Anyone Else See Farenheit?- Page 3

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 4:30am

wow--Bill O'Reilly. A man who is absolutely no better or worse than Michael Moore. Except, perhaps, that Michael Moore actually documents his facts.

Mr. O'Reilly is currently on a rampage on his TV show to paint any dissenters and Moore as being unpatriotic. As merely hating America.

I found Moore's film to be highly patriotic. I didn't see disgust for America. I saw disgust for Bush and his administration.

I guess it isn't possible for O'Reilly to see (or maybe just to say on TV) that Moore made this film because he wants better for America. I can assume that Moore wants an America that is not guilty of the crimes it has committed in recent years. That isn't unpatriotic. It's tough love. We can do better than this. We should aspire to be better than this.

[Becky]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 2:25pm

I'm going to go against the grain a little and say I was a little disappointed in the film. I'm usually a fan of Moore's work (Bowling for Columbine was one of the most interesting films I'd seen in years), and i'm very much aware Moore's work tends to be extremely one sided and I was read for that. But, I think this one is a little *too* one sided for me. I felt like I was in a trial - listening to the prosecution with all of the spin - and I desperately wanted the cross examiniation.

I read about some of the inaccuracies in the film, and I've listened to one of the Senators who was irritated at Moore because he made it look like the Senator brushed him off and walked away when in fact - the Senator agreed to take his literature back to all the Congressmen who voted for the war (and talked about his own nephew leaving for Iraq the following week. Of course, that part was cut. When I saw the movie, as the Senator walked away the crowd laughed with a kind of "Ha - he got you there now didn't he" kind of laugh. No doubt the reaction Moore wanted. Although I'm sure most of the people in the theater didn't realize that's not how the scene played out. I know Moore is a film maker, and his purpose wasn't to include footage that didn't furthur his goal, but that kind of thing makes me start to question other things. It's too bad. There are some issues Moore raises that would be interesting to think about and are valid -- but because he loses credibility with me on so many other levels, it's hard to listen to anything he has to say in this particular movie objectively.

My brother and I started breaking down the issues raised - and we both kept saying to ourselves, "ok -- so?" The whole movie is a pile of insinuations and implications (with some valid points that get buried in the propoganda) - and even if you believe a lot of what he says, I found myself saying "and your point?" a little too much. He spent so much time on things that seemed so irrelevent. Unfortunately I feel like a lot of people are going to watch the film and take it all as absolute truth and not really break it down and think about some of the connections Michael is trying to draw that don't amount to much. I'm not going to go into all of the areas of the film that I felt should have been questioned. I'll just say I'm not a Bush supporter - and even I had this kind of reaction to the film.

I read a post online from someone who was at a talk back screening of the movie, and Michael Moore answered his question. The guy asked Moore if he felt that the powers that be could have avoided the attack on 9/11, but pretty much let it happen because of what would be gained in the long run. Michael answered YES. He said he thought they let it happen and purposely avoided the warnings, but maybe didn't realize the extent of how many people would be killed (or something along those lines.) So. Moore honestly thinks Bush let 9/11 happen so that Cheney's defense company could profit from the sale of war supplies, and that Bush would finally be able to create a reason to go into Iraq? That says it all regarding what he's trying to accomplish with this movie. I'm not saying I believe 100% or even most of what our government has fed us re: this war. But I didn't find myself cheering Moore either.

I'm not saying that there aren't some important things in the film, and I certainly learned a lot. I only hope people don't leave there pretending everything that was fed to them was indisputable fact.

***Edited to say that my brother is a Marine - and he was *disgusted* at the way the military men were portrayed. Not that what was captured on film wasn't happening - but it was a very skewed look at what they are doing over there. Updated On: 6/29/04 at 02:25 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 2:34pm

I actually think that is rather fair, Becky. The impact might be even more powerful if there had been cross examination of the facts---to strengthen them. And, maybe some of the questions being asked by Moore would be proven to not be correct. However, he does back up these ideas with documentation clearly laid out in his book. This supports to my mind that the questions are valid. And, if everything Moore is saying in the film is true, all of those connections in the film are very damning.

