An Antipathic Word On 'F-911'

[JSJ]

http://republic-news.org/archive/92-repub/92_potvin_moore.htm

"Moore's film could have gone far deeper into these and other themes if its aim was to educate its American audience about the true nature of their government. Instead, the film goes too far into the personal grief of a mother who lost her army volunteer son in Karbala'.

'It's a wonder this film won the top award at Cannes--it surely is a mystery to anyone outside America how it can be viewed as so tragic when an adult who willingly volunteers to fight on behalf of an army illegally invading and occupying a foreign nation, is shot for doing so. But Moore is an American after all; what other nationality would feel compelled to confess his love of country in a documentary film critical of the current leaders of that country?'


'Furthermore, Moore's crocodile tears over the public trust the White House betrayed by concocting lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's ties to Al Qeada terrorism, fall on a cold floor when one recalls the “lessons” of Vietnam. Only a people congenitally pre-disposed to a massive collapse of memory could imagine that 30 years after Watergate, a President could never lie about reasons to send their young off to a foreign war".

A Vancouver writer who sees a lot of areas missed by Michael and a lot of reasons to demand more from Moore.

[punpirate]

1. The "Vancouver writer" could have done a similar film...

... himself, but did not. I saw few crocodile tears in that film. I did see a lot of film of Bush behaving in a way which revealed his true character. `Nuff said. Let the critics make their own films and be judged in the same way as Moore.

[bluestateguy]

2. This guy is just whining

There are a lot of things I would have liked to have seen in the movie, like evidence of the upcoming draft, but movies can only be so long. Two hours is pushing the envelope enough as it is, unless it's some soupy movie like Titanic.

[JSJ]

3. letter to the 'San Fran Chronicle'

Letter To The Editor SF Chronicle June 30th 2004
Many 9/11 questions remain unanswered

Editor -- From the reviews I have read ("Persuasive and passionate. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is both," June 24), there is nothing in "Fahrenheit 9/11" that is in anyway new. Apparently the high point of the movie is showing Bush reading to children while Sept. 11 was going on. For years there has been a Web site that has a split screen video that simultaneously shows Bush reciting to the kids, while the twin towers were falling.

The real questions is why the towers fell. Professor Seeks, head of the School of Structural Engineering at UC Berkeley, who was hired by Congress to investigate, admitted in his report to Congress that he was hindered to investigate. This is the tip of the iceberg.

If Michael Moore was to be really radical, he would follow up on Professor Seeks' report to Congress for his next movie. There are still too many unanswered questions.

JIM FOX

San Anselmo, CA


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/30/DDGHD7DJ7P1.DTL

edited to remove personal info- good catch, kanary

[rman]

5. nothing new? it's new to most people.

i think the point of F911 is to inform people who didn't already know.

[Kanary]

8. You put someone's phone number out on the internet??????

[rman]

4. if you'd start telling all there is to tell..

it just doesn't fit in a few hours of movie.

Besides, for all i know Moore will voluntarily produce more, there's no need to demand anything from him.

There are however several documentaries on the subject that complement one another;

One can start with Bowling for Columbine and F911.
then "The Corporation" and "Chavez - the revolution wil not be televised".

By then it should be clear that the media play a very important role in this, so you could watch "Manufacturing Consent - Chomsky and the media", and then watch it again. and again. it just isn't the sort of thing one can fully grasp by watching it once.
If you don't get it (ie if all that sticks with you is the story of East-Timor), first watch "Outfoxed", then Manufacturing Consent.

[DeadHead67]

6. OK ! Vancouver Shithead. Make a better one . . . .

[QC]

9. Why would he want to do that?

It's so much easier to play keyboard cowboy from the comfort of one's home, throwing mud on those who have the talent and drive to do things that one could never do himself.

[QC]

7. How utterly clueless this "Vancouver writer" is

with all the business about "army volunteer" and "willingly volunteers."

One of the film's major points, which he apparently missed, is that we have a poverty draft in this country. Many people join the military because they have no other option, other than a lifetime of working at Wal-Mart. And, it goes without saying, when people do join, they don't have the option of choosing which wars they will participate in.

Potvin strikes me as another one of those pampered, smug, so-called Leftists who view the world from the vantage of middle-class privilege. Since mommy and daddy's money has always protected them from life's harsher realities, they cannot comprehend how most people live. And so for them, a person who joins the military in order to get an education and escape from poverty is nothing more than a mercenary. How simple the world is when one has never lacked for anything.

And, as others here have pointed out, for all Moore's flaws as a filmmaker, he did make this movie. Meanwhile, all I've seen from the likes of Potvin, the Counterpunch crowd, and their fellow-traveling navelgazers, is whining. I'll take Moore any day.

[Bridget Burke]

10. And Moore left out Tom Bombadil!

Another reviewer who misses the point. A full recounting of the evils of American imperialism would be 9 hours long & of interest to 99 people.

I'd like to see some articles beginning: "Now that Moore has caught your interest, would you like to learn more?"

[gratuitous]

11. Hit the squirrel on the nut!

If the Vancouver writer feels F911 did such a poor job, he's perfectly welcome to mount his own production. Of course, it costs money to do that, and there's no guarantee that there will be any return on it. Somehow, I don't see that writer as being the sort of fellow who'd plunge deeply into debt based solely on his own talent for telling a story . . .

But, like a true critic, he certainly is aware of the price of everything. Pity he knows the value of so little.