Anyone Else See Farenheit?- Page 4

[Mister Matt]

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

Why do you think her quote was so ironic?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 8:00pm

Well, I'm not planning on seeing the film. Not because of Moore, but because of seeing the explicit scenes of mutilated and dead bodies. I'm sorta hypersensitive to it. Today I saw a seagull with one foot and it made me nauseous because I couldn't stop imagining how it happened.

I have just read quite a bit about his mention of the whisper in Bush's ear on 9/11 and the conclusions he seems to want the audience to jump to as well as Bush's connection to the Bin Laden family. Not just on this site, but others that discuss the film. If you read the Yahoo user reviews, it is almost identical to the conservative Christian reviews of The Passion. They all shout "this is THE TRUTH" without analyzing, discussing, or researching anything. It's a very interesting parallel.

I did see Bowling for Columbine and I remember Moore throwing out damning statistics from various countries compared to the US completely out of context in order to ellicit a frightened reaction from the audience, carefully leaving out the countries that would not make the US as bad. However, when you realize how much information is missing from the statistics, they are far less frightening. The statistics were true, but far from complete. By omitting those truths he doesn't deem fit for his agenda, he complete negates the issue and makes himself look as bad as those he accuses. I don't know if he does the same in this film, but that was enough for me to lose all credibility in the man.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 1:55am

Updated On: 7/2/04 at 01:55 AM

[DAME]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 2:38am

LOL!

[Becky]

Posted: 7/3/04 at 3:07am

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.

Bingo. Sure there are facts laid out in the movie, but he also "leads" the audience into a labyrinth of implication and speculation that isn't based in fact.

Through circumstances out of my control, I ended up back at the movie tonight....and it was a different experience. It was full the first time I went and people applauded at the end. Tonight? Only about 12 other people in the theater - no applause at the end - ect. and I'm not sure if it's because word of mouth is getting around, or maybe it's July 4th weekend and people aren't interested in embracing something so attacking towards our country, or what. But the tone was definitely different.

I will say that I left thinking about some things that I was dismissive about the first time around - and it solidified other feelings I had towards most of the movie.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/3/04 at 3:30am

I do not feel that the film attacks our country. Attacks an administration--yes. Attacks some of the mistakes being made--yes. I think the film is extremely patriotic.

[DAME]

Posted: 7/3/04 at 3:32am

I agree.

[nystateomind04]

Posted: 7/3/04 at 10:43am

i saw it last nigt (i had to drive to a theater an hour away, but i saw it!) and i am still very impressed with moore as a filmmaker. he is very good at organizing it and putting the "facts" into a story that an audience can enjoy. that said, i have read of a few inaccuracies in the film, and of some exagerations made on moore's behalf. but the truth is that it is so powerful that none of that matters. i know i cant vote for bush, if for no other reason, than the fact that i cant sit through watching him make himself look like a jackass every time he gives a interview or addresses the nation. that is just not the man i want as my president. oh yes, and then there's that whole starting a war on false pretense too.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/3/04 at 11:54am

Yes, Bush supporters would very much like for people to think that Moore has facts wrong, etc. However:

From an Entertainment Weekly interview with Michael Moore

"And I also went and hired the former chief counsel and head of fact-checking at THE NEW YORKER and then she brought in some facts-checkers. I said tear the movie apart and find something wrong with it. I've done this for my other movies, too. I've had virtually no lawsuits." (Moore then discusses how each movie and book had no lawsuits except TV Nation, which he won, and the one for Columbine brought on by the Oklahoma City bombers' brother who was in the movie (and it was a privacy issue)).
"You get my point. I don't get sued because my facts are correct. I libel no one. My opinions are my own and they may or may not be correct, but let's have that debate."

[DAME]

Posted: 7/3/04 at 12:09pm

I am reading that EW right now. I think I will see this movie again this weekend.

[feinstein9]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 3:12am

How'd the film go over in the heart of Bush country?

it's a wee bit aggervating to me when people call texas bush country! just because he's from here doesn't mean we like him! i'm so excited that this is my first year to vote, and i can't wait to get that jerk out of office. i live in fort worth, which is close to collin county, the place you mentioned, and i tell you, i don't run into many bush lovers these days. i swear no one under 55 likes him. haven't seen moore's movie yet, but i'm going to and i know it's going to be awesome. i'm glad to hear everyone on the board liked it too! peace

[DAME]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 3:19am

Yeah lately every time I meet someone from Texas thats the first thing they comment on. They are almost always defensive.