[Becky]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 3:01pm

Hey jrb_actor, yes. The points would have been strengthened with a cross examination. For how many times have you watched a courtroom show (or whatever) and you hear one side lay out their argument, and you think, "damn, that's pretty damning." Then you hear the other side and it blows holes into what you thought. We only heard one side.

I understand that many of Michael points may be true. But I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't understand what he wanted me to take from it. For instance - an old BinLaden family accountant was an investor to Bush. Ok, there's a 6degrees of separation connection from Bush to the BinLadens. And? Many respected people do business with that family - regarless of the estranged Osama. So someone hired by the BinLadens has a business connection to Bush. Why so relevent in the scheme of things?What is the implication? I'm honestly asking. He spent a lot of time on Bush reading to the school children for 7 minutes after an advisor whispered something in his ear. Bush said he didn't want to cause any panic, and I believe I've heard that they were in the process of setting up a communications room in the school and Bush couldn't really do anything until that happened anyway. What was Moore trying to accomplish by criticizing that 7 minutes - does Moore honestly know exactly what was going on inside that school? Instead, Moore makes all of these "what do you think he was thinking" comments that really didn't make any sense. Also, there was a huff about the FBI authorizing the BinLadens to get out of the country. They implied that that Bush simply let them go without any interrogation and implied some 'shadiness'. But hadn't our government been watching the BinLaden family for years - and isn't there reason to believe they'd been interrogated to death in the past? Isn't it possible they were very much aware of what the family knew regarding Osama or they could have been cooperating with our governemt once they got to safety? Again, I'm just asking. These are the types of things I wish could have been addressed and cleared up. These are just a few of the connections and issues raised by Moore that I wasn't sold on. I'm just not one to sit back and not question.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 3:43pm

And that's what I love about the film--it's getting us to think, whether we agree with the film or parts of the film or not.

I certainly felt when reading the book, that Moore wasn't necessarily saying that every theory was fact--just that he was bringing up the various theories. And/or, here are the facts, what conclusions do they draw (or not)?

I'm sure out of fairness, there are definitely other sides to the picture. But, some things are too damning anyway you cut it. I will never feel right about that election, for one thing.

I will offer that when Bush set out to attack Afghanistan and Iraq--I was in support of both. (This may come as a surprise to some). I believed what was being told to me. Then (without Moore's help) I started feeling like I was being lied to. And, of course, Bush's stance on gay marriage sent me into anti-Bush land completely--not that I was ever in full support of him, just that I was at one time standing by his decisions on the matters of 9/11 and terrorism and Iraq like most people had been. Reading Moore's book (and seeing this film) allowed me to have exposure to another side of the picture. And, placing all the pieces together (I do flip channels between CNN, MSNBC and (shock!) Fox News), I then had realized that I could no longer support Bush and his actions.

Some may call this wishy washy, but like Kerry and others, I realized that the circumstances had drastically changed.

[Becky]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 4:38pm

Some may call this wishy washy

You know, I don't think there's anything wrong with investigating facts/theories and deciding something may not have been what it seemed....I wouldn't call what you've described wishy washy. It's responsible. It's like my favorite quote by Maya Angelou, "I did what I knew how to do. When I knew better, I did better."

I'm with you on the election. My blood started boiling all over again during the beginning of the film when they were showing the election segment.

Like someone in this thread posted - Moore had so many things he could focus on legitimately -- why did he have to manipulate footage (such as the Senator segment)? He starts to lose credibility with me because of things like that.

I guess my bottom line is that because Moore focused on so many things that seemed irrelevent (even if you did believe it) -- it took the focus away from the more serious/valid things that could have made more of an impact.

jrb_actor - I do agree with you - it's nice that something is getting people to think and discuss...even when there are disagreements. I just hope that people will take the film for what it is and responsibly question the information offered to them. Updated On: 6/29/04 at 04:38 PM

[GovernorSlaton]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 6:25pm

I saw it on Sunday, and I thought it was very powerful. It was also very funny, and there was a good balance. Moore had some interesting points, and the audience was very reactive. My favorite line;

"Fool me once, shame on...on...on you.......We can't get fooled again."

