Fahrenheit 9/11

[Bill Totolo]

Anybody talking technical statse here?

I was wondering if anybody knows what the bulk of this was shot on,

who did the video transfer, and whether it was a Celco or an Arri laser?

 

Quality Control seemed pretty hit and miss to me as if they started out with an toward quality but got rushed toward the deadline perhaps.

 

Thoughts?

[Josh Hill]

All I know is that I have to drive two hours before I can see this movie, which is hard to do considering my rehearsals schedule (theatre, no film). So maybe one day I'll get the day off and be able to drive to Austin and see the movie.

 

I did love <i>Bowling for Columbine</i> though.

[Tim Carroll]

Josh,

 

If you liked "Bowling" I think you will like this. I think it is a better movie all the way around than his previous efforts, and he is not on camera as much. It is a very disturbing subject and my wife and I, along with the packed house, left the theater pretty angry.

 

-Tim

[Jason Maeda]

go to one of the dozens of websites that, scene by scene, illustrate moore's fabrications, and you'll be twice as mad for having been taken in.

jk :ph34r:

[Nate Downes]

go to one of the dozens of websites that, scene by scene, illustrate moore's fabrications, and you'll be twice as mad for having been taken in.

jk :ph34r:

I actually tried this. While I ran into many sites that claimed things like "Moore is lying" when one fact checks their statements, they fall flat in many cases. That is true of many cases, not just Moore's detractors. Frankly, the level of fact checking in this country is at an all time low. It now seems as if because a radio entertainer says it is so, it must be so.

[Brad Grimmett]

go to one of the dozens of websites that, scene by scene, illustrate moore's fabrications, and you'll be twice as mad for having been taken in.

jk :ph34r:

I actually tried this. While I ran into many sites that claimed things like "Moore is lying" when one fact checks their statements, they fall flat in many cases. That is true of many cases, not just Moore's detractors. Frankly, the level of fact checking in this country is at an all time low. It now seems as if because a radio entertainer says it is so, it must be so.

Good point. I also went to some of the anti-Moore sites that my anti-Moore friend directed me to, and I found that many of them are exagerrating in exactly the way they claim Moore is, except in the other direction. They were all so hypocritical that it was very hard for me to take them seriously, even though if they had made good points and proved that Moore was wrong or lying, I would have been very receptive.

[Tenolian Bell]

An interesting scene was the conference on business opportunities in the liberation of Iraq. One of the interviewers said people may suffer and some will die, but its good for business.

 

How could Moore have spun that statement, that was that guys own words at a conference where they disucuss carving up the business from the war.

 

I'm sure a lot of what was said in the movie could be argued, but that segment and that guy's statement was enough for me. It seems like it would be fundamental knowledge that US companies should not profit from death and destruction in someone elses country.

[Matt Pacini]

"... It seems like it would be fundamental knowledge that US companies should not profit from death and destruction in someone elses country."

Well, there's two sides to every point I guess.

The flip side of this opinion is, that given the fact that we've spent tens of billions of dollars to liberate them, then yeah, we should be able to engage in business activites that "may" end up reimbursing us for some of the enormous investment.

Given the fact that everyone seems to be so against us so much as suggestion that they pay us back in some way, then those in favor of the war would agree with us doing business post-war (I'm referring to many of the Iraqi's here as well).

 

Just like we did in Germany & Japan after WWII. Nobody in this country flipped their wigs that we would "dare" do business in those countries.

 

And just to remind everyone, I was not in favor of going to war with Iraq, so don't

jump all over me, I'm just pointing out that there are very logical arguments on both sides of the issue, and when someone edits footage together like Moore does, events that are quite separated end up looking like one big conspiracy.

 

I have a word for Moore's films, and that's "Propamentary", since I've never in my life seen something claiming to be a documentary that was totally as one-sided as Moore's films are, and I think he would agree with that.

 

I'm even less a fan than I was before, after reading this week how he's saying that the guys in Iraq who are attacking us (and the Iraqi police) and doing the beheadings recently, are not terrorists, but freedome fighters, and should be compared to the Minuemen and our founding fathers.

 

Anyone who's a fan, ought to have second thoughts when they hear that, don't you think? The guy is just waaaaaayyyy out there.

He's the liberal equivalent Timothy McVieh and Randy Weaver types.

Just as wacky and paranoid.

