"Ushgarak>if you apply the same criteria to eveyone that means you like to be neutral. But up to this point you seem to doubt Moore's movie more than his ideas. why is that?"
In what sense doubt? All I have done is follow through some refutations of Moore's points provided in this thread which certainly seem to be at least worthy of consideration, which adds to the general pool of the idea that Moore is not infallible. I don't particularly hate Moore; I think he is prone to over-enthusiasm but you can always find something to dislike about someone. I am not writing off the film, I haven't seen it. But if someone says to me that I HAVE to see the film to know the 'truth', I will simply repeat that it is not guaranteed to be the truth, and I almost certainly know the facts already.
As opposed to Bowling for Columbine, btw, which contained a lot of stuff I had not researched or kept abreast on on my own initiative- because a lot of that involved Moore finding out stuff I would find much harder to know about with simple web research and reading the papers- and so probably interested me more.
It's funny how so many people call this film purely propaganda and others become furious when they hear some one label it so. Well the movie is propaganda. The other side to that is Moore makes films that are usually propaganda that otherwise don't have an organized voice in the media. A lot of what he says and thinks may well be skewed, but that doesn't mean it's neccesarrily not true.
The other problem is that this film seems to carry the anti-war (anti-Bush) movement when there are a handful of movies in theaters and on dvd that really take a better look into this war and modern American war motives in general. But these films don't show at 10 theater cinemas, they play in small 1 theater cinemas that are often few and far between.
If you don't like propaganda films than make the effort to see true documentary films, but no matter what you see it's all biased, as it's made by people.
More to the point, me and my brother just got back from seeing the film ((It was released in the UK on Friday but I was working all day on friday and saturday))
I thought it was excellent. My only criticism was that he used theatrical techniques ((such as juxtaposition)) to heighten an audience's emotion about a situation, but the juxtaposition was being used to support points which are true.
I felt real sympathy for Lila,
Spoiler:, but she, in her sorrow, raised a very valid point - we are ignorant. Whether you believe Michael Moore or not, go and see the film. It will make you want to find out more. You may support Bush, or you may support Moore - but at least you won't be ignorant.
who only realised the truth about the situation after the awful loss of her son
well i hate bush and i hate moore, and i do think maybe moore can make a few things to make a person think. but realy i would like to see bush make a film bet he could show so much shit on moore that he would shut his mouth for good. its just like pepsi where there so stuck for ideas for tv time that they always have them teasing coke. yet coke must still be making more money becuase coke never seems to tease pepsi in any of there promotions.
I don't think Moore would be angry if someone made a film about his faults, I think he would just find it pointless. Moore is not necessarily saying Bush is a bad man - he is merely saying he is a bad president. It does not matter if Moore is a bad person - he is not in a position of power in the US, nor does he make decisions which have serious world-wide repercussions.
Originally posted by Phoenix
I don't think Moore would be angry if someone made a film about his faults, I think he would just find it pointless. Moore is not necessarily saying Bush is a bad man - he is merely saying he is a bad president. It does not matter if Moore is a bad person - he is not in a position of power in the US, nor does he make decisions which have serious world-wide repercussions.
Originally posted by Phoenix
You may support Bush, or you may support Moore - but at least you won't be ignorant.
Again, I am SPECTACULARLY alarmed if the impression is put across that the way to not be ignorant is to watch this film.
Doesn't anyone keep abreast with what's going on in the world any more? Does the public always need Moore to tell people the facts of such huge international events such as this? BFC was about a certain policy/crime problem in the US which at least the rest of the world has less business knowing the details. This, however, is the biggest thing in the world today and there is no way that this should be the lone shining beacon to disperse ignornace.
This film is not needed to combat ignorance. It is there to make a point, is all. If people are ignorant before watching this film, that is their own failing. And a piece as strongly partisan as this is in fact a bad first place to get your facts from.
Are you talking about the "Moore hates america" documentary? I don't think that will make it very far. You can argue that Moore is all propaganda, but who cares. His entire documentary is based on actual facts that are represented throughout the movie. I hate people who say it was fake, what more proof do you need? I don't know, I thought it was a great movie... Even if you are a Bush supporter you should give Fahrenheit 9/11 a shot, because you need to know what you are supporting
alot of the matieral in this movie, that tried so hard to bash the Bush administration was already known, or atleast should have been. The Bush administration was always open with every decision, and the situations that inspired these decisions. they always shared all the knowledge with the public that wouldnt comprimise anyone or anything, even if these facts were very little or just a hunch. This information was kept secret by a conspiracy, he says many times. "what they dont want you to know" If they diddnt want us to know it many people wouldnt know it, and surley moore wouldnt. Every President through out history can be made to look like what morre makes Bush look like, no one just ever made a documentary about it, and quoted over and over again, "what they dont want you to know"
Ushgarak, I think you stumbled upon a pretty good point, that seeing this film doesn't make you enlightened. Anyone that can be converted to be for or against Bush/the war just by seeing this movie is of a weak mind. Moore's greatest fault and film in general's greatest fault is that it can only brings facts to you only so well. All political films are propaganda because they are all biased or seem to be biased as they all (or atleast any decent ones) rely on emotion.
Where this film is important and correct in it's intent is that it brings a stronger angry voice that is missing in the media. Personally I think Bush bashing scenes that show Bush as a country idiot damages the film, they're hilarous and all but it hurts the real point. But then again if it didn't have this type of humor it wouldn't be playing at almost every theater in the country.
It would be a lesser known film like these films...
"Control Room"
"Uncovered: The War on Iraq"
"The Fog Of War"
All of which show different perspectives of war/Iraq war and it's basis. The problem isn't the tactics the movie uses, it's the audience that filmmakers have to strike an interest in, so people will see the film. We all want to be entertained all day to the point that we can't take 2 hours and watch something that's important and straight forward. We have to have humor in everything.