French Flock to 'Fahrenheit'; Critics Balk

[Khephra]

PARIS -- France's passion for cinema and its collective antipathy for President Bush made Wednesday's opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" a headline event that quickly proved a boon at the box office. But even Michael Moore could not escape that critical Gallic eye.

The movie that won the highest award at May's Cannes Film Festival wracked up "extraordinary" ticket sales for its first afternoon showings in Paris, according to the MK2 movie chain.

Elevating the movie to an event, the left-leaning newspaper Liberation left the laudatory commentary to its nationally known executive editor. "Michael Moore is a television show unto himself," Serge July wrote, praising the director as the "American Falstaff of documentaries."

The cover of the Communist daily L'Humanite's portrayed Moore dressed up like the Statue of Liberty, wearing a smile and a baseball cap.

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-europe-fahrenheit-911,0,3463442.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines

The "balk"ing comes later on in the article. I would have pasted that section, but I liked the image of Moore as the Statue of Liberty a bit more.

;-)

[Frederic Bastiat]

1. Le Monde losing readership to Liberation

Hence the caustic review. They are trying to make inroads with the Right (Le Figaro) readers.

[Retrograde]

5. discovered "Liberation" last month

while in France. Scathing remarks about the US "false exit" (the front page headline) the day after the handover.

And it's easier to read than Le Monde - especially with my 35 year old high school French!

[fudge stripe cookays]

71. I was interviewed by 2 guys from Liberation

and a guy from the Daily Mail in Iowa at a Starbucks while volunteering for Howard Dean.

Now THAT was fun!! I couldn't believe how INTO our elections they were. Fascinating glimpse into how foreigners view us and our system.

FSC

[My Pet Goat]

2. I guess France's superstar philosopher

Bernard-Henri Levy and the Freepers think alike on this matter. Maybe we should introduce them to each other? :evilgrin:

[geek tragedy]

4. Not all liberals/progressives are Moore fans

One can loathe Bush and also dislike Moore or his films.

[robbedvoter]

8. Uh, how? Are the facts in F-911 bugging some liberals you say?

I mean, opinions of Moore may be split - I used to hate him before I loved him, a nader supporter would have gone through the opposite process understandably. But for anyone seeking the truth, what's not to like in F-911? I really want to know.

[geek tragedy]

16. I'm not going to debate F911 and Michael Moore

There's a party line here regarding the film, and I'd rather not be accused of being a freeper, thank you.

[Bridget Burke]

17. You'll make snide comments, but can't mention any real faults.

Because of the "party line"? Or because you can't find any actual problems?

[geek tragedy]

23. Here are two reviews that reflect my take on the film:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5825

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/fahrenheit911.html

Here's one glaring factually false statement from Moore: He claims that Saudis own 6-7% of America. Simply not true. The amount of Saudi investment alleged isn't even 6-7% of the value of homes in America, which in total are valued at $15 Trillion or so.

[TahitiNut]

32. How much of the federal debt is held by Saudis?

I think 6-7% is pretty accurate. The last I heard, over $1.7 trillion was held by foreign & international investors - approaching 40% of the debt.

Read all about it at http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html

[geek tragedy]

33. Actually, it still isn't close

Debt isn't ownership. And those foreign investors aren't just Saudis--I imagine a lot of that debt is owned by Europeans and Asian creditors.

To put it in stark terms, American homes are worth about $15 Trillion. The value of the NYSE is also $15 Trillion. That's thirty trillion without even getting into all of the other forms of property in the US--public lands, commercial property, private businesses, personal bank accounts and possessions, etc.

[merh]

35. Having read the articles, I find it humorous that that the first

reviewer thinks that Moore was too conservative (and the author even finds that a humerous position) and the other faults it for pandering to emotions.

NEITHER reviewer finds or references actual factual faults with the movie.

If I am not mistaken, did not the value of homes decrease tremendously during the depression? If there is no money to buy the homes that you value at 15 trillion or so, then aren't the homes without value?

You are comparing apples to oranges and you are off base.

Go re-read your links and notice that they do not attack the facts of Moore's movie as much as they just disliked the film. (or find better ones to support your "different" position).