 

MP

[Tony Brown]

This point was being argued before the troops left last year. Much was being made about the estimated $90b cost (now $150b?).

 

But where did everyone expect the money would be spent? Where would those billions end up?

 

American companies.

 

Even before it started it was being calculated that long term this might cost the UK more than the US, as UK companies were being fed nothing of the pickings in relation to what was put in ($10b). Rumsfeld took great delight stating that the French Russians and Germans wouldn't get a sniff, and yet he's had to eat that one as the Iraqi's have said in some areas they will only deal with the people they'd been dealing with all along, Fance and Russia.

 

Its kind of laundering federal money into corperate money.

 

Going to see it tonight by the way.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> guys in Iraq who are attacking us (and the Iraqi police) and doing the

> beheadings recently, are not terrorists, but freedome fighters, and should be

> compared to the Minuemen and our founding fathers.

 

This is what nobody understands. It seems to me that being an American is as much a religion to many Americans as other, more officially-recognised faiths. Religion immediately creates bigotry and a lack of healthy questioning of authority. If the people of Iraq wish to mount a spirited resistance to invasion, I find it difficult to question their right to do that. I would resist an American invasion of the UK, what the hell d'you expect them to do? If the accustomed way of doing business in a particular region is to capture members of the enemy forces and behead them, then you have to accept that's what you're dealing with, irrespective of how it offends your value system. The US chose to go there; all the soldiers are volunteers. Deal with it, and I don't mean the George W. Bush method of dealing with it, which is to mumble something noncommital about "freedom" and leave the tricker talking to people with a worthwhile command of the English language.

 

Anyway, I shouldn't worry about Iraq becoming a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Halliburton for long - once the religious nutballs that they elect next year have been fully infiltrated by the secret service of a certain neighbouring country, all this will have actually achieved is to turn Iraq into Iran (Baghdad Branch) and made a certain thorn in the middle-eastern side (very) slightly more powerful. Nice one, Shrub.

 

Phil

[Tony Brown]

It's a long time since I witnessed a cinema audience react so vocally in the UK.

 

Nobody gave a toss about the cinematography eddiefruchter, they were a little preoccupied with the content. Sometimes there's a bigger picture than what lenses where used.

 

Whether this is the place or not .... all I can say is 'Wow'.

[Tony Brown]

Read that before I went. Interesting to see the the lawsuits (not) sticking eh?

 

I think most people are pretty balanced with this - its important after all. The audience reaction was to came from the mouths of the 'cast' themselves and not any slant laid or voice over.

 

Although vehemently anti gun myself I found BFC irritating after ten minutes.

 

This was different. He's let the accused hang themselves.

[Matt Pacini]

".... Rumsfeld took great delight stating that the French Russians and Germans wouldn't get a sniff, and yet he's had to eat that one as the Iraqi's have said in some areas they will only deal with the people they'd been dealing with all along, Fance and Russia."

Yes, and dealing with them all along is an accurate description, since we now know that Russia, France adn Germany were dealing illegally with Iraq throughout the UN "food for oil" program, and not coincidentally, were the most vocal opponents of the war, with payola going to the highest level of UN representatives from those countries.

 

Just thought I'd toss in more evidence of hypocrisy here on the part of countries that are NOT the US.

I wonder if Michael Moore will be making a documantary any time in the future about any of this?

 

Mmmm, probably not.

 

And I'd like to also comment, the cry of "hey, you can't criticize it if you haven't seen it yet" rings hollow, given the almost monolithic and vocal criticizm from the left, of Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ" LONG before anyone had seen it.

Some complaints seem to only be directed in the direction of conservatives, when the left gets complete and total freedom to do exactly the same, with impunity,

or to put it another way, here at the Animal Farm, some creatures are more equal than others.

 

Matt Pacini

[Brad Grimmett]

I'm even less a fan than I was before, after reading this week how he's saying that the guys in Iraq who are attacking us (and the Iraqi police) and doing the beheadings recently, are not terrorists, but freedome fighters, and should be compared to the Minuemen and our founding fathers.

 

 

MP

This is the first I've heard of this. Can you tell me where you heard or saw him say that? I'd be interested in taking a look.

[Brad Grimmett]

And I'd like to also comment, the cry of "hey, you can't criticize it if you haven't seen it yet" rings hollow, given the almost monolithic and vocal criticizm from the left, of Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ" LONG before anyone had seen it

Matt Pacini

Just because someone else did something doesn't make it right for you to do too. Criticizing something without actually having knowledge about what you're criticizing is just silly. Obviously you agree, so why did you do it anyway?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Eddie, if the events depicted in "The Passion..." did actually happen in the zeroth-century middle east, EVERYONE would have been screaming "crucify him." Nothing has provided more entertainment value for feudal serfs throughout the ages than a good public execution. I don't really think this has a lot to do with religion.

 

Phil

[Matt Pacini]

we should criticize him for his blatant anti-semitism. Jews screaming "Crucify him" is a blood libel, not "art." Indefensible fascist propaganda.

Maybe I'm overestimating the knowledge base of the average person out there, because I just don't get where you're coming from at all.

 

Do you think Gibson made that stuff up?

Go get a bible, read the new testament, and you will see it.

You can say you don't believe it if you want, and that's fine, but "the script" for the Passion was mostly written 2,000 years ago.

 

Certainly Mel Gibson didn't make any of this stuff up, and I'm not an anti-semite, it's just the way it was, and it would be absolutely bizarre for Gibson to tell this story, then change the facts.

 

Would you prefer it if in the film, the Jews all love Jesus, hail him as the Messiah, and carry him off into the sunset on their shoulders, tossing flowers as they go?

Seriously, what do you think happened over there 2,000 years ago anyway?

How exactly should he have portrayed these events?

Or are you saying that we should all banish these events from history, not speak of them, etc., just because a small handfull of Jews murdered a guy, and that makes them look bad?

 

How come nobody is saying the film is Anti-Roman?

Hell, I'm Italian. This kind of stuff makes ME look bad, but that doesn't mean I want to lie about history and what my ancestors did that was wrong.

 

I'm a huge supporter of Jews in general, and Israel specifically, which ironically, many who criticize "The Passion" as being anti semitic, then go on to bash Israel for what's going on with the Palastinians.

Go figure.

I'm not saying that Israel is totally without fault in how they are dealing with the Palestinians, but if it's anti-semitic to criticize how they dealt with the Christians 2,000 yeas ago, then why isn't it also anti-semitic to bash Jews for how they're dealing with the Palestinians today?

 

Ya can't have it both ways.

Total hypocrisy. Total lack of logic.

 

Matt Pacini

[Tony Brown]

and it would be absolutely bizarre for Gibson to tell this story, then change the facts.

Hollywood? Change facts? Surely not :D

[Matt Pacini]

MP

This is the first I've heard of this. Can you tell me where you heard or saw him say that? I'd be interested in taking a look.

 

Brad, here's the exact quote:

 

?The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ?insurgents? or ?terrorists? or ?The Enemy.? They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win.?

- MichaelMoore.com, April 24

 

And here are a few links of it, so you can read other choice words of his, like calling American's "possibly the dumbest people on the planet".

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5353971/

http://www.envoymagazine.com/EnvoyEncore/D...asp?BlogID=1926

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/26/103545.shtml

http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/nw_columnis...3011040,00.html

http://www.wmsa.net/news/NewsMax/nm042706_dumb_americans.htm

 

And this is classic:

 

"Don't be like us," he told a crowd in Berlin. "You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave."

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?"

 

Yeah, good call Moore. Things were going swell when the Germans were the ones trying to lead the world!

And for those who have an open mind, here are a couple links to articles disputing Moore's view of things, including "right-wing fascist newspapers" like the San Fransisco Examiner and the US-news (I'm just heading off the accusations before they start!).

Here's a couple of good quotes that all who haunt this board should heed, given that supposedly we're all experienced in the art of illusion that filmmaking is capable of, therefore should be aware that it's easy to edit things together to conclude something is true, when it may, or may not be:

 

"He must also believe that we are so unsophisticated that we won't notice that his cut-and-paste method of editing resembles a brainwashing technique, barely allowing the brain time to digest one egregious distortion before slamming into another."

 

"If Bush is such a mastermind as to be participating in such an outlandish scheme, then Bush is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time, reacting to world events with amazing speed and consistently turning such events to his advantage."

 

"Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL, a California energy company.

Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members ? in 1997 and 1998."