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 6:45pm

Actually, Gov, I haven't seen the movie, but I remember the quote as being closer to:

"Fool me once,... shame on,... shame on you. Fool me twice,... well you can't fool me twice."

[GovernorSlaton]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 7:07pm

Hmmm...I guess I might be wrong, but the people I saw it with also remember it being closer to my way. Can anyone verify?

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 6/29/04 at 7:11pm

Eh, you're probably right.
My memory has a tendency to turn things inside out.
Ignore my previous comment.

(I would delete it, but then it would look like you were crazy and talking to yourself, so I won't. I like you too much for that )

[Auggie27]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 7:18pm

(duplicate post)

Updated On: 6/30/04 at 07:18 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 7:19pm

(duplicate)

Updated On: 6/30/04 at 07:19 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 7:19pm

To shift the focus away from the veracity of the content and toward its impact: Does anyone else find the attendance and grosses (now adjusted upward, to nearly 24 million for the weekend alone) serve as a helluva indicator? NOT that people will be "swayed" by the film, but that the movie proves that the anti-bush registered voters will not stay home in November. The MATINEES of this movie sold out acorss the country, in blue states, the sticks. On a weekend with mostly beautiful weather everywhere. People drove 50 miles to be there. There is a cultural phenom here -- people wanting a communal experience, to see it with others. I saw it with loud cheering and hooting (suburban NJ) at the end, and huge discussion in the lobby.

If I were Karl Rove, I'd at least look at what this says about the size and depth of the fervor -- and people putting their money, and eventually their votes -- where their mouths are. This film says: 2000 will not be repeated, at least not in the volume of votes. Yes, it preaches to the choir--but the choir is anything but apathetic.

Updated On: 6/30/04 at 07:19 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 11:49pm

All I know is I bet for damn sure (barring a repeat rigging of the voting rosters) that Florida goes Kerry--you know every single disenfranchised voter from 2000 is going to make the effort!

[bstndiva]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:33pm

I just cannot bring myself to see this movie. I'm afraid I'll have nightmares after seeing all that 911 footage. Haven't we seen and heard enough about that tragedy? As soon as people start to forget about it and heal from it this guy has to make a movie about it. Its like opening old wounds just so he can make money. Politics bore me anyway.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:36pm

There is very little 9/11 footage--and none of it shows the planes, etc.

Yes, he's only trying to make money. You are so right!

[bstndiva]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:40pm

I'll pass on it anyway. If I am going to bother to go out to a movie I'm sure there are plenty that will be entertaining and can take my mind off all the war and politics instead of seeing more of it.

[DAME]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:46pm

Of course it is a little one-sided. What is wrong with that? It is a documentary and all good documentaries have a point of view. I love this movie. Will be seeing it again.

Updated On: 7/1/04 at 01:46 PM

[NuggetMonkeys]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:11pm

one-sided, yes. but not refutable. mostly facts.
-d.b.j-

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:29pm

From everything I read about the film, it seems that it's not the facts that people have a problem with, but his speculations and theories behind them.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:40pm

it's all very damning--and that's why Bush supporters are doing anything and everything to discredit the film, not have it seen, or cut into Moore's pocket (by telling people to download it for free).

[DAME]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:41pm

Thats the point. He shows the facts. I didn't see any speculation. Just fact. SEE THE MOVIE. Don't go by what "you hear"

[Matt_G]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:41pm

When have Bush supportors condoned bootlegging the film?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:48pm

Moorewatch.com did

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/07/01/fahrenheit.piracy.reut/index.html

Would>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/07/01/fahrenheit.piracy.reut/index.html>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/07/01/fahrenheit.piracy.reut/index.html

Would serve em right if their members became "converted"!

[bstndiva]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 6:58pm

The whole debate is so silly. To quote Sally Bowles "It's only politics, what does it have to do with us?"