"That's what I'd like to see. A movie that doesn't pander to the NPR totebag crowds shuttling edamame home to their mud-compact homes in V-4 Saabs. One that has an answer every time the SUV-driving, fried-children-eating, baby-seal-beating Republicans say "But what about..." In stead we get a movie meant to make liberals feel good about themselves."

[geek tragedy]

36. The homes are valued at $15.2 Trillion as of 12-31-03

The Saudis have invested, at the very most, $860 Billion. When you consider that the wealth/property in the United States includes the value of all US businesses, public, private, and commercial lands (including mineral reserves), bank accounts, personal property, and so on, the claim is simply preposterous.

He said that Saudis own 6-7% of America. There is no way that statement is true. It is flat out incorrect.

I wasn't listing those reviews as evidence of factual error--I just said that they reflect to a large degree my personal opinion of the film.

[merh]

39. Okay, what are you using to obtain your figures?

I am still saying that you are comparing apples to oranges, but I could be wrong, since I have no idea where you get your information.

So, please provide some background for your assumptions.

You don't like Moore's movie because it is not liberal enough?
I find that hard to believe.

[geek tragedy]

40. Regarding the $15.2 Trillion figure

Here's a google search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2415.2+trillion%22+homes&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&scoring=d&start=10&sa=N&filter=0

I think it makes the wrong liberal arguments. Instead of just saying that Bush is a flunky for the Saudis and that explains everything he did wrong post-9/11, explore why his failure to provide an energy policy that leads us away from oil-dependency has hurt our nation. I don't care about Goldstein or Peace Fresno--the former involved mere questioning based on a tip and the latter didn't even involve the Federal government. Talk to me instead about Plame/Wilson, the Halliburton no-bid contracts, the torture memos, the claim that he can detain any citizen without explaining himself to a court.

There was barely a mention of the WMD lies and no mention of Guantanamo. That kind of stuff is what makes this junta so goddamn scary--not the fact that they did business with Saudis.

Fuzzy stuff about a lame pipeline conspiracy and whether the Secret Service protects embassies (yes they do) and a heavy focus on the Saudis is a distraction from the real evils this administration threatens to inflict on the American people.

[merh]

41. How in the world is the man supposed to make a 2 hr film that

entails the 4 years of the clown in chief's crimes and abuses? F911 is only a beginning and the critics have ridiculed it as being this century's Oliver Stone's conspiracy movie (JFK). If they can't get their heads around the simple connections of the Bush family and the Saudis (which you challenge based upon your limited appreciation for the economy ties as referenced in the film) without labeling all who like the movie as conspiracy buffs, then how in the hell could you expect Moore to include the PNAC, the prison abuse, the Wilson/Plame outing, and other such atrocities of this admin.

Their lies are based on their association with the Saudis. They lie to keep that association in place and to continue to profit from it. They lie to protect their financial connnections with the Saudis and the Saudis funding of the terrorists because it makes such a nasty circle, don't you think.

If you want to write articles that detail your understanding of the problems with the admin, then go right ahead. If you want to hound the print media to see if you can get them to publish your works, feel free. If you want to appear on the mainstream media and give interviews about this, please feel free to do so. As you might not have noticed, no one is given the proper media attention to what is really going on in our nation.

Moore's movie is a beginning and like I said, it is only 2 hours long, the clown in chief has had 4 years to screw up and his family's connections go back decades with the saudis. If you want eyes opened and minds enlightened, then take up the cause, don't fault someone is is trying to do it.

Being critical of one of the only vehicles available to get the word out about the BFEE seems rather silly to me. (Especially when you mistake your understanding of the facts for the facts and can't seem to get your criticism correct.)

[geek tragedy]

43. Excuse me, but

I don't have to like a film because the filmmaker has decided that he's on "our" side this go around. The Freepers have an agenda when they bash the film, which they haven't even seen. That's one thing. But, critiquing it as a documentary and finding it lacking is my prerogative as a moviegoer. I reject the "you're either with Michael Moore or you're with the Bush administration" reasoning.

The film just didn't make a strong enough case, in my opinion. There was too much connecting, and too few dots.

And my understanding of the facts is perfectly sound. Saudis do not own 6-7% of America. Anyone who's taken a basic course in arithmetic or economics can tell you that.

[merh]

55. You can chose to like it or you can chose to not like it,

you have that right. BUT when you state that it is factually incorrect and when you cite articles that do not deal with factual inaccuracies, then you best be prepared to back up your generalization regarding the factual inaccuracies. You cannot.

The ownership alluded to in Moores film is not property, but stock market, which my friend makes the world go round.

You are most combative today.

[geek tragedy]

58. With all due respect, Moore did not say

that Saudis own 6-7% of the value of the New York stock exchange.

He said:

<snip>
It turns out that Saudi Prince Bandar is perhaps the best protected ambassador in the US. The US State Department provides him with a six-man security detail. Considering how he and his family, and the Saudi elite own seven percent of America, it's probably not a bad idea.
<snip>

I don't see a reference to the stock market there. Do you?

[merh]

62. You are too dense for words.

There is no use in trying to explain to you the obvious. You don't want to know the truth and to be educated. Go away and live in your little, closed minded world. Rant with anger against everyone.

[merh]

42. The article you site has an interesting comment that I

challenge you to research.

"By the end of 2003, the nation's homes were worth $15.2 trillion, with mortgages and home loans accounting for about 45 percent of that value, according to Fed data. "

Who owns the mortgages? How much of an interests to Saudis own of legitimate, American corporations????

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

[geek tragedy]

44. Very simple:

It means that on a typical, $100K home, there is a mortgage of $55K and the homeowner has $45K in equity.

In other words, there is $100K worth of property which the homeowner owns (duh). The homeowner owes $55K to the bank.

The total value of the real estate is still $100K, and there is still $15.2 Trillion worth of homes in the United States.

The point you're missing is that there's a lot more wealth and property in the US besides private homes. A LOT more.

[merh]

45. That is not how value is measured.

If a person has a $200,000 lot and a $30,000, home on the lot, the mortgage they can obtain would be for the $30,000.00. Mortgages are on the structures -- loans are on the property. (Mortgages require smaller down payments than would a loan on the property)

Again - apples and oranges - who own the companies that have the mortgages on the homes - what happens if the home owners default on their mortgages - who gets the home and property?

You refuse to do the challenged research and you mix apples and oranges.

Go ahead and be angry, but please try to direct your anger at the right people, not at Moore or DU, but at the admin and the mainstream media. Then channel your anger constructively, but first, have the facts and don't mix the issues.

[geek tragedy]

46. You are terribly confused.

Mortgages include the land, and the value of a home includes both the home and the land it sits on.

[merh]

47. You are wrong - go try to take out a loan on a piece of land

You will find that you have to come up with a larger down payment because the land is just land, with no improvements and the bank or mortgage company has nothing on it of value (in case they have to recover on their risk to make the loan).

The home is what is considered the thing of value (land is taken into the equation, but the home is the valued item on the lot).

I know from experience geek, I bought a home on a piece of land that is valued at bunches, the existence of the little old run down home, devalued the property and the loan was a risk for the bank. Actually couldn't find a bank to give me a mortgage without a huge down payment. Too much of a risk -- I speak from experience. You can play the finance game all you want, as it is a game, but I know of which I speak.


It is the value of the mortgages held that equates to the wealth, not the land and/or home that is valued.

If you live in a well to do neighborhood and the highway department decides to put a major freeway through your neighborhood, what happens to the value of your property/home? It plummets like a lead balloon. What happens to your mortgage, it stays constant and you have to pay the full value.

Please stop confusing the issues. Your original post makes no sense.

I am glad you are angry, but don't be angry with DU or Moore, be angry with the people that matter and get your facts straight.

[geek tragedy]

52. When you buy a piece of land, you buy everything on it.

So, when someone buys a piece of land with a house on it, they buy the house too.

I'll trust my education and professional training on this one. Thanks for your perspective though.

[merh]

60. I hope you are not in the market or banking

You will be out of cash all too soon. If your education has lead you to draw the simple, incorrect conclusion that you have used to support your cockeyed conclusion, then ask for a refund. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

Again, I speak from experience. The land's value is affected by so much and the value is not a constant. A highway here, a damn there, a tornadoe, an earthquake - too many factors involved in the valuation of land. Now, for the smchucks that own the corpation that have the mortgage on the home and land, well they are holding the bag aren't they. The propery values sink and they still get their original investment returned - same amount owed (plus interests of course). They don't say, sorry the value has decreased, don't worry about paying us back over the next 10 years.

If the house burns, the property is devalued. You still have to pay the mortgage and please try to sell the land/property for what you paid for it. Fat chance. It will go at a loss - the value of the land may be X amount, but deduct the amount to remove the burned structure and clear the land, then maybe you have the price you can sell it at.

[geek tragedy]

61. The monetary value of any propertyis affected by external factors

Everyone knows that.

But, a mortgage is simply a debt. Just like a car loan.

If you have a home with a mortgage, I would imagine you'd have fire insurance.

[info being]

49. That figure has nothing to do with homes.

You're both way off-base. That figure has to do with investment in the stock market.

[merh]

51. I'm sorry, what figure are you referrring to?

The figure referenced in Moore's film?

[geek tragedy]

54. Michael Moore said that Saudis own 6-7% of America.

His words not mine.

[merh]

57. STOCK MARKET

Again, I challenge you to research which corporations own the mortgages on the homes/property that you allude to as the "ownership of America". You will find that you are not correct and that you have a lack of understanding of the financial world that owns most and controls all.

[geek tragedy]

59. Sigh.

There is more to America than the stock market.

If a home (land + building) is worth $100K, there is $100K worth of property. A mortgage is a debt for which the home serves as collateral.

If you can't grasp that, I'm wasting my time with you.

[merh]

63. Apples and oranges.

It is you that is fooled on how simple finances are in this world.

[merh]

64. You didn't waste your time with me,

you just are wrong in your simpleton conclusions regarding finances and Moore's statements in the film.

You gave up because you know you are wrong. Bye Bye until you start trying to post misinformation again.

[geek tragedy]

65. Actually, your constant flow of nonsense wore me down

If you could, though, please prove that $860 Billion will buy someone 6-7% of America.

[merh]

66. Since you are thinking of American as a chunk of land

there is no way that I can provide you with the numbers you seek.

Moore was referring to "America" as ownership interests in American corporations and companies that control the U.S.of A. (not to mention ownership of treasury bonds, etc.).

My responses to your posts were not nonsense, but accurate accounts based upon experience. Having dealt with people who have lost their livelihoods due to castrophies and/or unfortunate circumstances that have occurred in their lives - it is experience that I shared with you. That you chose to live in a simple world seeing things as black and white and since you equate ownership of America to land ownership, there is nothing that can be posted that will alter your views.

I hope you never find out first hand how finances really work in this world. You will not do well, not at all.

[geek tragedy]

67. Even on those (warped) terms he's wrong

Saudis own an amount roughly equal to 6-7% of the New York Stock Exchange. That does not include NASDAQ, home of little corporations like Microsoft. Or privately held corporations and businesses.

In any event, stating that Saudis own 6-7% of America is wrong by its plain meaning. If he meant corporate stock, he should have said that.

America is more than the New York Stock Exchange.

But, given that you're willing to do somersaults in a futile bid to prove that your idol didn't state a falsehood and are willing to expend extraordinary effort doing so, I must bid you good day.

[merh]

68. And bye bye to you, Geek

Here is hoping that you learn some truths about finances before you enter the real world. If not, you will find that shopping carts rust rather quickly if left out in the elements. And that will be a geek tragedy.

[gottaB]

80. Secret Service protects embassies

My wife and I argued about what I call Saudi-bashing in F 9/11. Do the Saudis really own 7% of America? No. First of all, remember that Moore talked to one expert, but he only reported one estimate, which the expert had qualified as high. There are much lower estimates. The number I had recalled was around $640 billion back in 2001, which I believe was considered reasonable. That's important to note because Moore was only too happy to round up to a trillion at one point, which is quite a jump from widely agreed upon estimates. Secondly, the expert expressed that high estimate in terms of publicly traded equities, which he said was about 7%. Moore named several companies that Saudis own(ed) many shares of, and invited us to imagine the effect of Saudis selling all their shares at once. Moore later expressed that 7% figure as the percentage of the US economy that is owned by the Saudis. That is false, because as you point out, the stock market is only a fraction of the US economy. Furthermore, it is known that much of the Saudi investments are in the form of bonds, as well as private companies and commercial properties. In fact, Saudi citizens own neither 7% of the publicly traded companies on the NYSE nor 7% of the US economy. That figure was offered as a way to imagine the value of $840 billion and should not be taken literally.

Well, my wife said, what about the Secret Service protecting the Suadi embassy? Isn't that unusual? I couldn't say. We had to look that one up.

Today's Secret Service is made up of two primary divisions -- the Uniformed Division and the Special Agent Division. The primary role of the Uniformed Division is protection of the White House and its immediate surroundings, as well as the residence of the Vice President, and over 170 foreign embassies located in Washington, D.C. Originally named the White House Police, the Uniformed Division was established by an Act of Congress on July 1, 1922, during President Warren G. Harding's Administration (1921-1923).

The US Secret Service in History

Unlike you, geek tragedy, I actually liked the film and would recommend it. I think its redeeming qualities outweigh its weaknesses. Still, the groupthink is stiffling reasonable debate. It's really ugly. The personal attacks against you and other critics are uncalled for. Your criticisms are right on target.

Peace.

[geek tragedy]

81. Cool.

Moore is undoubtedly skillful, and has some real killer moments in the film. When he let the camera do the talking, with Lila or our war cheerleaders in the media, it was absolutely devastating.

I'll look forward to his film on the health care industry--those people need to be shaken up.

Peace back to ya.

:toast:

[merh]

82. My posts to geek were not personal attacks

nor were they efforts to stifle his opinions. Each one of them were attempts to obtain information relative to the opinion he expressed in his post # 23

"Here's one glaring factually false statement from Moore: He claims that Saudis own 6-7% of America. Simply not true. The amount of Saudi investment alleged isn't even 6-7% of the value of homes in America, which in total are valued at $15 Trillion or so."

As you point out "That figure was offered as a way to imagine the value of $840 billion and should not be taken literally." His reference to it as being "a glaring factually false statement" and his reference to the values of homes - did not make sense and, as I pointed out, he was comparing apples to oranges.

Why it is that people assume when a post is made challenging such a broad statement "glaring factually false statement" that it is a personal attack? It is geek that made things personal through out the thread and he is the one that posted statements for the sole purpose of evoking the inquiries that were made. He knew others would challenge the facts and if you look at the definition of troll, you will see that his posts meet that definition.

As I told geek, I don't care if he likes or dislikes Moore's film. That is his prerogative, but don't post about factually false statements unless you can support that claim.

(ps - I got from the movie the point that Moore was trying to make with the number of secret service assigned to the SA embassy and the fact that they came to check on the filming across the street from the embassy. I did not take it that he was depicting it as SA only embassy that has SS. Guess its in the eye of the beholder, now ain't it. -- I don't believe his or your critisms are correct. That does not make me a Moore groupie, it just makes me a person with a different perspective as I have pointed out. This is not a personal attack, it is sharing an opinion and trying to clarify a misunderstanding.)

[funnymanpants]

37. Good review/bad review

The first review was very good (I had already read it).

The second review was lousy:

"In its second half, Fahrenheit 9/11 contains almost purely anecdotal information about the war in Iraq. Mothers, soldiers and regular citizens recount what they've seen and experienced. The point is that war is hell; and that's a pretty fucking cheap maneuver by Moore. I think all of us who've blown the heads off their GI Joe dolls with M-80s know it."

That's a pretty stupid argument. Most of us have blown off the heads of dolls; most of us don't realize how bad war is. Besides, why is letting your outrage against senseless violence a "cheap maneuver?" I hear this argument by right-wingers all the time. "Oh, war is hell..." Right. If your sister was being raped, would you philosophize and say "Oh, rape is hell..." Or would you try to stop it?

But the first review is a must-read for everyone.

[geek tragedy]

38. I agree with you regarding the actual violence/suffering being shown

War is too sanitized in our news coverage, so people need to be reminded what four dead and thirteen wounded civilians means, let alone thousands.

The second half of the film I thought was pretty good--when Moore was actually documenting instead of playing connect-the-dots.

I don't know how those recruiters got snookered into letting Moore mike them.

But, yeah, military recruiters have always been creepy like those guys.

[info being]

48. You're wrong with that figure...

He claims 6-7% of the investment in the stock market. I don't know why you're bringing homes into it.

[jpak]

79. The 6-7% referred to stock holdings not real estate

I actually SAW the movie and this is what they were talking about.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Hm...

[CatWoman]

20. I'm a freeper

I'm a freeper
He's a freeper
She's a freeper

Wouldn't you like to be a freeper too :D

*sung to the tune of Dr. Pepper*

[TankLV]

25. We don't have to.

We'll just let your comments speak for themselves.

Just like all your other posts.

[geek tragedy]

26. Feel free to point out my Republican-leaning, right-wing posts

Instead of making lazy, unsubstantiated accusations.

[TankLV]

29. We are intelligent enough to be able to figure out how to do a "search".

We don't have to waste our time on proving the obvious.

Buh bye!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

27. At least I adhere to forum rules, my friend.

Subject moot. Never mind.

[TankLV]

30. You sarcasm is duly noted.

And taken for what it's worth - my "friend".

[info being]

50. I hate when people use "My Friend" negatively.

I know a freeper at work who does that.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[carolinayellowdog]

22. No fan of Moore's books-- BUT find no factual errors in F9/11

Calling people freepers is against DU rules but attacking a film without being willing to cite what is wrong with it does raise questions. There is and can be no party line here, just a consensus made up of thousands of individuals making individual judgments.

[Capt_Nemo]

34. Bernard-Henry Levi is a cruise missile leftist

just like Labour's Ann Clwyd. :puke:

He just didn't support the Iraq war because he knew this time
the whole thing could backfire as it did.

During the Balkan wars he did a TV documentary that had a much
more propagandistic tone (everything was Serb's fault), complete
with Hitler comparisons and absolutely one-sided, so his criticism
of Michael Moore only shows his hypocrisy and intelectual
dishonesty.

:puke::puke::puke:

[Cha]

3. Thanks, khep..I liked this part...

For 20-year-old student Adrien Bloch, it was much simpler.

"It's very important, this movie," he said. "We don't like Bush and this movie is anti-Bush ... It reflects our thinking."

[DemExpat]

10. F911 will do much to salvage America's reputation

in many parts of the world, I think.....at least people will see that "even" many Americans think very negatively about Bush! :D

:kick: :kick: :kick:

DemEx

[cliss]

6. Question: how can Bushco compete with this?

Answer: they can't.

If there's one thing the Repugs don't have, it's style. There's one area where they are absolutely UNABLE to compete. Humor. Style. Pizazz. Movie.

Michael Moore may just have underestimated how big this movie would be.

[jakpalmer]

7. More...

"Cinema-goers who scrambled to get into one of the packed screenings applauded, laughed and sat stunned as the movie spelled out Moore's views that Bush was an incapable dolt whose family has an overly cosy relationship with rich Saudis.

Amused head-shaking and a sort of collective smugness punctuated the film's two hours, with the issues and images presented being carried off into city cafes afterwards for heated discussions."

...

"It was not only Parisians who warmed to Moore's anti-Bush message.

A group of six Americans stood outside one cinema holding a banner reading: 'Americans in Paris for Regime Change at Home'".

...

"At the exit to one cinema, another American living in France yelled out to any compatriots who may have seen the film to register to vote for the US election in November."


More: http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=9265">Expatica

[robbedvoter]

11. "Moore's views that W was an incapable dolt?" as opposed to ...reality?

I don't remember many lectures in the speech. Just news footage - mostly the 7 minutes. THESE ARE FACTS, NOT VIEWS.

[Bridget Burke]

19. Moore's "views"?

Bush's family has a long-standing relationsihp with rich Saudis. Read up on it.

And he is an incapable dolt. As a Texan, I knew this long before many of you.

[missile_bender]

9. Anybody got a picture of this (Moore as Lady Liberty)?

"The 'balk'ing comes later on in the article. I would have pasted that section, but I liked the image of Moore as the Statue of Liberty a bit more".

Love to see it.

[missile_bender]

12. Also, this kind of criticism drives me nuts.

"'When Michael Moore describes Iraq, before the American intervention, as a sort of oasis of peace and happiness, where people flew kites .... there wasn't only that,' Levy said on RTL radio."

Well, when you show pictures of America, are you going to show only people walking their pets in Central Park and July 4 parades, or are you also going to show prisoners in U.S. jails getting their salads tossed?

[Coventina]

13. Yikes! My morning yogurt is now on my screen!

Thanks!
:P

[Misunderestimator]

14. Lame balking aside... this is what most of them will be thinking:

<snip>
For 20-year-old student Adrien Bloch, it was much simpler.