 

Here are the links:

 

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cf...070204op_antrim

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040712/...e.htm?track=rss

http://www.freelancestar.com/News/FLS/2004...rinter_friendly

http://boards.safesearching.com/showflat.p...&Number=1469309

 

What's my point?

There are usually two sides to any story, and when so many people come to only one conclusion after seeing a "documentary" that it can't possibly be presenting anything but a one-sided slanted heap of propaganda.

 

Matt Pacini

[Brad Grimmett]

There are usually two sides to any story, and when so many people come to only one conclusion after seeing a "documentary" that it can't possibly be presenting anything but a one-sided slanted heap of propaganda.

 

Matt Pacini

One sided? Propaganda? Were you watching Fox News again Matt? But seriously, it's only a Republican that could decide that everyone that saw Fahrenheit 911 has come to "only one conclusion after seeing a "documentary"". Who are all these phantom people that you speak of? What is the "one conclusion"? You make it sound like Nazi Germany or something. For the most part Moore let people do the talking for themselves in this film. He presented some facts and some of his opinions, but a lot of the film was people saying outrageous things that couldn't be changed, no matter what kind of editing was applied. Go see the film, you'll see what I mean.

[DanStewart]

Woah!

 

Steady on old boy. Religion is stories from the mists of time that mean different things to different people. Gibson's enthusiastic about his faith as are many people around the planet from all different backgrounds. The events depicted in his movie shouldn't be taken any more seriously than -and yes I am British :o - the US single handedly liberating Europe in Saving Private Ryan or the British burning churches full of civilians in The Patriot, (directed by a German who admitted to taking the incident from the eastern front of WW2).

 

It's just movies, and that applies to Moore as well. Anyone who's made a documentary knows how manufactured it has to be, all you can do is try to be true to the spirit of the situation - an analysis that is so fundamentaly subjective anything becomes propoganda for one side or another.

 

I'm sorry about your sister. Many of us have known people killed or injured by extremist nutters shedding innocent blood for one cause or another. And we can all plainly see the often unreasonable actions of statesmen that outrage these people.

No large group of people can be judged by the actions of a few individuals, and labelling people by their nationality or religion is both questionable and dangerous.

Here we are, an international group with a shared love of cinema. If we can't work out our differences peacefully, what sort of chance does the rest of the world have?

[Matt Pacini]

Were you watching Fox News again Matt? But seriously, it's only a Republican that could decide that everyone that saw Fahrenheit 911 has come to "only one conclusion after seeing a "documentary"". Who are all these phantom people that you speak of? What is the "one conclusion"?

.... but a lot of the film was people saying outrageous things that couldn't be changed, no matter what kind of editing was applied. Go see the film, you'll see what I mean.

Ha Ha!

Brad, I've never watched Fox news, in fact, I don't even have cable, so I'm not sure what you're implying by that. Is it a right-wing channel or something?

 

The "fantom people" I'm referring to, are all the reports I'm hearing of huge applauses during the film, people screaming out as the credits go up "and don't forget to vote" (I think it's safe to say, they're not referring to voting for Bush).

 

And I think showing video of Bush, and dubbing a voice-over of Moore saying stuff that he's insinuating Bush might be thinking, qualifies as extremely creative editing to slant things to one side, don't you?

Come on, Brad, are you really saying this film is not completely for the purpose of turning the country anti-Bush? You think the film shows a balanced portrayal of opposing viewpoints?

I mean, Moore is saying publicly how the reason he made this film, is to get everyone vote Bush out of office.

Which is fine, he has the right to do that, and he also has the right to make millions of dollars off this like he is, but let's all be honest and accept the obvious.

 

And Eddie, I have no idea how you get the idea I'm anti-semetic.

I usually get slammed because I'm SO pro-Israel, so this is new to me.

People usually jump on me, because I've been know to say things like, that there's no conspiracy going on, that makes so many Jews successful, it's because they're smarter than most people, and they have close families who insist their kids work hard and do something with their life.

(Sound like a Nazi to you?)

In my opinion, Israel has been about 1,000% more tolerant of the Palestinians than the reverse.

I haven't heard of any Jews strapping on bomb vests and blowing up Palestinian men, women & children in restaurants lately.

Most Arabs in the middle east want every Jew dead, period, and somehow people here don't equate that with being anti-semetic, which to me is bizarre to say the least.

