, which is indisputably false. Moore offers no defense for the other falsehoods in this section.
This is only one of many such deceptions. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with him on many issues, but I think he makes liberals lose credibility by pulling cheap tricks.
nice work sourdough.
I think it's too bad that this is the only scene (what amounts to about three minutes of screen time) of the whole movie that people are focusing on.
first off, it's essentially a bit, a PT Barnum style stunt. The same way Morgan Spurlock did with "super size me". Of course McDonalds makes you fat, but eating it day after day is a sensationalistic way of calling attention to school lunch programs, which is what the movie is really about.
It's the "yeah Mike, take it to em" moment that makes a good movie moment. Yeah, it's cheap and dishonest, but I like it.....next!!
I love it for no other reason than it provided maybe the funniest moments on Arrested Development after Lucille volunteers Buster for service after being stopped on the street by Michael Moore.
"It wasn't actually Michael Moore, It was a Michael Moore impersonator working for the Jay Leno show."
YOU CAN'T SIGN YOUR KID UP FOR THE FUCKING WAR
be a fun prank tho.
any other scenes we'd like to talk about?
surely there are other..........
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz