 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Michael Moore´s " Fahrenheit 9 / 11---------- posted by Analog Scott on July 29, 2004 at 13:37:55:
I have no particulary political beliefs, and I tried to be as neutral one can be. But this film is garbage, it could have been well done and with some intelligence.
It is just a one sided hateful political statement.
Follow Ups:
This film is NOT garbage, whether you approve of it's message or not, and yes I do think you're espousing your own political beliefs and are being disingenuous when you claim neutrality.AuPh
It is not a documentary but it is shot on film stock. So, it is a film. Moore would have done well under Hitler. Imagine his films on all the social undesirables in a Germanic Flint, MI. Bet he could tear'em a new one.
There is only one candidate in this race whose family has direct ties to the Third Reich, and here's a clue, it isn't John Kerry! So, technically speaking, Moore has managed to do well under an almost fascist Administration that has tried every possible way to prevent his film from being released this side of threats, arrest and confiscation.You may not like Michael Moore or what he had to say in Fahrenheit 9/11; you may not like the manipulative techniques he employed to get his message across; you may think Moore is a propagandist, but when all is said and done, there is far more reality in his documentay than there is embellishment. The packed audience in the theater where I saw F9/11 gave Moore's film a standing ovation; it was well deserved. BTW, reports have 3000 folks showing up for the Crawford, Texas screening last night; as expected, the bogus POTUS wasn't in attendence.
AuPh
For what? For this naive piece of bad cinema? If only he would have arise about sheer mediocrity and made a mordant critic of the Bush administration, and you can do that on ALL administration, it would have been fun.
In the end it is as stupid and larmoyant than the most stupid propaganda film from the other side.
Arise, arise!
To fight a propagandist like the bogus POTUS one must employ the tools of his trade, and Michael Moore did this brilliantly; sorry you failed to appreciate it.Fahrenheit 9/11 is a polemic, but it's also a work of art. The propaganda utilized, and please note that all documentaries are propaganda of one sort or another if the idea is to sway public opinion, is based on fact. What Michael Moore attempted to do was to connect enough of the dots for the audience to get an accurate picture of the Bush Administration and George W. Bush, the man. He did that, and I can't wait for the DVD; hopefully there will be LOTS of bonus footage!
Regards,
AuPh
Well, If you reading some other posts here you will see, what a good and balanced answer there can be. Why being always so agressive?
You meant certainly a LOTR of bonus....
Freudian slip?Regards,
PatrickPS: And do not ever think that I am ever taking party for what I do not stand for!
Think of all the material he must've had to edit out in order to bring the film in at a reasonable length and maintain it's focus. This short-hand may in fact be one of the unfortunate albeit necessary drawbacks to filming such a complicated subject; in fact, this may be what is feeding many of his critics. However, instead of just connecting the dots to suggest the Bush portrait, a Director's Cut may be able to include enough damning evidence to paint Picasso's friggin' Guernica.BTW, I will ALSO be purchasing the Extended Version of LoTR: Return of the King, but that's another thread! ;^)
AuPh
Curiously one of my friend ( very right ) did love this film. I fits well on the not anymore latent anti Americanism in Europe....
Sorry, not buying it. No one capable of talking about politics is devoid of political beliefs and most people fancy themselves as middle of the road no matter their beliefs.
Sorry too, I have nothing to sell. I love satire and well done above all. I don´t make politic, I may speak about, but choose from case to case.
I was in this film with a women friend who is politically VERY left, she did not find this film good at all, by the way.
Can you cite a specific example?So far, all of your comments have been emotional and nothing else.
Jeffery
Mr. Moore just manipulate the thruth like he needs it, no he does not lie, being to intelligent for that, but he manipulate , and he does with so very few finesses that it is stupid.
Emotional? Absolutely not! I wish I would have seen a good satire and a good film.
That would have give some strenght to our democraty.
It is just a phamplet who at best is very naive.
...expecting a documentary. :)! I didn't.I think some of the ideas in the film needed to be aired.
I really liked how Moore reminded Americans that the U.S. military recruits poor kids from down-and-out parts of the country to fight in wars meant to protect the status of rich people---one more way the Iraq War is like the Vietnam War.
Some of the film footage was priceless. I don't think anyone in the U.S. broadcast the footage of people egging Bush's car during his inauguaral parade, and I did not know that (1) Bush had been told about the first plane hitting the WTC BEFORE he entered that classroom, (2) that the statement whispered in his ear while he was in the classroom essentially was "The nation is under attack," and (3) Bush just SAT THERE while McClellan and other minions waited for him to tell them what to do.
I think there is probably a lot to the story about the Bush family's personal and business relationships with the bin Laden family, but I think a different director (or writer) could do a better job with it than Moore.
I laughed at some of Moore's humor. The "Gunsmoke" "smoke 'em out" segment cracked me up.
But the whole thing with the mother in Michigan really got on my nerves. I didn't like her personality, and I thought Moore spent way too much time on her.
And I thought the structure of the film was pretty messy---lots of tangents---but he tied things up pretty well with his little speech at the end.
I think Americans ought to see the carnage of the Iraq War, the dead soldiers and Iraqis. American television stations don't show this, so I thought it was good that Moore did.
I don't watch TV at home (I did watch for few days following 9/11), so I had never really seen Bush in action until I saw this movie. He can't talk, he can't think. At first, I though maybe Moore was selectively choosing footage that made Bush look stupid, but there was so MUCH footage I came to the conclusion that Bush must look stupid most of the time. I found that pretty alarming.
Jeffery
Yes that is true. I expect a documentary, more some thing well balanced, and not THAT one side manipulative.
As for the military, you could say that it offers some good side too. But do you really think that they recruit the young people just in cool blood to send them to the slaughter as MM describe it? That is my point of my critic just so biased.
When he learnt of the second attack he could have done ANYTHING and it would have been wrong!
In Saudi Arabia if you want to do buisness, you must then deal with some Bin Laden as they are everywhere!
In fact the humour was one of the thing I sorely missed.
I felt the same with this women, even I could feel her pain!
Well I knew of all, so it did not came as a surprise. But I do not hink he so stupid, but anyway he has, I think a pretty good staff.
...from boning up on your American history a bit.The last war Americans across the class spectrum fought in was World War II. The Vietnam War was primarily fought by drafted poor black Americans, while the sons of rich white Americans (such as George Bush) somehow managed to avoid having to serve. Look at the Americans fighting the Iraq War: most of them are not white, most of them come from lower-class backgrounds. Generally speaking, Americans only sign up for military service if they don't have any other options. Rich kids have tons of options. Senators are rich; therefore, their kids don't serve. Moore made this quite plain, I thought.
I disagree with your statement that anything Bush did after the second attack would have been wrong.
Yes, there are bin Ladens everywhere in Saudi Arabia. But should American policy be driven by the Bush Administration's relationships (business or personal) with the bin Ladens? In the film, Moore makes it clear that he thinks the answer to this question is "no," and I agree with him.
Jeffery
Lotta dead honkys for a war that was fought *primarily* by black Americans. Just helping Patrick bone up on his American history.
When Bush received the news what should he have done? Stand up and say like Rambo " let´s fight? He would have act like a cow-boy.Or begin to cry? He would have been a coward ! Would he have left the room? He would have not be able to cope with the situation...So no way, Mr. Moore just set HIMSELF in the spotlight. That is cheap.
What I see, is just a melange of colours in the soldiers fighting in Irak, but that means nothing, can you give me the exact numbers of how many ethnicity and in % are there?
What Moore show was so bias that I do not believe him " a priori ".
The film reveals his biggest ennemy, his ego.PS: I speak of this war and not of Vietnam. Vietnam was a BIG mistake.
"When Bush received the news what should he have done?"He should have gotten off his ass, said sorry to the kids but I have some business to attend to and then find out every thing he could as quickly as he could. Moore illustrates clearly, Bush did not do what he should have done. How sad is it that the average Joe knows better than our President what to do and what not to do in a crisis? That revelation was worth the price of admission for me.
"Stand up and say like Rambo " let´s fight?"
Well that is what he did after he came out of hiding.
"He would have act like a cow-boy.Or begin to cry?"He managed to do both.
" He would have been a coward ! Would he have left the room? He would have not be able to cope with the situation...So no way, Mr. Moore just set HIMSELF in the spotlight. That is cheap."
I'm not really sure what you are saying here.
"What I see, is just a melange of colours in the soldiers fighting in Irak, but that means nothing, can you give me the exact numbers of how many ethnicity and in % are there?"Would it affect your view of the movie?
"What Moore show was so bias that I do not believe him " a priori "."What specifically in the film do you believe is not true?
"The film reveals his biggest ennemy, his ego."It revealed a lot of things one doesn't find on Fox, like real civilian casualties in Iraq amoung other things. Do you think Moore created this on a sound stage or do you think the footage is real?
"PS: I speak of this war and not of Vietnam. Vietnam was a BIG mistake."Eventually most people got that. I think people will eventually mostly conclude the same about this war.
I think if you are not bored to read, in case you did not, all the posts I send that I told everything I thought of!
What can I add? The rest is just supposition, it would be even more subjective.But let me say some point again.
Mr. Bush could have done ANYTHING but it would always had been in a " no-no " situation. with people who hates or dislike him.
I think that Mr. Moore is the star of his show. He must have a big ego.
Which part? BUT all was true!!! BUT what was not was his way of manipulate things and facts.
Look at the camera...the ridiculous music, the slow motion...the.....Of course hating the Bush´s make you blind.
Of course the footage were real! Everybody knows that there is no war without horrors.
But now less than before because of the better weapons, and of course I do not need to add that ervery death is one too much ( or must I ? )
But did Mr. Moore showed the SH gazed Kurds? Or SH sons horrors? Or? Or?
No, mr. Moore took only what he needed.
And that is not honest.
And the film is a very bad one, his only strenght is its controversies.So, now you see I did not hold my words and wrote really more that I wanted to do...
Patrick
"I think if you are not bored to read, in case you did not, all the posts I send that I told everything I thought of!"I've read them but unfortunately they tend to not deal with the subatance of the movie.
"What can I add?"critism based on substance rather than bias.
"The rest is just supposition, it would be even more subjective.
But let me say some point again.""Mr. Bush could have done ANYTHING but it would always had been in a " no-no "situation."
That is simply wrong. Only a few rfringe left wingers would have objected to him doing the obvuious, that being excusing himself from the students and then gatehring all the information he could as quickly as he could.
"I think that Mr. Moore is the star of his show. He must have a big ego."
"Which part? BUT all was true!!! BUT what was not was his way of manipulate things and facts.
Look at the camera...the ridiculous music, the slow motion...the.....Of course hating the Bush´s make you blind." It was the facts that were telling. His style simply added satire.
"Of course the footage were real! Everybody knows that there is no war without horrors."Tell that to Fox.
"But now less than before because of the better weapons, and of course I do not need to add that ervery death is one too much ( or must I ? )
But did Mr. Moore showed the SH gazed Kurds? Or SH sons horrors? Or? Or?" He didn't show any unrelated vicims of war.
"No, mr. Moore took only what he needed.
And that is not honest."It is not dishonestto argue a point without arguing thje counterpoint.
"And the film is a very bad one, his only strenght is its controversies."I disagree. It isn't his best film but it is far from bad.
So, now you see I did not hold my words and wrote really more that I wanted to do...
Patrick
So we agree, as they say, to disagree.
When Bush received the news what should he have done? Stand up and say like Rambo " let´s fight?- No it's not what he should have done, it's what the secret service didn't do. The first thing they should have done after hearing the first plane hit (esp. after the CIA found out about "Project Bojinka", and received numerous threats against WTC in the past) was taken him to the nearest military base (Eglin AFB or Tyndall AFB?) and make sure Cheney was enroute to Mt. Weather or another secure spot. This is standard procedure. This did not happen. Why?
Why? Well first to react cool is not bad. But it may have been such a moment of surprise ( it is what I think ) that Mr. Bush tried to get the pieces together...mentally reviewing all the the little indication of the puzzle.
And trying to sort it out.
He was not attack in the school, and that prove him right.
Now, I think that I would have react more briskly...But only maybe...Who can tell???
I have no idea. I also agree, I think personally he was shocked. Who wouldn't be? I was shocked for a very long time. However the secret service should have moved him immediately, even by picking him up by the arms and legs and running, to the nearest military base. This is standard procedure. Same with Cheney. This did not happen.
Well, I may think ..There were shocked too, but if I remember the moment on Fahrenheit film, there was a short moment where you could see the two guys of the secret service, and they were clearly waiting what the boss want to do.
He will write his memeories...Hehe...
I think you are right, I bet his will definitely be the most hotly debated presidency in history.best regards,
Rich S.
My best to you too! And thanks for the link!Patrick
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