It's a bit tough to negotiate with people who's main objective is making every last one of you dead, and it's totally hypocritical for other Arab nations to criticize Israel, given the fact that they do pretty much nothing to raise the standard of living of the Palestinians, or do anything for them, really, which is shocking, considering the vast wealth from oil these nations have.

If anything, they keep them down so they will continue to have a reason to hate Israel.

(OK, enough of that subject!)

 

I said, if you choose not to believe what the new testement says, that's fine, and totally irrevent to point.

It's a story, (true or not) and just like if you were going to make a film based on any historical figure, you would naturally go to the source material for the story, whether it's about Jesus, King Arthur, Greek Myths, George Washington, or whatever.

And sure, many filmmakers change historical events for their own purposes, but the fact is, Gibson didn't make up the nastier bits of the story, and it's only really way out there, wacky crazy types, who equate any of this with present day Jews, so it's not like it's some rallying cry to mobilize Christians against Jews or something.

If it were, I'd be totally against the film.

To my knowledge, there haven't been any reported incidents of any kind, and in fact, there have been at least two people who saw the film, and confessed to murders they had gotten away with!

 

If you want to criticize Gibson for even telling the story at all, then I can see the point in that, but the insinuation that he made all this stuff up because he's a bigot is just oddball, that's all.

 

Matt

[Tim Tyler]

What's the heck is goin' on here?

 

Doesn't sound like a discussion on "cinematography".

 

Take it outside, please.

[Brad Grimmett]

Ha Ha!

Brad, I've never watched Fox news, in fact, I don't even have cable, so I'm not sure what you're implying by that. Is it a right-wing channel or something?

 

Yes, and it's widely known as such.

 

The "fantom people" I'm referring to, are all the reports I'm hearing of huge applauses during the film, people screaming out as the credits go up "and don't forget to vote" (I think it's safe to say, they're not referring to voting for Bush).

 

The problem is you're forming your opinion based on what your "hearing" and on your assumptions. As far as encouraging people to vote.....well, I think what he means is, "Don't forget to vote". You can imply and assume what you like, but I take it at face value.

 

And I think showing video of Bush, and dubbing a voice-over of Moore saying stuff that he's insinuating Bush might be thinking, qualifies as extremely creative editing to slant things to one side, don't you?

 

It's opinion. He's making fun. He's not trying to pretend to be presenting facts.

 

Come on, Brad, are you really saying this film is not completely for the purpose of turning the country anti-Bush?

 

No. It is. I never said is wasn't.

 

You think the film shows a balanced portrayal of opposing viewpoints?

 

No, and as a matter of fact Moore chastises the Democrats for not taking any action when they should have.

 

I mean, Moore is saying publicly how the reason he made this film, is to get everyone vote Bush out of office.

Which is fine, he has the right to do that, and he also has the right to make millions of dollars off this like he is, but let's all be honest and accept the obvious.

 

You're right. Let's accept the obvious. I'm glad you agree.

My responses are in between your previous post.

[GregIrwin]

I watched this film yesterday and I am shocked. I am shocked at Michael Moore's irresponsibility as a filmmaker and his abuse of his celebrity status. F911 is a blatant attempt to preach politics Moore style without substantiating most of his claims with hard evidence. He relied on the powerful influence of film and the art of juxtaposition to dramatize his zealot message. His use of narration along with edited video clips are evidence of this. Why would he not show the context of the featured interview bytes? I feel that it would have dampened his purpose.

 

Claims such as the Fox News network clinching Bush's victory is silly and not true at all. Check the facts: Fox claimed a Gore victory just like the other networks did - prematurely before the polls closed in the panhandle of Florida. It was ABC that waited til the polls were closed and still claimed the Gore win. It was 10:00pm when the first network retracted Gore's victory. Fox? No. It was CBS. It was over four hours later when Fox finally declared Bush the winner. Why would Moore lie about this fact? This is easily researchable. As troubling as this is, this is just one example of his slander.

 

Am I defending Bush with all of this? You bet I am. I would with anyone who is being slandered unjustly. Michael Moore had as many lies and false claims throughout his film as the guy he is prosecuting. There is not much difference between him and with Baghdad Bob! To be effective in his campaign, Moore should have backed up his claims with facts and hard evidence rather than his opinions and speculation. I feel Michael Moore is simply a propagandist with zealot ways.