"It's very important, this movie," he said. "We don't like Bush and this movie is anti-Bush ... It reflects our thinking."

Same thing we Americans are thinking.... we're so alike. :)

[skypilot]

15. I never perceived Moore...

...as trying to portray Iraq as some idyllic place before the war. Some critics are taking him to task for this. That segment where he showed Iraqis smiling and children playing simply underscored the fact that these were the people who were about to be attacked despite the fact that they'd never attacked us. Everyone already knew that they lived under a dictator. Some of those people are probably dead now. That is what I took away from that scene.

[carolinayellowdog]

21. That is a rightwing straw man

Moore is showing us what the media didn't. Nowhere is it stated or implied that his footage of Iraq in March 2003 represented anything other than that. Levy is a poor excuse for a philosopher if he attacks a movie on the basis of such distorted and fallacious reasoning.

[Almost_there]

53. Geek tragedy has a point, but, can anyone hear it?

Well, I have spent a few minutes reading this thread, and I am very disgusted in the way people on this thread behave. Why can't someone dissagree without being called names or a freeper, and ostracized for having an opinion about a friggin MOVIE? Sorry, but, yelling at Geek Tragedy just seems stupid to me.

Plus, I saw the movie, and while it was great, I did think he took "liberties" with certain aspects. To me, a bit of it read like a movie / book review... "the Saudis... own... 6-7%... US real estate". (That's just a made up example, please, don't critique me on that!) Personally, I don't like Moore's STYLE of film, I didn't like Columbine, Roger & Me was a bit different, and while I do love TV Nation, I am just not a personal fan. So, flame away, kick me when I'm down, whatever. But, jeez, don't jump on someone with a differeing opinion.

~Almost

[TexasBushwhacker]

69. I can hear it, and I'm not going to argue with him

When the media has "fair and balanced" coverage by the Faux Network and Rush Limbaugh, why is Michael Moore suddenly responsible to present both sides? MM made HIS movie, his way. Like it, don't like it, be somewhere in the middle, he doesn't like Bush, he wants him out and he made the best movie, in his eyes, to tell the world why. Question his facts? Go to his website and see if he goes into more detail. He has a limited amount of screen time to "present his case". It's not his job to waste some of that case presenting the other side, with the idea of being "fair and balanced", only to debunk it. If someone wants to look up the other stuff and challenge it, they are free to.

I think the most important thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it reminded us of just how high the stakes are and it gets people thinking and talking and, hopefully, voting.

[merh]

72. you said it better than I could, thanks.

[geek tragedy]

73. I would agree that Moore doesn't have an appeal in a vacuum

Limbaugh, Hannity et al make up shit all the time with the intent of destroying progressive individuals.

I could really give a flying Cheney if the film is "fair" to our liar-in-chief. Boo fucking hoo, Chimpy. But, I do think that a documentary has a certain obligation to the viewer, that is to be fair in not misleading the viewer. Even as a Moore skeptic, I found myself being taken in by the way he presented certain items, only later to find out that I was fooled--the blacking out of James R. Bath's name on Bush's service records was a good example of that.

So, if Moore helps defeat Bush, I'll give him a pat on the back and a cigar. But I still won't like the movie.

[merh]

70. Please go back and read Geek's posts again.

He attacked the movie based on factual errors, but could not provide the factual errors. He then cited some lame reviews that did not support his position and when questioned, he came up with some goofy land ownership issue.

You can dislike moore all you want, that is fine, you can hate the movie, think his books are crap, but, if you are challenging the facts, please provide a basis for the challenge.

The movie is a documentary. All documentaries are based on a view point and reflect opinions. It is not a perfect film, it is a film.

Pointing out errors in the film help those who support it understand the objection to the film and/or prepare for the debates related to the errors.

Feel free to dislike Moore and his movies. More power to you.

[geek tragedy]

74. They started a separate smear thread on me in GD

Because I'm allegedly "preaching the right wing talk."

That's what I meant by there being a party line here.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. Welllll...

[geek tragedy]

76. If you have an example of me preaching right-wing rhetoric

feel free to share it with the rest of the class.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

77. Crap!

Error: Advanced Search is currently unavailable due to high server loads.
It will return shortly.

[geek tragedy]

78. Do a basic search of geek

I mainly post in LBN, GD, and an occasional foray into I/P.