Updated On: 7/4/04 at 03:19 AM

[feinstein9]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 3:30am

well one thing's fo sho: there is nuthin like a daaaaaaame! nuthin in the worlllllld....

[shesings]

Posted: 7/7/04 at 9:45pm

To me, the emotion that was strongest after seeing this film was sadness. I think that so much of the film is true. There are DEFINATLY things that can be disputed as being ones opinion. I am sure that Michael Moore interviewed many soldiers who supported Bush and their mission - however it would have been pointless for him to have shown that. Because that was not what the goal of the film was. Everyone should go in realizing that a lot of it is based on opinions, howvere that not all of it is. there is SO much that is factual. Please don't ignore that b/c some things may be biased. Bush's dealing's were true and accurate. Bravo to Moore for trying to help open our country's very blinded eyes.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/11/04 at 12:44am

bump this thread again?

In the words of Sandra Bernhard: WHY NOT?

Posted: 7/11/04 at 12:58am

Mr. Moore has become nothing more nor less that a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. Nothing more than regurgitated facts - which have always been readily available, and in no way are given any context or analysis - interspersed with overly emotional polemic screaming. All the opportunities for making points were drowned in the personal - and childish - hatred for a single man. Too much wasted opportunity that will lead to nothing - if we're lucky. AND I'M ON HIS SIDE, OSTENSIBLY!!!!!!!!

[Becky]

Posted: 7/11/04 at 2:10am

Agree with you DGrant. Not to mention the more I read the more his credibility is going down the toilet. Moore made a huge deal out of the Saudis pouring money into a company owned by The Carlyle group **in which Sr. Bush was a board member. Too bad he neglected to mention Bush Sr. didn't become a board member until after the company (that the Saudis invested in) was already sold. Some connection, huh. Read that today and it just keeps becoming more clear that we aren't getting the *whole* truth from Moore either. Not that I was ever naive enough to think I would.

So yes. Moore may be reporting a lot of things that are in fact true. Carlyle owned a company that the Saudis invested in. Bush was a board member for Carlyle. Those things are in fact true. But what he's not saying is just as telling -- and can put a whole new spin on his so called facts. Like the fact that those two things didn't occur at the same time. Makes a huge difference.

**Edited to say I live in Texas and seldom agree with Bush.... Updated On: 7/11/04 at 02:10 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 12:04am

For anyone needing more info on the facts:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

And for Becky:

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The Bin Laden and Bush families were both connected to the Carlyle Group, as were many of the Bush family’s friends and associates.

In the early 1990s, George W. Bush served on the board of directors for CaterAir, an airline catering company. CaterAir was owned by the Carlyle Group. Kenneth N. Gilpin, “Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big,” The New York Times, March 26, 1991. “George W. Bush left the company in 1994, a year after his father’s presidency ended.” Ross Ramsey, et al., “Campaign ’94 Fisher’s Staff Slips Up On Spanish,” The Houston Chronicle, September 17, 1994.
In the mid-1990s, George H.W. Bush joined up with the Carlyle Group. “Under the leadership of ex-officials like Baker and former Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci, Carlyle developed a specialty in buying defense companies and doubling or quadrupling their value. The ex-president not only became an investor in Carlyle, but a member of the company's Asia Advisory Board and a rainmaker who drummed up investors. Twelve rich Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens, were among them. In 2002, the Washington Post reported, ‘Saudis close to Prince Sultan, the Saudi defense minister ... were encouraged to put money into Carlyle as a favor to the elder Bush.’ Bush retired from the company last October, and Baker, who lobbied U.S. allies last month to forgive Iraq's debt, remains a Carlyle senior counselor. Kevin Phillips, “The Barreling Bushes; Four Generations of the Dynasty Have Chased Profits Through Cozy Ties with Mideast Leaders, Spinning Webs of Conflicts of Interest,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004.
The bin Laden family first invested in Carlyle in 1994. Representing Carlyle’s Asia Board, George H.W. Bush visited the bin laden family's headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Kurt Eichenwald, “Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings With Carlyle Group,” The New York Times, October 26, 2001.
James Baker was a Carlyle Senior Counselor beginning in 1993. Carlyle Group web site, http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/team/l5-team391.html.
Bush's OMB chief, Richard Darman, was with Carlyle by 1994. Bob Cook, Mergers & Acquisitions Report, December 12, 1994.
George W. Bush was with Caterair -- owned by Carlyle -- until 1994, after Fred Malek, a senior advisor to Carlyle, who also served as the director of the 1988 Republican Convention, suggested to Carlyle that the President’s eldest son would “be a positive addition to Caterair’s board.” Kenneth N. Gilpin, “Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big,” New York Times, March 26, 1991.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 12:05am

and:

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Carlyle Group was holding its annual investor conference on the morning of September 11th in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C. At that meeting were all of the Carlyle regulars, James Baker, likely John Major, definitely George H. W. Bush, though he left the morning of September 11th. Shafiq bin Ladin, who is Osama bin Laden’s half-brother, and was in town to look after his family’s investments in the Carlyle Group. All of them, together in one room, watching as the uh the planes hit the towers.”
On the morning of September 11, 2001, “in the plush setting of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, DC, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual international investor conference. Frank Carlucci, James Baker III, David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Dan D’Aniellow were together, along with a host of former world leaders, former defense experts, wealthy Arabs from the Middle East, and major international investors as they terror played out on television. There with them, looking after the investments of his family was Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s estranged half-brother. George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle’s spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11. In any circumstance, a confluence of such politically complex and globally connected people would have been curious, even newsworthy. But in the context of the terrorist attacks being waged against the United States by a group of Saudi nationals led by Osama bin Laden, the group assembled at the Ritz-Carlton that day was a disconcerting and freakish coincidence.” Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003, p. 139-140. See also, Melanie Warner, “What do George Bush, Arthur Levitt, Jim Baker, Dick Darman, and John Major Have in Common? (They All Work for the Carlyle Group),” Fortune, March 18, 2002,

[Becky]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 1:10am

jrb_actor, I never said Sr. Bush was never connected in any way with Saudi business. I believe the article I read was referring to a specific situation/company documented in the film. There was an article in TIME that disputed the timeline that I mentioned in my above post. Feel free to correct the article if they were wrong, I'd honestly be curious to know.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 8:16am

The connections that Moore chose to make are supported in my above posts and further in depth on the web site.

[Becky]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 3:10pm

So you are saying TIME made a mistake in saying that Sr. Bush didn't become a board member of Carlyle until after said company was sold?

(I'm not talking about random other companies and business dealings, I'm talking about the specific company documented in the film...I can't for the life of me remember the name of the company. I'll look for the article...)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 3:14pm

I am saying that whatever connections Moore wanted to make, he has supposedly supported them. I need to see the film again to be clear on whether he unfairly makes a connection as you have stated.

I am cautious with discredits to the film, only in that they stem mostly (not all) from Bush supporters' attempts to trivialize the film. They are often wrong. Moore stands very firmly by the film--and has the track record to support this. He has even toyed with the notion of offering anyone $10,000 who can find a wrong fact in the film.

And, in the end, if there was a mix up in facts--or if I found that I didn't think Moore played fair with the presentation of facts--or if I find that I disagree with one of Moore's opinions, there is so much else in the film that is damning of Bush--his footage alone throughout ("Now watch this line drive")

[thirdrowcenter]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 3:17pm

I have no intention of ever seeing this film but I thought this was interesting:
July 13, 2004 -- MICHAEL Moore messed with the wrong rocker when he charged that The Who's Pete Townshend refused to allow his classic hit "Won't Get Fooled Again" to be used in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Biting back on his Web site, Townshend said the reason the song wasn't used was not because he was for the war in Iraq (which he admits he was), but because he doesn't trust Moore's accuracy in reporting and regards Moore as a bully. "When first approached, I knew nothing about the content of his film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' " Townshend writes. "I had not really been convinced by 'Bowling for Columbine,' and had been worried about its accuracy . . . Once I had an idea what the film was about, I was 90 percent certain my song was not right for them." The rock legend continued, "I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn't get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and willful man at the center of his new documentary . . . [Moore will] have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar."

[Becky]

Posted: 7/13/04 at 3:51pm

I am saying that whatever connections Moore wanted to make, he has supposedly supported them.....He has even toyed with the notion of offering anyone $10,000 who can find a wrong fact in the film.

That's just it. What he reported was apparently true. He never stated the two things I described happened at the same time (if I remember correctly). BUT, obviously that's the conclusion he wanted the audience to draw, however. It's more misleading than inaccurate. Updated On: 7/13/04 at 03:51 PM